Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars

KimSell — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 12:28:15 GMT

KimSell: Removed a simply religious position which isnot necessarily conservative.

Most sports stars are probably [[conservative]]. Athletes at all levels of competition frequently praise God for giving them the strength to succeed at their sports. Here are some of the greatest:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Athlete
!Sport
![[Conservatism]]
|-
|[[Tim Tebow]]
|football<ref>The first college sophomore to win the [[Heisman Trophy]], and the only quarterback to lead his team to two [[BCS]] college championships.</ref>
|[[pro-life]], outspoken Christian
|-
|Philip Rivers
|football
|endorsed [[Rick Santorum]] with a strong statement on religious values
|-
|Tim Thomas
|Hockey
|A [[conservative]], Thomas declined to attend a ceremony staged by the [[Obama]] [[White House]] after Thomas's team won the [[Stanley Cup]].<ref>http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/boston-bruins-goalie-snubs-president-obama-111928.html</ref>
|-
|Janet Lynn
|figure skating<ref name="Lynn">"Considered One of the Greatest Freeskaters of All Time." [http://figureskating.about.com/od/famousfemaleiceskater1/p/janetlynn.htm]</ref>
|"Before every performance she would close her eyes and give thanks and praise to God. She believed that God had given her the gift of skating and in each performance she worked to glorify God."<ref name="Lynn"/> Lynn, once the highest-paid female athlete, also has written in support of conservative values.
|-
|[[Ted Williams]]
|baseball
|campaigned for Republicans, served as a fighter pilot, and also criticized the media (which was unfair to him, even denying him the MVP when he hit over .400)
|-
|[[Kurt Warner]]
|football
|pro-lifer who led two ''different'' underachieving teams to the [[Super Bowl]]
|-
|Trevor Bayne
|auto racing
|Gave credit to God for being the youngest Daytona 500 winner
|-
|Pete Sampras
|tennis<ref>Winner of 14 Grand Slam singles titles.</ref>
|
|-
|[[Mary Lou Retton]]
|gymnastics
|Olympic gold medalist, delivered the Pledge of Allegiance at the 2004 Republican National Convention.
|-
|Karl Malone
|basketball
|
|-
|[[Jim Bunning]]
|baseball
|former Republican Senator (KY)
|-
|[[Jon Runyan]]
|football
|Republican Congressman (NJ)
|-
|Steve Largent
|football
|former Republican Congressman (OK)
|-
|[[Jack Kemp]]
|football
|author of Kemp-Roth tax cuts as a Republican congressman from upstate [[New York]]; was also the vice presidential Republican candidate in 1996
|-
|Drew Brees
|football
|Led the [[New Orleans Saints]] to victory in the 2009 [[Super Bowl]]--professed his belief in Jesus Christ. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t0buCfbFuHw STV Interview with Drew Brees]</ref>
|-
|Chris Dudley
|basketball
|Republican nominee for Oregon governor
|-
|Curt Schilling
|baseball
|considered running for the seat previously held by [[Ted Kennedy]]
|-
|[[Jim Ryun]]
|track
|former Republican Congressman (KS)
|-
|[[J.C. Watts]]
|football
|former Republican Congressman (OK)
|-
|[[John Elway]]
|football
|supporter of Republican candidates
|-
|Lynn Swann
|football
|Republican candidate for governor (PA)
|-
|Jeff Suppan
|baseball
|did a pro-life ad while winning the World Series in 2006
|-
|Billy Sunday
|baseball
|Left professional baseball and became a famous evangelist
|-
|Dan Hampton
|football
|helped lead the Chicago Bears to their 1985 Super Bowl title, but declined an invitation to a ceremony held decades later by the [[Obama]] White House.
|-
|Paul Azinger
|golf
|PGA champion who criticized Obama
|-
|Jack Lynch
|hurling
|One of the greatest ever dual players. As Taoiseach, reduced taxes and thereby increased employment in Ireland.
|-
|Lewis Hamilton
|auto racing
|outspoken Christian, describing his 2008 world championship win as "a blessing"
|-
|Doug Flutie
|football
|endorsed [[RINO]] [[Scott Brown]]
|-
|Michael Jones
|rugby
|His Christian beliefs caused him to abstain from playing or training on Sundays. Recently endorsed the conservative New Zealand National Party
|-
|Sir John Major
|Cricketeer who wrote ''More Than A Game''<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3665182/A-history-of-crickets-golden-age.html Tom Fort, "A history of cricket's golden age," ''The Telegraph'', May 17, 2007].</ref>
|British Prime Minister, Conservative
|-
|David Icke
|soccer
|Currently best known for his outspoken opposition to attempts by [[liberal]]s to control government and people's lives.
|-
|Ewan Murray
|rugby
|Observes the Sabbath and does not play for his club (Newcastle) or country (Scotland) on Sundays.
|-
|Eric Liddell
|track
|Honoured in both Scotland and China as one of their great-ever athletes, Liddell refused to run in the 1924 Olympic 100m on a Sunday. Instead, he competed in the 400m and, though it was not his best event, he won the gold medal! Returned to China as a missionary and was devoted to helping the sick and poor.
|-
|Gavin Peacock
|soccer
|Attacking midfielder for Newcastle, Chelsea and QPR then a respected footballer commentator. From 2006, combined commentating with attending a seminary. Now training full-time for the ministry.
|-
|Jason Robinson
|rugby
|Becoming a born-again Christian enabled him to reform his troubled personal life
|-
|Josh Hamilton
|baseball
|Used to be a drug addict, then became a born-again Christian and plays major league baseball now
|-
|Novak Djokovic
|tennis
|Gives glory to God with the sign of the cross after big tennis matches
|}

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Television Shows]]
[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Sports]]

The Wash

KimSell — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:03:40 GMT

KimSell:

The Wash is an inlet in the cooast of [[England]] between the[[Norfolk]] to the east and south and the coast of [[Lincolnshire]] to the north. It is about 30km (19 miles) long by 24km (15 miles) wide.

Until the 18th century it was called “the Washes” from the various rivers and streams that “wash” slowly into it from the extremely flat and featureless surrounding land. These include the Great Ouse, (which is a lesser river than the Ouse in Yorkshire!) the Welland the Witham, and the Nene. These have deposited so much silt over the centuries that [[medieval]] fishing villages and ports are now miles inland. One of these is Boston on the Witham 5 miles from the coast now, but in the early 1600s a thriving port, a centre of [[Puritan]]ism and the setting off point for many of the early [[Pilgrim Fathers]] including the founders of [[Boston]], Mass.

In 1205 [[King John]] was caught by the tide whilst crossing the Nene and lost his baggage train, including the crown jewels. They are still under there somewhere. As Sellers and Yeatman put it in "''[[1066 and All That]]''": “''John finally demonstrated his utter incompetence by losing the crown and all his clothes in the Wash''”.

[[Category:England]]

Talk:Gerontology

KimSell — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:19:41 GMT

KimSell: Created page with 'Pseudoscience? How so?'

Pseudoscience? How so?

Talk:Virtue

KimSell — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:21:38 GMT

KimSell:

== Bible reference tagging ==
The reference to Wisdom 8:7 (apocryphal) on this page seems to be conflicting with the Bible reference tagging system - a box appears showing Genesis 1:1. If anyone knows how to fix this, it would be much appreciated.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:35, 10 December 2008 (EST)

==Empathy==

Given the liberal obsession with this particular trait, are we really sure it is a virtue?

Talk:Conservative parables

KimSell — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:48:00 GMT

KimSell:

Could there be a section for the moral of the parable? I don't understand it.--[[User:TrTran|TrTran]] 23:09, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Uhhhhh this doesnt really make any sense. How is this a conservative-centric story? Hmmmmmm, did the smoker have breast cancer?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 07:12, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
:If he'd had a gun then he wouldn't have needed the 10¢. [[User:Lobachevsky|Lobachevsky]] 08:30, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

==Parable #3==
Andrew, does this relate to Jeanne Assam? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:55, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
:I only ask because, with a linked news ref, it does make a great story, especially Assam's quote "“I give credit to G-d. G-d was with me." [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:57, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Yes, you're sharp! The quote would make a great addition!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:06, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

:::It is one of those events that stays in the memory! Spine tingling, even for Believers. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:18, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Right, it was spine tingling to write that account here! I see much potential for writing and reading [[conservative parables]]. I wonder what will be next!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:20, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==#1==
I suppose the conservative insight of this story is never give money to those in need. (Indeed judging from the republicans, this does seem to be the case.) BTW, great reference "This actually happened", I'm tempted to add a fact citation to it.

How are any of these "Conservative" parables? (well the last one...)'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 08:25, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
:I think the links with the parable I added justify it very well; paleos (for I am one) are very concerned with the small, human, familiar and social dimensions and less with the chiselled-in-stone politics that some politicians and all Liberals insist we adhere to. You're a nice Jewish young man, you can see the small-c conservatism I tried to put across, surely? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:39, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::It's the first one that got me worked up, I'm at the end of my 6th day of my most recent quitting, and I know more then any non-smoker how bad it is to fiend for a smoke, I don't see the "human" dimension of the first story, I'm sorry. If it was me I'd probably sit buy him the pack of smokes, take him out for coffee and share the pack with him...
::By "Paleo", do you mean a [[Ron Paul]]-esque conservative?

::: If you gave him a dime, then you'd obviously be hurting him. "Sharing" his hurtful experience wouldn't undo the harm.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:34, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

::: By the way, [[conservative values]] are superb in helping one conquer addictions (to which all of us are vulnerable). [[Conservatives]] include many ex-smokers who were able to defeat that difficult addiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:34, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I guess the point of the story is a "free market" type of lesson. All he had to do was go to another store where tobacco was sold at a lower price. Maybe he'd even find some more change on the street. Thats the only point I can find.

:::: No, he would have gone to the cheapest place first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:13, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

== The Storm ==

Doesn't this prove that prayer doesn't work? That the Protestant ship could've been a crew of atheists who also immediately jumped into action, and would've saved themselves, too?

:It proves that [[God]] helps those who help themselves. [[User:HStrobell|HStrobell]] 11:36, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

::Your nonsense has been removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:43, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Liberal parables==
Is it okay if I make this page? Liberal values, while not generally embraced by those here, might still have something to offer if you have an open mind.--[[User:ThomasE|ThomasE]] 18:16, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

: OK, let's see what have you have in mind. We have an open mind here and welcome the truth. But misleading, made-up stuff, like drug addicts who succeed, won't last, of course.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

::Drug addicts never succeed Andy? I can think of [[Paul Erdos|at least one]]. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:00, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Thanks for illustrating my point, DanielB. An entry that claims that [[Paul Erdos]] was a drug addict will likely result in deletion of the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:23, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

::::He did take large quantities of drugs. What else would you call him? Acutally I would call him a user rather than an addict he did give up cold turkey for a month on a bet. He went back on them claiming it clouded his thinking not taking them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 01:50, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

What is good for the goose aint good for the gander, eh Aschlalfy. Besides, liberals have no morals hence any [[Liberal Parable]] would only show that following [[Liberal Values]] cause depression, drug addiction and the like.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:46, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Double Standard?==--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:56, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Hardly a double standard. There are stories in the paper or whatever ''all the time'' about drug dealers commiting crimes like armed robbery but how often is a churchgoer likely to do the same? Hence when it happens it would definatly be headline news. That section should be removed pronto.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:37, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I'll second this - when habitual criminals commit another crime, even a serious one, it's not exactly remarkable, but when a supposedly upstanding member of the church commits a crime, that's newsworthy. That's why anti-homosexual pastor Ted Haggard's outing and more recently, conservative congressman Vito Fosella's DUI arrest and admission of fatherng a love-child are newsworthy - because the behavior is so out of line with their professed values. As a "conservative parable" this one really needs to be reconsidered. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:42, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

How is this gem a "parable". What's the moral of the story? Also, who has the double standard? From the way I see it, it's the churchgoer. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 07:23, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

The three comments above illustrate that the double standard is defended and even supported by [[liberal]] editors here. The above comments reinforce the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:53, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:I have a serious, respectful question - what is the truth, religious principle, or moral lesson that is being presented through this story? Is it a commentary that all people should be held to the same standard of behavior, regardless of their role in society, and all lapses and misdeeds be regarded equally? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:56, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

What Double Standard? News begins with the word '''NEW''', when junkies rob a store for a fix, it's (unfortunately) nothing new. The only one with the double standard was the churchgoer. Please see [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 00:46, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Furthermore, I fail to see how this is a "short allegorical story designed to '''illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson'''." What is the point of this parable? That the media sensationalizes stories? (Another thing that isn't news...)
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

==$40==
Where does one begin! By this parable I presume the guy didnt work at all during the period of his life that this reports? On would think he did and find the $40 that following week! Also, why didnt he use a wallet? This is a silly one, it should be removed (like the double standard
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:14, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, he lost the $40 and it doesn't really matter how he lost it. We've all lost money, of course. I doubt there is any adult who hasn't. The point is obviously that money is nothing more than time, and that time is better spent in self-help than in self-worry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Which I exclusive to the realm of the conservative I imagine.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:39, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your statement makes no sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:25, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Which is exclusive to the realm of the conservative I imagine.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:27, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

: A little better, but still incomprehensible. [[Conservative values]] are freely available to all, for the benefit of them, their families, friends and students. Spread the value to others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Not a Math Error==

Income Tax: 10%

Amount wanted after tax: $40

Amount needed to be earned: 10/9 * $40 = $44.44 (.44444444444...)

''Check: 10% of $44.44 = $4.44, $44.44 - $4.44 = $40''

Time needed to earn $44.44 = $44.44 / $8 = 5.6 hours

Not an error [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:13, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

:''based on the prevailing wage for teenagers of $8 per hour, that $40 was worth no more than about 6 hours of his time (after taxes).''

You seem to have overlooked the word "about". And given your username's implied claim to have some statistics expertise, I've blocked your account. When you come back, I expect an apology and a retraction.

Then you can construct a better example based on an actual example of gross pay and taxes. (You might, for example, ask the manager of your local McDonald's what percent taxes are withheld for his part-time workers.)

But worst of all, you have argued about the details of the example in a way that draws attention away from the point of it. This does not help the project. It's like the response to [[Expelled]] wherein a write-in campaign complained about the use of an [[Imagine]] sample - not out of any financial concern for a poor suffering widow, but because they wanted to undermine the ability of the producers to articulate their point.

Next time you undermine the project, you are out. Permanently. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:01, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

::Seems like a serious overreaction to a dispute over math. StatsMsn wasn't being disrespectful, and the number being 6 or 5.6 doesn't change the ''point'' of the story in any significant way. Can you cut the guy a break and unblock him since he was being constructive? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:17, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

::: When someone insists on "correcting" someone else, as in StatsMsn's case, then he should have a good justification. Otherwise, he's just harming the site, and the site is better off by blocking him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:35, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see the error in his math, just throwing that out there.

==Fasting woman==
Wouldn't the killer have been stopped in advance by not having easy access to a gun to begin with? This seems like a logical flaw to me....[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:59, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:It's only a 'logical flaw' to anyone who is 100% unfamiliar with the real world. In the real world law-abiding people obey the law, but - and let's pay attention here - CRIMINALS DON'T. That's why it is important that a legal system ''should'' accord proper rights of self defence to decent people. And fortunate for those church-goers that the legal system of the USA ''does'', despite the aims of [[Liberal]] do-gooders to undermine democratic freedoms. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:53, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
::I'd discuss this further if you weren't a clear parody account.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 10:59, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'll treat that remark with the contempt it deserves. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:05, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Tax edit on Welfare parable ==

Daniel's tax edit on the Welfare parable was incorrect, because a charitable donation is tax-deductible and (if done properly) the $5 earned need not be adjusted if all is donated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

If a homeless person came to your house looking for work, how many people would welcome him onto your property? [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 22:08, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: How would the owner know that he is homeless? Even if was known to be homeless, many would welcome an offer to do the work described in the parable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:I disagree. If some random person came up to your front door and said "I'd like to clean up the dog poop in your yard for $5", but looked like they'd been living on the streets for years, I can almost guarantee that a majority of people would turn the potential worker away. An interesting anecdote, when I was working at a seminar for staff working for the AWANA program (google it if you don't know what it is, but basically it is a program where children memorize bible verses and learn about the bible), the director dressed up like a homeless person during lunch and wandered around the entrances to the church where the seminar was being held. Not one person talked to him or offered him anything to eat from the nearly unlimited food supplies the caterers brought. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

::I removed this parable because I'm fairly certain it's actually a satire of Republican values (oversimplified scenario, forcing the less-fortunate into demeaning labor that nobody else wants to do in exchange for a pittance...)[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::Well, looks like I've been reverted. I didn't expect anyone to listen anyway.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:32, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I listened, but your argument is absurd. The parable is powerful and persuasive, and that may be the real reason you don't like it. Regardless, let the readers decide for themselves rather than censoring it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:33, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: I find it ''very'' hard to consider a parable about a little girl discussing dog poop to be persuasive.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:46, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Parables are often set forth in, shall we say, in "down to earth" terms. I doubt you can improve this parable, but constructive suggestions or edits are always welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:48, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::I'd suggest that these stories not be in the first person, from a style point. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:42, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::While it's right to encourage people to earn things instead of being given them, the metaphor of the homeless man in this story is uncomfortable. Many people are homeless because they have mental problems that keep them from functioning in jobs and society overall, not because they just don't want to work. The direction of this story also seems to look down on the homeless in terms of the work that's suitable for them. If the girl was asked to do something clean and fun to earn money, like sell lemonade, would she be as likely to have suggested the homeless man do it instead? By choosing something distasteful to push the girl into not wanting to do it herself, it seems like she missed the true point of self-enablement, and made her suggestion for selfish reasons.

:::::::Like I said, self-enablement is a virtue, so a better story would be about the establishment of Habitat for Humanity. I've volunteered for them in NJ often because I know exactly where my time and energy is going, and the beneficiaries of the homes are working just as hard as I am to earn them, not receive them.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:12, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

== Essay? ==

Shouldn't this be moved to [[Essay:Conservative parables]]? I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia entry. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:59, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:Agreed. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:32, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

==The Drowning Man==

No personal offense to the author, but I'd suggest removing this story completely because it doesn't convey anything positive despite the attempt at teaching about helping people to help themselves. When a person is drowning it's because they can't swim or tread water, and the reactions in the story are just awful. Can you imagine a lifeguard throwing a short line and expecting the victim to close the gap, or throwing a line and letting it go? All this story does is make the conservative look unbelievably callous and the liberal unbelievably stupid, so if the intention is to make a point in a meaningful, believable way then this needs a fresh start.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Take it out of you wish, but the point of a parable is that it uses a story to demonstrate a lesson, not necessarily a story that could really happen. Jesus talked about people attempting to remove specks of dust from other's eyes wile walking about with logs in their own eyes. He didn't mean that literally. The point of this parable was that liberals tend to throw money (the rope) at problems, even if money won't solve anything; and that coservatives often expect people to help themselves, even when they're not entirely able. For what it's worth, a minister told me this parable. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 16:26, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::(delayed by edit clash) : What it conveys is this: the conservative only had a limited amount of rope but threw it anyway. The drowning man might not havebeen able to swim to shore but might under his own steam have been able to swim to the rope and be saved. Thus he is helped to save himselfoose: liberals throw money at issues, with no oversight of how wisely it is spent or or how effective it is. Thus, despite huge resources being throown at a problem - resources taken in tax from the hard-working - nothing is achieved. It is simple and easy to understand, very much to the point, and a telling metaphor for rival political and social attitudes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::It just says he threw 50 feet of rope, not that he only had fifty feet of rope. Aside from that, you're reading way too far into a light-hearted story in an attempt to spin it to make the Republicans look like a guild of Jesii. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:29, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Do you think this is a shaggy dog story, then? It's a parable, it is there to make a point.[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Really? Care to explain the point of Andy not helping a fellow citizen out by giving him a dime? Or the point of any of the other parables? The last two added are jokes, and nothing more. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::''not helping a fellow citizen out by giving him a dime?'' It is quite obvious that the point is to encourage self-reliance. And on the same basis I decline to write a step-by-step guide to understanding parables for you. Read, then think. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:46, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

I don't see it as my place to remove your parable, CraigC. I think of this page more like a collection of essays than a fact-based article, so editing should be left up to the original poster after considering the feedback here. Based on the other comments here, it just seems that this is more like a joke than a parable, with the goal being to get a laugh at the liberal's ineptness instead of gaining any true insight. Also, I find your explanation of the parable ironic when reading articles about billions in U.S. taxpayer funds being thrown at Iraqi reconstruction without audits or controls, and then vanishing without explanation. The conservatives who started this war need to walk the walk when it comes to "values" like this. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Ah, the point of the story was to laugh at people on both sides of the aisle. Neither conservative nor liberal are stainless saint or dastardly sinner. I leave it to the will of the majority whether this one stays.[[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 19:25, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: It's good humor, Craig. I learned from it even though it pokes fun of conservatives too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:30, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::So is this page open to conservative jokes as well as conservative parables? Sounds like a new category is needed instead. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I really liked this one; it made a lot of sense! The only problem is that the liberal lets go of the 200-foot rope at both ends, so the rope extends only 100 feet into the water. This seems like a reasonable amount after the conservative says "I provide 50, you provide 50" (paraphrase). My point is--well...maybe I'm not sure what my point is...maybe the liberal should only be holding onto one of the ends when he lets go?--[[User:JParker|JParker]] 18:02, 14 February 2009 (EST)

== This parable actually happened ==

I'm not keen on the sentence 'This parable actually happened', which a few of the parables end with. It has impact the first time, but loses its effect with repetition. Also, surely the point of a parable is that it is equally instructive whether it really happened or not. [[Jesus]] did not say that any of His parables had actually happened, but they are no less telling for it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 14:53, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

== Conservatives and 911 Parable ==

If they didnt discuss their decisions to travel, how can anyone possibly know that they all decided to travel based on logic and faith?

Talk:Ronald Wilson Reagan

KimSell — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:19:57 GMT

KimSell:

== Photo ==

'''If someone is there who has had luck uploading image files here, please replace that unviewable picture with the following, please? Thanks!''' --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:29, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

http://www.nndb.com/people/359/000022293/reagan.jpg

:Done. I can't upload it though, as the page is protected. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]] [[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 05:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

----

I'm a little confused. I see why many of Undelia's edits were removed, but why the part about Reagan opposing government aid to the poor? Isn't that a component of opposing big government, trying to cut welfare programs that would benefit the poor? I don't think that all of Undelia's edits should have been removed wholesale, since some of what was added seems factually accurate.

== Why do you dislike my references? ==

Why were my edits unceremoniously and completely undone? Most of the edits were adding book citations so that claims were supported by some sort of sources. Does Conservapedia dislike facts and evidence? Or does it just dislike citations to viewpoints that don't harmonize with its own narrow agenda?

The question of whom to credit for the end of communism is a major one for historians and scholars. And there are a lot of scholars (I would say it's an accurate characterization to say most scholars) who disagree with those who credit Ronald Reagan for the end of the Cold War. I would've thought Conservapedia of all places would've appreciated trying to teach the controversy in a fairly even-handed way. Providing references to the "other side" in this debate doesn't strike me as contrary to Conservapedia's purportedly educational mission.

Obviously Conservapedia has its own conservative bias, which it is proud to wear on its sleeve. However, where I'm "biased" is that I'm not satisfied with assertions lacking grounding in sources. But it seems like Conservapedia is undermining its own objective of being "educational" by eschewing sound scholarly practices of documentation, references and -- gasp! -- presenting multiple sides of an issue, all so it can engage in unsubstantiated opinion. Wikipedia, for all its faults, likely would not arbitrarily remove several references and citations. One of their major flags, after all, is for articles with unsourced statements. Such articles appear endemic to Conservapedia, which one could attribute simply to it being so new and experiencing rapid growth, but given the way this particular entry has been butchered by administrators, it looks like unsourced statements might simply be official policy.

You do a great disservice to potential users by not only tolerating but encouraging such slipshod methods of scholarship. More than anything else, this will cause large numbers of people to reject the information in Conservapedia ''prima facie,'' and will lead more people to trust Wikipedia because it at least appears to uphold more rigorous standards. While I haven't prevented students explicitly from using Wikipedia (though I've strongly discouraged its use and urged them to consider its problems as a source), you have me leaning toward banning the use of Conservapedia outright, because the standards appear so low as to not even warrant further discussion.

Also, in simply removing my edits wholesale, I should point out that you removed several minor changes that had no business being expunged. For instance, adding "was born" in the sentence about how "Reagan was born and raised in Illinois ..." Also, I corrected the capitalization of "American president," since "president" (like other titles) should only be capitalized when used as an appositive before a proper name (e.g. President Lincoln, but Lincoln was elected president). See a style guide (Strunk and White, Chicago, etc.) for more on that.

: Please sign your comments if you can, using the signature button, so we know with whom we're speaking. Thanks.

: I did revert this entry because it tried to take credit away for Reagan for the fall of communism. I apologize if other edits were also removed in the reversion (rollback), but such is the nature of the Wiki software.

: We welcome well-supported facts here. We don't censor alternative views. But an entry is going to give credit to conservatives or Christianity or American where credit is due. If you want to insert a liberal view that attempts to deny credit to Reagan for the fall of communism, then it should be well-supported and near the end, after the credit is fully given. It can't be inserted in a manner suggesting that the issue is unresolved, or that we have no way of knowing whether Reagan deserves credit. He obviously does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 10 March 2007 (EST)
::So what you're saying is that you don't censor alternative views, as long as they acknowledge that you're right? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:24, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==Rekjavik, the Freeze, and the fall of Communism==

:: Well, no. It isn't obvious that Reagan deserves credit. One hypothesis is that Reagans presence in the White House played a significant role in the eventual fall of the Soviet Union. But you would have to test that against a counter hypothesis that the Soviet Union would have ended roughly at the same time and in the same manner if Reagan had not been president. Of course we can't revert history and control for that factor so any argument regarding causation is tenuous at best. However, there is a whole body of research looking at multiple explanations for the end of the Cold War and most of this research looks at mult-causal explanations. Social scientists generally are wary of monocausal explanations and especially monocausal explanations that single out any one individual. It is for this reason that the Reagan hypothesis is largely rejected--it has little to do with Reagan himself, but mostly to do with the complex nature of large-scale political processes. That isn't to say that Reagan and his policies weren't an important variable, it is just not certain whether he holds the most explanatory power.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 03:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well Jack, we have cites to demonstrate Reagans Defense spending in the early 80s virtually spent the Soviet Union out of existence, because they could not keep up. Gorbachav has virtually admitted as much. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have cites that say Reagan's spending extended the length of the Soviet Union's existence, I have cites that say internal social movements in the Eastern Bloc ended the Soviet Union, I have cites that the Peace movement in the United States was what brought about the changes in Reagan's attitude change that led to his willingness to open up negotiation space. However, I wouldn't make the claim that any of these provide the strongest explanatory power. Having cites doesn't confirm or disconfirm anything, it only provides one plausible explanation for an event. Selective citing is just as biased as no citing at all and, in fact, is more academically dishonest.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 00:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Well, when I say I have cites, I don't mean it in the common Wikipedia sense of WP:V that any lie anybody told somewhere so long as it got in print is a valid citation. Not at all. I'm refering to a credible witness who has been properly vetted to stand up against cross examination. And I wouldn't make the reference if it were not so. Junk science, for example, does not qualify as a cite. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Neither do passing observations. And people who are directly involved in an event will sometimes hold the most biased explanation for how that event happened. (By the way how does someone virtually admit as much?) Especially when you are talking about huge sociopolitical changes. Behavior is complicated, especially political behavior and, like I said before, monocausal explanations are generally weak.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 00:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::That Soviet Communism was pathologically ill and doomed to an end sooner or later there's no question; indeeed, Ronald Reagan may have been the only guy in America who saw that & believed it in 1980. And he certainly hastened it's demise. What's more, many who opposed him, actively sought to prop up the existing status quo. And here the Nuke Freeze Movement suspects we can cite in particular. If they had their way, the Soviet Union would still exist and all the Nuclear weapons would still be '''frozen''', intact. They cannot pretend now that they did not take those positions, or hold those views, then. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: I think you would enjoy reading the book the Reagan Reversal by Betsey Lamb (I think). It is very favorable to Reagan but does a good job breaking through some of the myths about him that are propogated by both the left and the right. BTW, Ronald Reagan wasn't the only one to recognize that in 1980 and his policies after 1983 were in many ways more in line with the Freeze movement than it was with the Arms hawks.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 12:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: On that question, the Reykjavik summit is key; while widely reported as a failure, it really was the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union, and the begining of the cooperative agreements that came later. Gorby basically was begging for an opportunity for Soviet institutions to survive through perestroika, and when he walked out, he knew it was the end of the Soviet Union. The Jackson Hole signing between Baker & Shevardnadze was the death warrant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

*I will find you the sourcing, Rob...but Reykjavik was a calculated gamble, quite deliberate on Reagan's part. Besides, he said when home, he had a terrible sinus and was testy. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Gorby came to Reykjavik holding absolutely no cards. Unlike Khurschev's bravado, all Gorby could do was plead for time to let Perestroika work, cause everyone knew if 100% of the Soviet economy had been shifted to defense spending, it ''still'' could not compete with Reagans defense build-up and next genreation Stars Wars etc. When Gorby walked out, he knew it was the end of the Soviet Union. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Where's your evidence? ==

An interesting approach to documentation and sourcing. You accept a hypothesis (in this case that Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War), then refuse to tolerate any alternative explanations, no matter how well grounded. You claim that such "liberal" views require substantiation, and yet, when substantiation for them is offered, you excise the substantiation altogether. I'll note that no documentation whatsoever is offered in support of the hypothesis that Reagan brought the end of communism in Eastern Europe.

I should add that "liberal" is a very misleading and damning characterization of these views, since the thesis that Reagan wasn't responsible for the fall of communism derives more from any number of factors in which Reagan had no bearing whatsoever. The references provided and then unceremoniously removed without explanation explain these in more detail.
For instance, Jan Kubik's work on the emergence of civil society and Solidarity in Poland shows how important the Catholic Church and especially the election of a Polish pope, John Paul II, helped to galvanize opposition in Poland. The pope's first visit to Poland in June 1979 provided a major source of inspiration and rehearsal for the opposition and the blossoming of civil society. The fruits of that emerged in the summer of 1980, when a wave of strikes gave birth to Solidarity, the independent trade union that played a major role in undermining Communist authority in Poland, and also in fostering opposition in other parts of Eastern Europe. You'll note that John Paul II became pope in 1978 and Solidarity emerged in August 1979, both of which occurred long before Reagan became president. Moreover, the work of Solidarity had little support from the United States, or from outside of Poland in general. Much of the limited American support lent to Solidarity (and I place emphasis on the idea that it was limited and had little bearing on Solidarity) actually came from the AFL-CIO, which provided some funding and supplies (things like printing presses). Even though Solidarity was forced underground when Poland came under martial law in December 1981, it continued to exist and function as an illegal organization, and civil society continued to develop beyond it. The reemergence of Solidarity in early 1989 came not as the product of external factors, but rather from a recurrence of the persistent economic problems that dogged the Communist regime throughout its existence. The regime reached out to Solidarity. To the extent that pressures from without even played a role, these would've been marginal, and would have emanated mainly from the Kremlin. But, in truth, even that was negligible, since Moscow did little more than to tell the Polish regime that it was on its own.

Similarly, works by Timothy Garton Ash, Gale Stokes and Vladimir Tismaneanu point to the systemic weaknesses of communism within Poland. Some of the important factors they cite are economic weaknesses and a growing crisis of legitimacy that prevented Communist regimes from persisting in hardline methods of repression. At the same time, these factors also led to the genesis of opposition movements within Eastern Europe (groups like Solidarity in Poland, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia, the Prayers for Peace in East Germany).

The United States and Ronald Reagan don't receive credit in these explanations not due to pervasive "liberal bias," but rather because these factors that are seen as more important (and I should add as someone who has read widely in the scholarship, these are the most commonly cited explanations for the collapse of communism) and the role of the United States or of Ronald Reagan could only have been peripheral at best. It was limited largely to symbolic acts (such as Reagan's speech at the Berlin Wall), but even these symbolic acts were directed more at the West and American constituents than at the people living in Communist countries.

I believe this very point was made in one of the edits that an administrator purged.

To give primary credit to Ronald Reagan or the United States for the end of the Cold War would to engage in staggering ignorance of the domestic and systemic factors that undermined Communist regimes, and to marginalize unfairly the many ordinary people and dissidents in Eastern Europe who helped to bring down communism from within. In addition, Reagan in particular deserves little credit for these developments because he was relatively late to the scene. The systemic factors, and in many cases the opposition movements as well, long predated Reagan's presidency, which had little bearing on them.

Now, call me biased, but I think that offers a very well-developed and -substantiated account of other explanations for the end of communism. Nothing in that strikes me as excessively "liberal." Indeed, the only "liberal" thing about it is that it doesn't engage in the same sort of pooh-poohing of Reagan that blindly credits him without offering substantiation.

If someone cares to offer more substantive reasons (citing references for this explanation would be a welcome change) for why Reagan deserves credit, then this entry and discussion can go somewhere.

But simply asserting that Reagan ended communism because you said so, then placing the onus on critics of this position to refute it using evidence, and then suppressing evidence that contradicts the ''a priori'' thesis/assertion: this doesn't exactly give Conservapedia's entry the ring of truth, or much in the way of credibility for that matter.

It would seem, based on the actions taken with respect to edits on this entry, that Conservapedia's "educational" mission would be more accurately described as disseminating conservative propaganda rather than presenting facts and seeking "truth."

You may castigate me for propagating a "liberal" viewpoint, but my true "bias" is that I like some sort of substantiation for sweeping generalizations and disputed claims. I merely attempted to present the alternate explanations that are mostly widely accepted among experts and scholars. You can criticize those groups for "liberal bias," but as I've made clear, there's nothing inherently liberal in these approaches. Moreover, a better response would be to offer your own facts and sources to support your claims, rather than engaging in knee-jerk censorship of someone who deigns to cite references and offer substantiation.

And your request for a signature is laughable. It has echoes of "Big Brother," and given the fascistic censorship witnessed in this article, I'd rather not risk being unceremoniously blocked for not blindly toeing the party line. The truth may not be determined democratically, but the authoritarian methods on display in Conservapedia have proven no more reliable.

-- "Karol Wojtyla"
::: None of us are perfect, probably all of us have overlooked signing our edits or our discussion at some time or another. But it is common procedure and helpful in discussion. Even months later, it is helpful in reading through a discussion to see who is making what points in what sequence. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 23:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: I made the edits turning "most" into "some" and "other". The reason being is that it is more accurate to say that than to claim "most historians". There is plenty of literature that supports the claim that Reagan's willingness to meet the Soviets expansion-by-proxy and military buildup forced the Soviets into an arms race that they could ill-afford, and that this helped to break an already-faltering Soviet economy. There is also plenty of personal commentary from citizens of the former Soviet client-states who say that Reagan's opposition to the Communists gave them hope.

Your entry wasn't expunged; your points are still there. Personally, I think they '''are''' valid ones and that you simply overstated the level of agreement amongst historians.

I hope this helps you to understand why I made what I considered to be minor edits. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:41, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Agreed, although I'd still like to see some references for the literature that credits Reagan's policies. But I would add that there's substantial agreement, at least among historians who study the Eastern bloc, on the question of whether Reagan's role was that important. Reagan appears very little in that literature, so I'm wondering where the sources/references are that give him so much credit. After all, the Second Commandment says sources must always be credited and cited. We can continue to debate those sources on the discussion page, but I think the bigger point is that there's no widely accepted monocausal explanation for the end of communism, so it would be more appropriate to provide sources for the different theses, and to also expound on those interpretations. In other words, rather than simply saying "Reagan ended the Cold War," someone needs to elaborate on the reasoning behind that. Otherwise, it violates the Sixth Commandment (don't give personal opinions in entries).

:I agree with your central contention - there is no monocausal explanation for the fall of Communism. There were several separate forces that converged to break a flawed system. In fairness, though, I think that if you re-read this article you'll see it is more even-handed than you give it credit for. Most every single acclamation given to Reagan is qualified. And, as I pointed out before, your alternate sources were not deleted.

:I would go so far as to say that, for a Conservative site, it is close to the most balanced article on the site. Perhaps you would like to write an article on the Fall of Communism that explores the other causes? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:13, 10 March 2007 (EST)

My apologies to Dave3172. I wasn't accusing you of censorship. Rather, it was an earlier iteration of this page [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&oldid=22986]], which user Aschlafly rolled back wholesale. In that iteration, there were several references to texts supporting some of the alternative explanations for the fall of communism. While Dave3172 is right to note that the fall of communism would warrant an entry unto itself, what seemed more inappropriate was Aschlafly's decision to expunge many book citations (the earlier version was even more substantiated than the current version), with his stated reason:

"But an entry is going to give credit to conservatives or Christianity or American where credit is due. If you want to insert a liberal view that attempts to deny credit to Reagan for the fall of communism, then it should be well-supported and near the end, after the credit is fully given. It can't be inserted in a manner suggesting that the issue is unresolved, or that we have no way of knowing whether Reagan deserves credit. He obviously does."

User Aschlafly refuses to accept that, contrary to his personal opinion, the question of Reagan's credit for the end of communism is, in fact, unresolved. As other users have also tried to indicate, there are a wealth of alternative explanations that don't lend support to the "credit Reagan" thesis. And, at least in scholarly circles, it could be argued that there is substantial agreement that Reagan was not the primary or even a significant factor.

What I think is lacking for this entry, and would be worthy of inclusion on a separate entry for the fall of communism as well, would be some substantiation for the argument that Reagan deserves credit. As the article currently stands, and at least in the various iterations I've seen previously, it hasn't provided any support for this argument, aside from the anecdotal evidence of Reagan's speech in front of the Berlin Wall, the importance of which, I might add, seemed more to bolster Reagan's standing as a Cold Warrior and anticommunist in the West, rather than to make any significant impact on developments on the other side of the Iron Curtain (a point I recall seeing in an earlier, since censored version of this entry).

I'm not the one to provide such documentation. Frankly, in my studies of this question (and it was a subfield for one of my M.A. exams, so I've read in the scholarly literature quite extensively) I'm yet to encounter anyone who has presented a very extensive or, in my opinion, compelling argument for crediting Reagan. I am generally familiar with some of the reasons conservatives have given in support of the "credit Reagan" thesis, which user Dave3172 recounted above. But I have not encountered and cannot think offhand of what sorts of books, articles and other sources might lay out this argument at greater length. I would strongly encourage someone -- anyone -- to present those reasons more lucidly. As a teacher, I want to present my students with as many different interpretations as possible, and with the reasoning behind such arguments, so I can teach them to evaluate claims and sources more effectively. It would only be appropriate to include such material in Conservapedia, and I would think that especially on Conservapedia there would be contributors better able to provide that dimension of the debate.

As it stands, I do agree with user Dave3172 that the Reagan entry is rather even-handed and balanced. And in general I think the two of us are on the same page in terms of what we'd like to see.

But as a matter of course, I think it's always better to have too many references rather than too few. This is especially true for encyclopedias. In my mind, an encyclopedia should serve as a quick reference for basic facts, but also as a mere starting point for finding more extensive treatments of various issues and questions. Even if an editor happens to doubt the credibility of a source, it's better to allow users to know what sources are being used and to enable users to access those sources and make assessments of their credibility for themselves. If only more people learned those skills and the ability to read critically, and with a healthy skepticism, my job as an educator would be infinitely easier.

The real source of my aggravation lies in user Aschlafly's cavalier attitude toward sources and evidence that don't support his personal opinions. And while such attitudes are bound to be endemic on any wiki (whether Wikipedia or Conservapedia), which was part of the stated reason for the launch of Conservapedia, I find it troubling that Aschlafly of all users, as a founder or administrator of Conservapedia (if I understand correctly) is engaging in precisely the same behaviors that Conservapedia's founders deemed so troubling and problematic in Wikipedia. It just strikes me as highly hypocritical for user Aschlafly to be just as guilty of censoring viewpoints with which he disagrees.

-- "KW"

== Evidence that Reagan helped to end the Cold War. ==

I assume this stuff is copyrighted, so I'll just give names and page numbers. These aren't historians, mind you - they're witnesses to history.

Margaret Thatcher on Reagan's impact with ending the Cold War "Statecraft" p. 10-11.
Also included in this passage is testimony from the last Soviet Foreign Minister Alexandr Bessemertnykh.

A quote from Lech Walesa, leader of Solidiarity on the back of Peter Schweinzer's book, "Reagan's War."

I can provide more evidence, if necessary.

By the way, when the Soviet Union imposed martial law on Poland because of Solidarity, Reagan did take crucial action, and the results can not be underestimated. He revoked Poland's most favored nation trading status, which meant Polish goods faced a high tariffs on exports to the US. Most importantly, he banned the sale of oil and gas technologies to the USSR. Both of these actions put tremendous pressure on the Soviets to settle the strike on terms favorable to the Americans.

You got that last part absolutely wrong. The Soviet government didn't impose martial law on Poland. The Polish regime of Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski declared it because the alternative was to watch its own collapse and allow Poland to descend into complete chaos. The Soviets were not a factor -- repeat: not a factor -- in the end to the Solidarity crisis. In fact, we now know based on documents in archives in Warsaw and Moscow that have become available since the fall of communism that the Kremlin was prepared to allow Poland to "go its own way" in 1981. This was not Moscow's preference, for obvious reasons, but after Soviet leaders assessed the likely outcome of a crackdown (a la Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968 or Afghanistan in 1979), they ruled out the military option. Some of the reasoning behind this was that Soviet leaders feared the repercussions of intervention, which they surmised would have brought an end to detente. However, equally important was their conviction that the Poles would fight back, and that the Polish Army could not be trusted to remain loyal to the Communist regime in the event of a Soviet invasion. The decision to crack down on Solidarity was left entirely to the Polish leadership. (For more elaboration on this, see Vojtech Mastny's article "The Soviet Non-Invasion of Poland in 1980-1981 and the End of the Cold War," and Matthew Ouimet's "The Rise and Fall of the Brezhnev Doctrine in Soviet Foreign Policy.")

The irony, of course, was that the West widely believed (rather erroneously, as we now know) that Moscow had been calling the shots in Poland. So, despite the fact that it hadn't ordered the crackdown and resigned itself to the possibility of a non-Communist Poland, the Kremlin still faced the loss of benefits that had come with detente.

I'm also perplexed by your claim that the end of the legal Solidarity movement (and it's much more accurately characterized as an independent trade union and opposition movement than a strike, since hundreds of strikes occurred in this period in Poland) saw the Soviets "settle the strike on terms favorable to the Americans." Martial law was about the last thing the Reagan White House would've wanted. Or perhaps the next-to-last thing, since only a direct Soviet invasion of Poland could have been worse from an American standpoint.

However, even if you point to the end of detente and the economic hardships this brought to the Soviet Union as a major causal factor in the fall of communism, it's still debatable how much credit Reagan deserves for that. Many of the moves in that direction, such as the end of American food relief to the Soviet Union, had been initiated by Jimmy Carter following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and prior to Reagan's presidency. Under Reagan those policies may have been pursued to an even greater degree, though it is likely that, had he won a second term in office, Carter would have followed much the same course (especially if you recall that his national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was a Pole). Much of the basis for crediting Reagan with the collapse of communism seems to dwell on his outspoken opposition to communism, and to having been in the right place at the right time. Given the array of systemic weaknesses, the developing opposition movements and the long-brewing crises that culminated in East-Central Europe in 1989, and in the Soviet Union over the following two years, it is highly probable that communism would have collapsed roughly when it did regardless of who lived in the White House in the 1980s.

Furthermore, I'd be interested in seeing the verbatim quote from Walesa. A professor said that Walesa gave a talk in Seattle some years ago where one of the audience members asked him if he thought Reagan or Gorbachev deserved the most credit for the collapse of communism. Walesa replied, "No, it was the Holy Father!" by which he meant Pope John Paul II (since Catholics refer to the pontiff as the Holy Father). So from the perspective on someone who obviously "witnessed" (and also shaped) history, you can see what people on the ground thought.

-- "KW"

==McCarthy reference==
Reagan tesitified in 1947 before the HUAC -- even before the Hiss & White episodes; McCarthy didn't produce his list til 1950, and was a Senate Committee. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:03, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Flipping through some of the history pages, I see that PraiseTheLard mentioned Reagan's role as head of SAG in blacklisting supposed Hollywood Communists. However, I notice that this was repeatedly removed by other editors.

My question: why? This really happened, and I don't think the facts are in dispute. Thus, shouldn't it be included in an entry on Reagan, especially as it was one of the more notable (or notorious, depending on one's perspective) things he did in the years before he became governor*, and it can be seen as a stepping stone to politics, as well as an early sign of his zealotry as a Cold Warrior.

* Unless, of course, you consider the classic Reagan film "Bedtime for Bonzo" (1951) to meet these criteria. But it's already in the entry under miscellanea.

:Why? Yes, Reagan did testify in 1947 regarding subversive communist influence in SAG; Joe McCarthy started his investigations in 1950 of government employees and contractors doing business with government. Now, unlike Wikipedia, we can't fit a square peg in a round hole. For example, for several months I was in dispute resolution over things like people who died in 1948, 2 years before McCarthy, who nevertheless were victims of McCarthyism. Or all the atomic physicists who ended up on the Hollywood Blacklist. Or McCarthy, who never served in the House, sat on the House Un-America Activities Committee. Now these are quite simply facts any child has access to, nonetheless, it is the policy of Wikipedia not to allow some of this information into the sum total of human knowledge. So unless you can somehow prove that 1947 = 1950, Ronald Reagan in no way shape or form can be said to have any conection with "McCarthyism". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

* If you read my comment on the removal more carefully, you'd notice that I never mentioned McCarthy or McCarthyism (I had nothing to do with the edits that included and removed that information, which is why I was questioning the actions of those involved). What I was trying to call attention to (and clearly failed to do so) was why information on Reagan's anticommunist activities, such as his role in blacklisting people in Hollywood for alleged Communist sympathies, was removed. What I suggested ought to have happened was that the incorrect information linking Reagan to McCarthyism could have been removed, but the other information outlining his anticommunist activities in conjunction with SAG and the Hollywood Blacklist should have been retained. Something about not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. -- "KW"

:KW, Thanks for the clarification. There is much confusion regarding the so-called Hollywood blacklist. What you find is (A) deliberate efforts to cite HUAC as the source of the blacklist (B) deliberate efforts and distortions to cite McCarthy as serving on HUAC at the time.

:The simple fact of the matter is (A) the "blacklisted" actors and writers were blacklisted by the MPAA (the same group that issues movie ratings and the Oscars); (B) the US government '''did not''' blacklist the Hollywood actors; (C) McCarthy's Committee, which had nothing to do with the blacklist in the first place, would not possess legal authority to investigate anyway. McCarthy's Committee only had legal jurisdiction to investigate the US Government or government contractors.

:Now, it is argued that some Hollywood films had business relationships with the US Government in the making of films in WWII. Yes, this is true. To that extent, if there were a pretext to investigate Hollywood studios, screenwriters, and actors who were acting as government contractors, why ''didn't'' McCarthy investigate them.

:Needless to say, unravelling the a half century of deliberate distortions and deceptions is messy indeed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:''P.S. Reagans credentials as an anti-Communist aren't really something we need to speculate about; attempts to "link" Reagan to some of the unpleasant aspects of "McCarthyism" is something we need to be concerned about.''

*'''Something our younger members might want to keep in mind, it is totally ''revisionist thinking'' to view the House Un-American Activities Committee, its investigations and Congressman McCarthy as evil. I think the genocide of the Soviet Communist Party, and its leaders are very well documented. So are the hundreds of spies sent to the U.S. It is a proven fact that many true-believers, as opposed to those who were easily mislead or naive, did actively get jobs in the film industry. What you know today as "transparency" didn't exist in the 50's and 60's. Nuclear bombs were new to us, the leader of the Soviet Union announced on TV that they would "bury" us. These are things you need to take into consideration when examining the period.''' --[[User:TK|TK]] 19:35, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Can we limit the speculation and the removal of facts/sources to include unsubstantiated opinion? ==

Someone earlier today inserted a line at the end of the survey of various interpretations of the end of communism to the effect of "Nevertheless, Reagan was the personal driving force behind the fall of communism." Given the multitude of other interpretations presented in this article and elsewhere on the talk page, it seemed inappropriate to add that line as a way of denying the existence of controversy in this debate and asserting a personal opinion as manifest fact. As it stands, and as I reverted it, the article never claimed that any single interpretation was "right." Instead, the main idea (and what I would hope would be more important for an encyclopedia) is that the issue is not clear cut, and to present the basic contours of the debate.

Similarly, I noticed that a user changed the section on the presidential legacy regarding SDI/Star Wars, removing the information about how the principle of atmospheric-based missile defense (the foundation of SDI) has never been tested successfully. Moreover, the same user changed the line that said (and I paraphrase from memory), "Even though many conservatives claim SDI gave the U.S. considerable leverage vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, most analysts of Soviet policy note that such considerations were of minor concern and that internal considerations played the paramount role in Soviet policymaking." In its place, the new line (again, I paraphrase) said simply that "SDI gave the U.S. considerable leverage against the Soviet Union." Any notion that the existence of leverage is disputed was summarily excised.

While I understand that many (most?) of the users of Conservapedia likely believe Reagan to have been the driving force behind the end of the Cold War, and to have though that SDI brought the Soviet Union to its knees and spurred the collapse of communism, I underline that these are only individual opinions. They may be based on certain sources, but they remain interpretations and not cut-and-dry facts. At the very least, there should be documentation and evidence to support these sorts of assertions. But I also think that, given the level of contention over these questions in academic and political debates, a better approach for Conservapedia, or any encyclopedia for that matter, is to present the controversy and the various sides, rather than unilaterally presenting one perspective as absolute fact.

It's my understanding that this was a major motivation for creating Conservapedia as an alternative to Wikipedia, to include viewpoints that were being summarily removed on Wikipedia. I'm all for presenting alternative viewpoints, but I think what's essential to give Conservapedia any broad credibility is to not provide '''only''' the viewpoints lacking on Wikipedia, but to present all the viewpoints. If you only want to present certain viewpoints, well, it is called Conservapedia, but you should probably stop claiming to be encyclopedic in nature.

'''**Reagan, while President of SAG, opposed Communist infilteration of the guilds in Hollywood, however he was also instrumental in fighting for actors who were painted by McCarthy's broad brush, and got their names removed. He did just that in helping a young actress, Nancy Davis, who he eventually married.''' --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:07, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Good observations. With reference to,
::''"Even though many conservatives claim SDI gave the U.S. considerable leverage vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, most analysts of Soviet policy note that such considerations were of minor concern and that internal considerations played the paramount role in Soviet policymaking."''
:the subtle thing said here is trying to separate "conservatives" from "most analysts", i.e. moderate or manistream. Facts are so-called "conservative analysts" are very mainstream given the subject under discussion. The so-called "moderate analysts", or others this referes to, are journalists and opinion makers, not defense policy analysts. This sort of subtlety needs to be watched for. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: But I think you're falsely interpreting a statement that says "many conservatives" to exclude conservatives from or the "mainstream." Perhaps the issue was in the paraphrase I believe the exact language said something to the effect of "many political scientists and historians," or "scholars," or something a bit more specific. But when I said "analysts," I meant this merely as a shorthand for a variety of groups, which included many relevant scholars, and did not mean it in the narrow sense of defense policy analysts. I certainly don't think defense analysts had a monopoly on wisdom or insight regarding Soviet policymaking. We know from documents and materials available after the fact that as much as analysts and observers got right, they also got many things wrong. And this assessment applies equally to academics, scholars, journalists, politicians and opinion makers as it does to defense experts, policy analysts, etc. Likewise, I meant policymaking in a broad sense for the Soviet case, having in mind domestic political and economic policies as much as military and foreign policies. --[[User:SmithHall|SmithHall]] 01:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In fact, here is the verbatim passage: "While supporters of Reagan claim SDI gave the United States a large amount of leverage in its standoff with the Soviet Union, most political scientists and historians note that Star Wars played a fairly minor role in the calculus of Soviet policy-making, where internal structural problems were paramount."

:: I think you'll agree that the language here is much less problematic. And while there are undoubtedly Reagan supporters in the ranks of political scientists and historians, I think it's accurate to suggest that more of them aren't Reagan supporters than are.

::Anyway, my apologies for having been lazy and not citing the exact passage earlier, which I think was a source of much confusion. --[[User:SmithHall|SmithHall]] 01:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::''most political scientists and historians note that...."
:::How about, ''many [or some] political scientists and historians are of the opinion that ...'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I am somewhat skeptical of citizens from another country being able to tell fact from fiction, when quoting Soviet citizens, who were or are a part of that government, being as their vested interest is in denigrating any accomplishments by Reagan. Likewise the part about military service, which I removed, was completely inaccurate, in that it failed to mention that he did indeed enlist, was an officer, and contributed to the raising of millions of 1940's Dollars on behalf of the war effort. Likewise his fighting of the black lists, which his own future wife, Nancy Davis was put on. Cannot the Sysops here block this highly inaccurate and troubling information being listed? It troubles me users cannot contact anyone about this, in a easily identified manner. Someone put up these web pages, it belongs to someone. Someone is ultimately responsible, no? If not, perhaps I need to refer all this BS to the likes of Ed Meese or Mike Deever, for rebuttal. --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Reagan actually served ''two'' non-contiguous active military stints, if I recall. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Reagan entered military service in 1942 and served for three years in the U.S. Army, for which he made training films, and he was discharged with the rank of captain. [http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0329270-00] --[[User:TK|TK]] 10:47, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Reagan states in his 1965 autobiography [http://www.biblio.com/books/28287897.html] he served in the Cavalry, confirmed here [http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25513&page=51 Ronald Reagan, Cavalry Lt/USAAF Capt, FMPU; personnel officer 9th AF]; Peggy Noonan likeqwise cites it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Explain to me what was "inaccurate" or "troubling" in saying that Reagan, as head of SAG, was involved in naming members of the film industry on the Hollywood Blacklist? He was involved. He answered questions in HUAC hearings and kept the FBI informed about "disloyal" members of his union. These are facts.[http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/blacklist.html] I can't assess the veracity of the statement that Reagan also tried to shield actors victimized by McCarthy, which would certainly make Reagan's a complex and difficult-to-read character.

But the main points to make are 1) nothing in the statement that Reagan played at least a contributing role (by testifying before HUAC, informing the FBI, etc.) in the Hollywood Blacklist is factually inaccurate; 2) if Reagan ''did'' try to clear the names of actors caught up by McCarthyism, including Nancy Davis, then it needs to be cited (see the Conservapedia commandment if you're unclear on the reason why); 3) whatever role Reagan may have played in vindicating those unjustly accused by McCarthy, it still doesn't make it any less true to note that earlier he played a part in the anticommunist persecution of individuals who wound up blacklisted in Hollywood.

Also, I find it maddeningly ignorant and offensive to make such a blanket statement as to claim broad skepticism regarding the ability of "citizens from another country being able to tell fact from fiction," whether quoting Soviet citizens, or in any other context. First, I don't know why the whole "immediately distrust foreigners" is even relevant to this discussion, or to the edits on the Reagan article. Second, ignorance, like wisdom, knows no national boundaries. Americans hold a monopoly on neither. You can love this country and think it's the greatest in the world, but that doesn't preclude you from recognizing the intelligence of non-Americans, or the ignorance of many Americans. Rather than making such a blanket condemnation, try to point to specific examples of bias, ignorance or what have you, instead of speaking in such vague generalizations. -- "KW"

::Ok, so by Reagan giving testimony to HUAC, then a separate non-governmental entity, the Motion Picture Association of America blacklists actors, that makes Reagan "involved". Whereas in fact, the actual involvement of the MPAA is suspect, because it appears to be coincidental that the members of MPAA are the ones who refused to extend contracts, not the MPAA itself.
:::''Reagan did try to clear the names of actors caught up by McCarthyism, including Nancy Davis...''
::I beleive you may be misusing the term "McCarthyism here; and can you provide a cite for the specific reference. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

*By the way, HUAC stands for "House Un-American Activities Committee" '''which was an official body of the United States Congress'''. It was Chaired by Congressman Joesph McCarthy, of Wisconson. As for extending contracts, the motion picture studios are the true villians here, in caving into pressure from the Congress. Not excusing Congress's actions but it wasn't the Government refusing the contracts.--[[User:TK|TK]] 15:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:You make my point for me. It is ignorant, in the extreme, to give half-answers as "fact" like about Reagan's testimony before the HUAC, without explaining further, his other actions. To ignore, or leave them out is bias indeed. It proves my point, because most anyone from the Untited States, politically involved, knows the story about how Ronald Reagan met Nancy Davis!! You are using clearly liberal, left of center sourcing material, and passing it off as fact, just because you provided a source. Go to moveon.org, and you can get those types of "facts". You have a very revisionist view, imo, almost of someone too young to remember, prersonally, the period. It was not considered heinous at that time, to oppose Communist infiltration of the entertainment industry, and while most people did not agree with McCarthy's tactics, they did not oppose the goal. --[[User:TK|TK]] 01:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: My omission of the story about how Ronald met Nancy was based on ignorance, yes. I didn't know the story behind it, but that doesn't reflect willful or malicious neglect on my part. I couldn't tell you how any president met his wife, which is more a product of my priorities, or "bias," as you term it: I simply don't care much for personal gossip of any sort. There, you know my personal "bias" regarding the matter at hand.

::But, again, if I made an omission, then the correct move on your part is to correct it by '''adding the missing fact, not expunging other facts that don't tell the story you like.''' That's all I requested. I don't profess omniscience, and I'm certainly not an expert on the intricacies of the Reagans' courtship. But since you apparently have knowledge of that and consider it so essential to the story of his involvement with HUAC, then add that to the entry and share your particular wisdom with everyone. Balance is a good thing, and that's what I was trying to urge you to provide. Obviously I want as complete a picture as possible, but I also don't know every side of the story, and I know I don't know.

::And you're right that I don't have personal recollections of the period. However, my age or experience make my contributions no less valid. I don't discount the very real sense of fear and terror that pervaded the era. But while you might consider this a hindrance or claim this forces me into "revisionism," I can respond by saying that your personal experiences and recollections dooms you to your own "bias," in that you evidently feel like you have a stake in the matter, whereas I didn't have anything to gain or lose based on its outcome. Neither approach is necessarily "wrong" or more "objective." It's just a way of noting that no one is immune from bias, and that bias takes a number of forms. This, among many other reasons, is why I place such emphasis on including as many different dimensions as possible. Clearly you have a perspective that I don't, but your perspective might cause you to focus on certain things to the exclusion of other factors that seem noteworthy to me. Why not use our different perspectives to mutual advantage? -- "KW"

:::I think you confuse this place for Wikipedia. This is the Conservative version. Therefore like values are tensed more than those which oppose, otherwise what is this place for? I also think you mistake personal things for purely historical ones. I am not making you, personally less valid, however this place is the place for debating your personal ideas, and the failure to go the extra mile and inform the people who will use this as a resource, of the whole story, not a fragment of it. You are using, in my opinion, the same tired liberal sources those of us in the States have grown to mistrust. --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Evidently I confused this place for an encyclopedia interested in facts. I see you arbitrarily removed the information about how Honecker could and did ignore Gorbachev's entreaties for reform. The fact that several Soviet troops were stationed in East Berlin was quite ancillary to the issue at question, namely the status of the Berlin Wall. Were, as you (or whoever added the line about the Soviet troops) suggested, Gorbachev to have exercised military pressure on Honecker to reform, he would've ceased to be a reformer. You can't force through those sorts of liberalizing measures through violent and oppressive measures. The French Revolution attempted that, and in ended in the Reign of Terror and, later, with military rule under Napoleon. Your decision to willy-nilly ignore the realities of internal dynamics, both within the Eastern bloc and within individual countries of the bloc, makes your own ''opinion'' regarding the importance of Gorbachev (and what he potentially could have done) to the fall of the Berlin Wall exceedingly groundless and unsubstantiated. Even though the first incarnation of the Berlin Wall was erected in 1961 with Soviet assistance, this was what the East German government at the time wanted as well, in order to triage the massive population loss and brain drain of East Germans who went to West Berlin and from there to the West. Those desires held true into 1989, and it was only when popular pressures began to mount within East German for opening the borders that things began to change. Moreover, the fall of the Wall itself was not the product of deliberate policy on anyone's part; on November 9, 1989, the party head in Berlin read (or perhaps misread, as scholars have debated) an announcement on television in somewhat unclear language (if you see a clip of the broadcast, you can even see him looking a bit surprised and what he thought he was reading) to the effect that the border would be opened for private trips abroad, which the East Germans watching on television interpreted to mean the complete opening of the border, prompting thousands to storm the checkpoints and begin tearing down the Wall. In the end, not Gorbachev nor Honecker nor Reagan, for that matter, played a key role in tearing down the Wall. Credit a bureaucrat's vague words and the initiative of the thousands of East Germans who made it so.

::::And I don't know why you keep making thinly veiled illusions suggesting that I'm some sort of foreigner. You keep using that canard to try to discredit me, but it only reflects poorly on you because 1) I'm an American, born and raised, and 2) your implication that anyone who bothers to learn about the other side of an issue (or in this case to pay attention to what was actually happening on the other side of the Iron Curtain rather than accepting a bunch of poorly supported opinions as the gospel truth) must not be American suggests that anyone who's American is also ignorant with respect to the rest of the world. -- "KW"
:::::KW, these are all good points you make above and well researched. However you may be argueing the substance on the page. Let's find somewhere to put all that research in. How about [[German Democratic Republic|East Germany]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Done. It's a fragmentary entry, by necessity, but at least there's the beginnings of an entry. -- "KW"

== Citations from Wikipedia.... ==

Since the Conservapedia is billed as an alternative to Wikipedia, which is deemed by the Founders as culturally, religiously and politically biased, why in God's name are editors using information from that source to substantiate their information/edits here?

Many of us start from the premise Wikipedia is a suspect source. Please find alternative source information, otherwise there isn't really a point to this "alternative" is there?

*'''You're right. Wikipedia is NOT an acceptable source or authority. Please edit the offending pages and alert the contributors. The mistakes could have been innocent, of course.--Aschlafly 19:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)'''

== Edits ==

I think the reorder is somewhat cumbersome, and not putting most of the information at the top, perhaps? --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:41, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Check out this link: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:10, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Iran/Contra==
For this edit,
:''although the U.S. government under Reagan gave direct support to Iraq during the war. President Ronald Reagan stated that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."''
we need (a) a date; (b) source. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
----
A report by a presidential commission, released in February 1987, depicted Reagan as uninformed, and concluded that his relaxed "personal management style" had prevented him from controlling his subordinates. House and Senate committees, conducting joint hearings, heard testimony that Reagan did not know of the diversion of funds. Most committee members signed a majority report in November 1987 asserting that although Reagan's role in the affair could not be determined precisely, he had clearly failed to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Poindexter, North, and others were indicted in the affair in 1988. [http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0329270-00] --[[User:TK|TK]] 11:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

----
The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East. One of these directives from Reagan, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 99, signed on July 12, 1983, is available only in a highly redacted version [Document 21]. It reviews U.S. regional interests in the Middle East and South Asia, and U.S. objectives, including peace between Israel and the Arabs, resolution of other regional conflicts, and economic and military improvements, "to strengthen regional stability." It deals with threats to the U.S., strategic planning, cooperation with other countries, including the Arab states, and plans for action. An interdepartmental review of the implications of shifting policy in favor of Iraq was conducted following promulgation of the directive.

On April 5, 1984, Ronald Reagan issued another presidential directive (NSDD 139), emphasizing the U.S. objective of ensuring access to military facilities in the Gulf region, and instructing the director of central intelligence and the secretary of defense to upgrade U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities. It codified U.S. determination to develop plans "to avert an Iraqi collapse." Reagan's directive said that U.S. policy required "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical warfare (without naming Iraq), while including the caveat that the U.S. should "place equal stress on the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing the ruthless and inhumane tactics which have characterized recent offensives." [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/] --[[User:TK|TK]] 11:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you. Good research. Now as to specifics, your language "''depicted Reagan as uninformed''" is stated perhaps more precisely as "Members of the National Securirty Council staff, along with CIA Director William Casey, persuaded Reagan...".

*: '''Rob, "uninformed" in government parlance, is not what you think. It means the subordinates did not inform him. Those are raw quotes, which would need re-phrasing. I sent you an email, did you get it? There are lot of things most sane people wouldn't feel comfortable posting about themselves on public pages.''' --[[User:TK|Terry]] 23:28, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::Got it. Yes a private discussion can help facilitate where we wish to go with this and save time. I responded, did you get it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:*'''No, Rob..I haven't reveived anything from you. Did you send it via email through this board? I'll email you, with my IM info.'''

:The two NSDD cited deserves treatment in context, however after Reagan's reelection (and the reestablishment of relations with Iraq) the overture to Iran to sell weapons from Israel was given more focus, as the Tower Commission Report clearly gives detail. Also, feelers were sent prior to the second term regarding contact between Teheran and the hostage takers in Lebenon.

:The language "''dissuade Iran from continuing the ruthless and inhumane tactics''" referes to the use of the Iranian [[Mahatma Ghandi]] and proginator of [[Human Rights]] reforms in Iran, the [[Ayatollah Khomeini]], use of children to clear minefields.

:A proposal: lets complete a good review of the Iran/Contra affair here, in the Reagan artcle, which then perhaps could be spun off into its separate article with only a summary left behind. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Not from me, Rob! I put up material here, someone takes it, re-compiles it, slaps it back up as their edit, after the same thing was added by me a day or so ago! Is there some commandment about NOT communicating here? You invited participation, yet everyone is running around like chickens with their heads off, never communicating! --[[User:TK|Terry]] 23:28, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Let me make two observervations: (1) the stuff about it being outed on Nov. 3 1986 (we need to check if that is prior to election day 1986 when the Democrats regained the Senate and were in a position to hold public investigations, or after election day) is well researched, and we can put it in at the point it belongs. (2) The stuff about Iraq is going to need some clarification, because this narrative picks up "after Reagan was re-elected", i.e. after Nov. 84, and his swearing in Jan. 85; NSDD 139, 5 April 1984 is ''prior''. While all this material is extremely (a) valid and (b) relevent, we are writing an historical narrative of events, not doing a hit piece with piecemeal material out of context. So this is what I'd like to discuss, gaining some structure to events.

:::Let me add, as an after thought, all accounts I read all over the web dismiss this all as a "scandal" of a bunch of greedy arms dealers and other assorted low-lifes which either includes Reagan, or Reagan gave his assent to. That POV has been explicitely stated eleswhere. So what we are examining is the motives for Reagan's giving assent to this matter. And beginning with a conclusory premise, that (a) Reagan's just another greedy corrupt Republican (b) this is just more evidence of the currupt aims, motives, and duplicity of Republicans in power and why you can't trust them, will fail. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Iraq==

--[[User:TK|TK]] 03:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Comment on this inclusion''':''although the U.S. government under Reagan gave direct support to Iraq during the war. President Ronald Reagan stated that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.");''

this may warrant inclusion at some point, and it no way contradicts US policy aims as stated by Henry Kissinger upon the outbreak of the Iran-iraq War in 1981, "All we can do is hope they both loose." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:Being old enough to remember this time really good but too old to remember exactly where I heard this: The CIA, in shipments of Iran's weapons, would include "faulty" munitions such as hand grenades that would explode as soon as the handle was released, killing the thrower. Not all, but like 15-20% were "defective". I'll see if I can find a source.
::''primea facia'' this may be faulty; you will recall CIA was not involved in Iran/Contra; and using Israel & private arms dealers is what the matter was all about. Please, do not come here with warrantless, unqualified speculation. Get legitimate source documents first, then bring it to our attention. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
----
*Reagan said, '''''"could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran..."'''''
This is the same problem that confronts President Bush today, i.e. allowing Iran to gain ascendancy over the majority Shia in Iraq, and the region. I'm sorry if this conflicts with journalists and scandalmongers aims to sell newspapers to paint Reagan in bed with the fascist Ba'athists, but this is not a propaganda vehicle, and we are here to write factual biography of Mr. Reagan. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Exactly, RobS. In the secular, political world, sometimes the person you end up in bed with, well...the reason you do is just because there isn't room anywhere else, or you are simply too tired to look elsewhere. ;-) --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So the point here is, the crazies in Iran gaining hegemony in the Gulf needed to be detered (then, as now); then in Reagan's second term the fear that if a militarized Iraq survived the War intact, it might turn it's attention elsewhere, like Kuwait, which it did.

:::What do we know? Journalists blew the story wide open to sell headlines, and partisan Democrats looking to make a scandal, hastened (1) the Gulf War of 1991; (2) the fact that Iran ''still'' isn't an ally, and remains hostile with nuke capabilities. And if Iran hasn't got a nuke yet, they got the money to buy brainpower or an operational bomb from cash starved North Korea.

:::All this so partisans could create a scandal. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Indeed. Welcome to my world. I console myself knowing that sooner or later (usually later) the public gets damned mad, and there is literally political hell to pay. I have been waiting for that now about 7 years. Look at http://newt.org for American Solutions....something is being done, and the ground work being layed. --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:The public wouldn't get mad if they stopped eating up all the journalists and the paid purveyors if lies lies. Truth is, news items have a shelf life, and a "sell by" date. Journalists do not care if (1) four years later Saddam indeed invades Kuwait as Iran/Contra tried to head off, or (b) 20 years later Iran still isn't an ally and now is a hostile power seeking nuclear weapons. All these scandalmongers wish to do is build careers, create and sell interesting news items, and the world be damned if consequences down the road surface as a result of thier actions. They're always in the postion to blame others. And as P.T. Barnum said, there's a sucker born every minute to buy thier lies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==NSDD 139==
Here are portions of the relevent context of NSDD 139 5 April 1984 extracted for discussion.

*In light of recent developments in the Iran-Iraq War and the threat which an escalation of that conflict or a terrorist campaign could pose for the vital interests of the U.S. and its Allies, measures must be taken now to improve our immediate ability to deter an expansion of the conflict in the Persian Gulf and, if necessary, defend U.S. interests...

*In the recognition of the growing threat of Iranian-sponsored terrorism...

*...prepare a plan of action designed to avert an Iraqi collapse.

*The Secretary of State will ensure that the policy of the United States Government condemning the use of chemical warfare (CW) munitions in the Iran-Iraq war is unambiguous and consistent, with the 1925 Geneva protocol. Our condemnation of the use of CW munitions by the belligerents should place equal stress on the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing the ruthless and inhumane tactics which have characterized recent offensives. (TS)

Here are extracts from '''Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)''', < http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm >

===Iraqi Retreats, 1982-84===
*The Iranian high command passed from regular military leaders to clergy in mid-1982....

*In July 1982 Iran launched Operation Ramadan... near Basra...the clergy used "human-wave" attacks... Ranging in age from only nine years old and up, these eager but relatively untrained soldiers swept over minefields and fortifications to clear safe paths for the tanks...

*...by the end of 1983, an estimated 120,000 Iranians and 60,000 Iraqis had been killed. Despite these losses, in 1983 Iran held a distinct advantage in the attempt to wage and eventually to win the war of attrition.

*Beginning in 1984, ...according to Jane's Defence Weekly and other sources, Baghdad used chemical weapons against Iranian troop concentrations...

*In April 1984, Saddam Hussein proposed to meet Khomeini personally in a neutral location to discuss peace negotiations...

*...Iraq launched a new series of attacks on shipping on February 1, 1984.

===The War of Attrition, 1984-87===
*By 1984 it was reported that some 300,000 Iranian soldiers and 250,000 Iraqi troops had been killed, or wounded....

*In early 1984...

*...the Iranian command again resorted to the human-wave tactic. In March 1984, an East European journalist claimed that he "saw tens of thousands of children, roped together in groups of about twenty to prevent the faint-hearted from deserting, make such an attack."

*Despite Iraqi denials since the war started, in February 1984 the Iraqi command ordered the use of chemical weapons. Within a four-week period between February and March 1984, the Iraqis reportedly killed 40,000 Iranians and lost 9,000 of their own men...

*Ranging in age from only nine years old and up, these eager but relatively untrained soldiers swept over minefields and fortifications to clear safe paths for the tanks.

*Within a four-week period between February and March 1984, the Iraqis reportedly killed 40,000 Iranians and lost 9,000 of their own men....in February 1984 the Iraqi command ordered the use of chemical weapons....between May 1981 and March 1984, Iran charged Iraq with forty uses of chemical weapons.

If anything is missing from the source documents to add to, or clarify context, please bring it forward. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:21, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:*'''Some very valuable additions, Rob!''' --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 22:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Reagan & Shamir==
*''Reagan, though he once told Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir that he had personally liberated concentration camps''
this is total bull, and you should know better. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:06, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Reagan's participation in the liberation of concentration camps is bull, yes.

However, he did claim later in life, telling both Shamir and Simon Wiesenthal that he had personally liberated camps, when in fact he had merely seen film footage.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13736

----

== So much for being different from Wikipedia? ==

I noticed that Conservapedia now has a page explaining how it's different from Wikipedia [http://www.conservapedia.com/Differences_with_Wikipedia]. Reason No. 2, to quote it verbatim, is:

''We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.''

Now, I think this is a commendable policy. One journalist's view should not necessarily be taken as fact. And this holds doubly true in the case of columnists, editorialists and other commentators whose work regularly appears on the Op-Ed pages of newspapers. By definition, these kinds of journalists are presenting opinions, and often selectively use or disregard facts.

So I find it particularly troubling to see how many times this entry violates this policy. The opinions of Peggy Noonan, Cal Thomas, et al, are presented here in the guise of factual statements, used to justify specific opinions on Reagan's legacy, involvement with the Hollywood Blacklist, the end of the Cold War, etc. It just doesn't lend much credibility to the entry or to Conservapedia, particularly in light of the claim that Conservapedia "does not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts."

And, I'd add that presenting the views of Henry Kissinger, Margaret Thatcher or other officials and politicians in a similar manner is just as problematic. While these sorts of individuals may have a unique perspective on events, having been personally and directly involved in ways most journalists and other observers have not, their views are still opinions, and should be presented -- as in the case of the op-ed columnists mentioned above -- as the opinions of interested parties, rather than given as fact.

Certainly, the same can be said of the academics and scholars cited in the entry. However, those viewpoints are clearly presented as individual interpretations (and are not upheld as the simple truth). Moreover, in general I'd feel more comfortable citing an academic book than a newspaper columnist or insider because there's usually a rigorous standard of methodology and research being used that just isn't there for journalists and politicians. If you cite an academic book, you can usually point to the fifty pages of sources and references at the back to show what it's based on. You're lucky if columnists even name their sources (much less the specific place where they found their information), while politicians are wont to simply refer to each other for credibility, which means the foundation for their opinions is often lacking in substance.

Now, I'm sure that pointing out this blatant contradiction of policy won't lead to its rectification for this entry, or for Conservapedia in general. But, I feel compelled for some odd reason to point out why the site will likely want for credibility, and to suggest some ways in which the standards and quality of submissions can become a bit more robust. The site is still young, and it's possible that with a concerted effort Conservapedia can achieve its purported goals. I just won't be holding my breath. --[[User:SmithHall|SmithHall]] 12:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, whilst everyone is entitled to keep whatever opinions one wants to, it should be pointed out that most of that Journalists "report", these days, are just opinions as well, at best, and outright propaganda at the worst. In the end, what one's peers say about them, and the job you've done, is what counts in history. An automobile mechanic, being praised by other mechanics, is much more valuable to the rest of us, than praise from me. If you are laboring under the delusion that journalists, or academics are somehow "fairer" than other humans, you would be wrong.--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

** That's certainly debatable. The reason historians and scholars tend to view memoirs and other ex post facto recollections with considerable skepticism is that people often rewrite or whitewash their past deeds to portray themselves in the most flattering light possible. Or, often they do so to flatter their friends and allies. There's nothing inherently evil in this; it's human nature. After all, we've all heard a few "fish stories" in our day.

My main point, however, was not that any particular kind of source was inherently better than others. Rather, it was to note that the opinions of columnists presented in the Reagan entry violate the Conservapedia policy cited above. I'd remove the quotes, but I'd get shouted down for "liberal bias" when all I want to see happen is Conservapedia actually abiding by its stated policies. The preceding unsigned comment was made by [[SmithHall]]

*There is only one quote from a columnist, which is, in the US, a different category than Journalist. Peggy Noonan was an Assistant to the President, a member of his administration. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 23:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Requested edit ==

Could someone add this article to [[:Category:Actors]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 15:58, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

*That catagory is inappropriate. Should we add "Painters" or "House Painters" to Hitler? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Second thought, it is appropriate. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==[[Iran Hostage Crisis]]==

Should there be some mention of the [[Iran Hostage Crisis]] in the foreign policy section? There isn't even a casual one-sentence dismissal of 444 days of captivity experienced by dozens of Americans. Completely left out. [[User:Reaganomist|Reaganomist]] 16:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

*The Iran hostage crisis was on Jimmy Carter's watch, however you are right in saying it needs mention here as well, for the World knows that they turned them loose because they understood what Reagan would do to them if they didn't.--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, they released them moments after news of his election. Heck, if I was a terrorist I'd be terrified of Reagan too. We could use another Reagan. [[User:Reaganomist|Reaganomist]] 19:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Saint Reagan==
I know he's a saint and all, but could we cut down the opening paragraph and make the dek more of a summary than a glowing review? Thanks [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:00, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

*Flippin, you have crossed the line several times recently, with sarcastic, intemperate remarks, especially dragging Andy's family into your vendetta. I am sure you have many pairs of socks, so you shouldn't mind when I block you. Please be productive, and find another hobby aside from merely tweeking Conservatives, like producing articles, if you wish to remain here. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:03, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Fixing Iran-Contra Section ==

At the *very least*, can we please get the name of the Bolan amendment right? That is a brutal blow to any pretense of competency on this issue. Also the argument that it is an impingement upon the power of the executive is highly tendentious; can it be fixed? [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 12:28, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==1976 Election, running against Ford==

There's a section that says that Reagan withdrew his nomination because he could have beaten Ford and didn't want to be the spoiler. I'm sorry, but that's not true. Reagan almost pulled it off, but he came up short when the electoral count was being tallied. If he could have won the Republican nomination in 1976, he would have. No one runs for months of hard campaigning just to withdrew because they would win. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:32, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*I'm sorry, I was there, that is what happened. There isn't an electoral tally at conventions. If he had stayed in, and once the first rounds of votes had been taken, the state delegates are then free from their commitment to vote per the primary. At that point hundreds would have voted with their hearts, which were always with Reagan. Recognizing the problem it would cause in the general election, he put a stop to it. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:43, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well if you were there, then that trumps my knowledge. I was with my parents watching on TV and it didn't come across that way, but I was younger and TV isn't exactly going to report what happens in the trenches anyway, nor would I necessarily have the memory recall of someone dedicated enough to go to the live event. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:05, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*TV is good for some dramatic shows. I own a TIVO. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

==Tip O'Neill==

Reagan did not only forge a friendship with O'Neill to "pass legislation" - O'Neill and Reagan were friends for many years following the end of Reagan and O'Neill's reign as the two most powerful men in the nation (1st and 2nd, respectivally). And neither Tip nor Reagan let their friendship get in the way of politics - or vice versa.

*That is very true. Too bad many today can't manage the same civility. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:41, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

I’m reading Reagan’s autobiography right now and it seemed like he was trying to have a good relationship with Tip O’Neil, but O’Neil was resisting. He told of an instance where he invited O’Neil to the White House and they both had a really good time. Then the next day after O’Neil was attacked him in the press, he called up O’Neil and asked him why he was mad at him after they seemed to form such a good friendship, O’Neil said his and Reagan’s friendship was, “politics before 6:00pm, friendship after 6:00pm.” --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 13:06, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:Yes. President Reagan had "learning curve" in Washington, as all Presidents do. In the end, he considered O'Neil, and O'Neil considered Reagan, among their best friends in politics. They truly had a deep affection for each other, more than would be common for two Irishmen who had reached the pinnacles of their chosen profession. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:26, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

== California ==

The Californian section on Reagan is sorely lacking. I would like to add more information concerning major landmarks in Californian history under Reagan's term as Governor which is not listed so far.

Also his history before California is very brief. - Kazuma

Feel free to make some suggestions here since the page is locked. I totally agree! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:54, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== Question ==

How is [[criticism of Ronald Reagan]] '''not''' [[placement bias]]? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:21, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

== Parody? ==

"'''Ronald Wilson Reagan''' (February 6, 1911- June 5, 2004), '''''heroic leader''''' and father of modern political discourse"

I'd remove it, but I'm afraid it may have been left there on purpose. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 19:25, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

== Holocaust ==
I'm not so oblivious as to try to add it myself, but just out of curiosity...since [[Barack Obama|Obama's]] page now contains the account of his statement that his uncle liberated Auschwitz, shouldn't Reagan's claims (to Yitzak Shamir and Elie Wiesel) to have liberated concentration camps himself be added here? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:03, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Daughter that did playboy ==
Should this be mentioned?

== Election margin ==

Just putting a fact tag there for now since this is probably a pretty sensitive article here, but where are you getting that Reagan's 58.77% of the popular vote in 1984 is the largest in almost 100 years? Nixon got 60.67% in 1972, and if you don't want to count that because of Watergate, Johnson got 61.05% in 1964, Roosevelt 60.8% in 1936 and Wilson got 60.32% in 1920, none of which could be called "almost 100 years." [http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html] [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 13:38, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:Direct link doesn't work for source, hit the "Compare National Data by Year (Table)" link below the map.[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 13:41, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::I checked the source you provided, and the original line you added the fact tag to is substantialy correct. At over 54 million voters, it is the largest turnout for over a century until the 2000 election and later. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:26, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::If the stat is just referring to the number of people who voted for him, I'm not sure how meaningful it is... as the population increases, obviously the number of voters is going to increase. You're right that it was the largest number of votes for a candidate ever at the time; but that also happened in 1972, 1964, 1956, 1952, 1936, 1932, 1928, etc, and Barack Obama is the most popular presidential candidate ever by that standard.
:::If saying that he received the most votes ever at the time is the intention of the statement and you do want it to stay, it should at least be reworded because the way it's written it looks like the stat is referring to the percentage of the vote that he received. [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 14:53, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::The re-wording would be fine; I would suggest the actual number of voters in addition to that percentage. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:55, 15 January 2009 (EST)

*Everyone is sooooo impatient, but I fixed the stats, etc. Please don't expect immediate results, lol. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:41, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Liberal ==

Reagan was a leading Hollywood liberal in the 1940s, as he himself said many times. That is essential to understanding him. If people are puzzled by the category, then they should read the article and learn some history. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:43, 3 March 2009 (EST)

== Year of the Bible ==

I set up a separate article for [[Year of the Bible]] which deserves its own article. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:57, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

==Category==
I noticed liberals is a category for Reagan. The only reason I can think of why that exists is because he was a convert to Conservatism. I am inclined to delete that category.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:37, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
::the reason is that in the 1940s he was one of the country's foremost liberals--there was talk already of a political career by 1945 and he was one of the most famous labor union leaders and supporters of FDR and Truman. Reagan is a complicate person and his transformation in the 1950s is central to the story.

:::Reagan had an open mind, and that led him to conservatism, particularly after Nancy's father introduced him to the logical ideas underlying conservatism. But I don't know why we would list Reagan as a "liberal". Usually people are known by where they end up, not their missteps along the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
::::Reagan's case is an interesting one for the historian--how to deal with people who switch positions. A lot of people moved from left to right, like Herbert Hoover, Whittaker Chambers, James Burnham and John Dos Passos (and a few moved in the other direction--such as Woodrow Wilson, Gary Wills and Barry Goldwater). (There also are people like Senator Lieberman who are even more complex). We can 1) use the status where they ended up; 2) use the status where they were most important historically; or 3) use both. My own preference is #3 because it gives more information. In other words, a student writing about liberalism in the 1940s should be able to include Reagan. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:43, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Jensen, sorry, your thinking is poppycock. This issue was previously decided, as was the official name of the article. Please communicate more, and you wouldn't exert unnecessary effort. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:03, 11 November 2009 (EST)
::TK seems to have recovered the old fighting spirit--but while recuperating I recommend he take time to read a book or two. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:49, 11 November 2009 (EST)
:::What about a "former liberals" category? That would appear to be more accurate. [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 19:54, 11 November 2009 (EST)
::::yes that's the solution. :) -- I added it.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:19, 11 November 2009 (EST)

== title ==

Conservatives never call him "Ronald Wilson Reagan" and we don't want out CP users to start calling him that, so the title should be "Ronald Reagan" [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:28, 13 December 2009 (EST)

== Ronald Reagan Jr. an atheist ==

Ronald Reagan Jr. is a self-proclaimed "unabashed atheist," and he even headlined the Freedom from Religion Foundation's 2009 conference. You do note some things about his other children, and the family section is a little lacking. It seems worth a note, but the final call is up to you, of course. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 18:39, 4 March 2010 (EST)
:It could be a minor entry here, if any, but a separate article on Ron Jr. is authorized. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:41, 4 March 2010 (EST)

::Doesn't sound like an atheist to me:

<blockquote>
Ron Reagan: I don't claim anything. But my sympathies would be in that direction. I admire the fact that the central core of [[Buddhist]] teaching involves mindfulness and loving kindness and compassion. 
 

Q: Your father has been eulogized as a model of genuineness. But did you see any schism between his public and private selves? 
 
Ron Reagan: In private, you got what you got in public. He treated everyone the same. '''He was just a very warm man, and he worked hard to impress upon his children the value of kindness. He was biologically incapable of gossip. There was no smallness in him.''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/27/magazine/27QUESTIONS.html?ex=1205812800&en=2cf65449d478f3c3&ei=5070] 
</blockquote>

:::<blockquote>
:::Ron Reagan: "I would be unelectable. I'm an atheist."
:::Sounds a bit like an atheist to me.--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 08:19, 6 March 2010 (EST)

::BTW, he prefers '''''Ronald P. Reagan''''' as his moniker.
--<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:16, 4 March 2010 (EST)
:::Ever hear [[Ron P. Reagan]] on [[Air America]] before they filed for bankruptcy? He sounds pretty good, when he reads a script. I supposed taking his meds helps, too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:29, 4 March 2010 (EST)
::::Although they might be needed, I know he has so far declined to take them! I think he's still in syndication, without Air Red. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:27, 4 March 2010 (EST)

Alan Turing

KimSell — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:05:26 GMT

KimSell:

[[Image:Ture.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Alan Turing''' (1912 - 1954) was a British mathematician who contributed to modern [[computer]] science and [[cryptography]].<ref>Http://www.turing.org.uk/bio</ref>

==The Turing Machine==

In the 1930s Turing proposed the concept of a "[[turing machine|Universal Turing Machine]]". Turing had, first, proposed that the operations needed to calculate any formula could be broken down into a base set of instructions (or primitive [[Recursion|recursive functions]]) that could in principle be followed by a machine: the "Turing Machine". Once fully formalized the calculations needed to derive the instructions themselves were capable of being run by a Turing Machine. The looped logic allowed the conception of a Turing Machine that could create its own instruction and, in principle, run a huge variety of calculations. Turing then used the concept of Universal Turing Machine to prove the undecidability of the [[halting problem]].

==Code breaking==

During [[World War II]] Turing was assigned to the codebreaking unit at Bletchley Park, where he worked on the decoding of the German's [[Enigma machine]]. Turing and his colleagues played a significant role in the Allied victory in WW2, allowing Allied forces access to German communication networks throughout much of the war.

==Artificial intelligence==

In his 1950 paper "[[Computing]] Machinery and Intelligence" (Mind 49: 433-460) Turing proposed a test (apparently heavily influenced by [[Logical Positivism]]) for establishing whether a computer could think (see [[artificial intelligence]]).

==Death==
Turing committed suicide by eating a poisoned apple after he was forced to take homrone treatment as part of his punishment for being convicted of homosexual acts.

==References==

Online biography: http://www.turing.org.uk/bio/

Computing Machinery and Intelligence: http://cogprints.org/499/00/turing.html

''Oddballs and Eccentrics''. Shaw, Karl. Edison, New Jersey: Castle Books, 2004.

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Turing, Alan}}
[[Category:Mathematicians]]

Alan Turing

KimSell — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:39:41 GMT

KimSell:

[[Image:Ture.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Alan Turing''' (1912 - 1954) was a British mathematician considered to be the founder of modern [[computer]] science and [[cryptography]].<ref>Http://www.turing.org.uk/bio</ref>

In the 1930s Turing proposed the concept of a "Universal [[Turing Machine]]". Turing had, first, proposed that the operations needed to calculate any formula could be broken down into a base set of instructions (or primitive recursive functions) that could in principle be followed by a machine: the "Turing Machine". Once fully formalized the calculations needed to derive the instructions themselves were capable of being run by a Turing Machine. The looped [[logic]] allowed the conception of a Turing Machine that could create its own instruction and, in principle, run a huge variety of calculations. Turing then used the concept of Universal Turing Machine to prove the undecidability of the [[halting problem]].

During [[World War II]] Turing was assigned to the codebreaking unit at Bletchley Park, where he worked on the decoding of the German's [[Enigma machine]]. Turing and his colleagues played a significant role in the Allied victory in WW2, allowing Allied forces access to German communication networks throughout much of the war.

In his 1950 paper "[[Computing]] Machinery and Intelligence" (Mind 49: 433-460) Turing proposed a test (apparently heavily influenced by [[Logical Positivism]]) for establishing whether a computer could think.

Turing was arrested in 1952 for [[homosexuality|homosexual acts]] and subsequently lost his security clearance. He was allowed to stay out of prison by agreeing to be injected with female hormones (which would supposedly decrease his sex drive). He later confided to a friend that the hormones caused him to grow breasts.<ref>''Oddballs and Eccentrics''. Shaw, Karl. Edison, New Jersey: Castle Books, 2004</ref> This may have contributed to his suicide by [[cyanide]] poisoning in 1954.<ref>http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/index.html</ref> The British Government issued a formal, official apology for the way Alan Turing and other homosexuals were treated in the past.<ref>http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20571</ref>
==References==

Online biography: http://www.turing.org.uk/bio/

Computing Machinery and Intelligence: http://cogprints.org/499/00/turing.html

''Oddballs and Eccentrics''. Shaw, Karl. Edison, New Jersey: Castle Books, 2004.

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Turing, Alan}}
[[Category:Mathematicians]]

Logical fallacy

KimSell — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:36:40 GMT

KimSell:

A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.<ref name="copi">Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. "Introduction to Logic, 12e". Pearson Education: 2005</ref> The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.

Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[deductive argument]]s, and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[inductive argument]]s, and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument.

There are four categories of informal fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.

A logical fallacy ''is not'' the same as [[lie|lying]]. A ''lie'' in logic is a [[premise]] that one offers while knowing that it is false.

==Fallacies of Relevance==
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between [[premise]] and [[conclusion]].

===Appeal to force===
An appeal to [[force]] (Lat: ''argumentum ad baculum'') is an argument which uses a threat of [[violence]] or force as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to force argument follows the form:

*If person A does not accept P, then Q
*Q is a threat of force
*Therefore P is true

For example: "If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30." It is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.

===Appeal to pity===
Also called [[emotion]]al appeal, (Lat: ''ad misericordiam'') this fallacy is characterized by a use of emotion as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to [[pity]] follows the form:

*Person A argues P
*Person B agrees P, but adds X, where X is an emotional argument unconnected to P

For example: "Yes, [[police|officer]], I realize I was speeding, but you shouldn't give me a ticket because I was racing to see my wife who is in the [[hospital]]." While this argument uses an emotional appeal to convince the officer not to hand out a citation, there is no logical connection between the premise ("you shouldn't give me a ticket") and the conclusion ("I was racing to see my wife").

Appeals to pity are very commonly seen in business. A factory manager may make the following argument: "our factory's overheads are too high, and we cannot maintain our business if we continue here. Therefore we should relocate to an area where labour is cheaper." An appeal to pity would be of the following type: "but our workers have bills to pay, families to support, we cannot fire them." That statement may be true, but is fallacious because it is not relevant to the manager's argument.

===''Argumentum ad hominem''===
: ''Main Article: [[Ad hominem]]''

''Ad hominem'' arguments (Lat: "argument directed toward the man") fall into two forms: ''ad hominem'' abusive and ''ad hominem tu quoque'' (circumstantial).

====''Ad hominem'' abusive====
An ''ad hominem'' is an argument which tries to disprove another argument by attacking the person who made it, rather than by focusing on the actual logical reasoning. The goal of an ''ad hominem'' argument is usually to take focus off of the actual argument by calling attention to a flaw of the person making it. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P
*Person A is Q
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand
*Therefore P is false

For example: "We all know that George beats his wife, so obviously he's wrong when he says that we should vote against this proposition." This is fallacious reasoning because the premise ("George beats his wife") does not have a logical link with the conclusion ("George is wrong"). Whatever undesirable qualities a person may have, they do not affect the truth or falsity of what he says.

====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====
A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: "you're another") is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P should not happen
*Person A does P
*Therefore Person A's argument is incorrect

For example: "You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!" Another common example is often found in business: "why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My opponent does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!" In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company.

====''Poisoning the well''====
Poisoning the well is a particular type of ''ad hominem'' argument. It consists of attempts to discredit a speaker (and, by extension, their argument) by criticizing unrelated opinions that they hold. The argument follows this form:

*Person A makes argument X
*Person B counters that person A also believes Y, where Y is something unacceptable, foolish, or easily disprovable, but unrelated to X
*Person A is wrong about Y
*Therefore person A must also be wrong about X

When spelled out in the above form, the fallacy is easily seen, but it is used very frequently in political debate where skillful use of rhetoric can mask the underlying fallacy. The argument is fallacious because a person's opinions on one subject do not affect the truth or falsity of their statements on other subjects.

===Genetic fallacy===
In general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is "consider the source!" Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method. This type of argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*Q is true
*P is false
*Therefore Q is false

When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to "consider the source" is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.

But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.

As an example, [[Gregor Mendel]] established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding [[science|scientists]], using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.<ref name=Genetic>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Genetic Fallacy] on [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ The Fallacy Files]</ref>

The genetic fallacy does not apply to arguments against a theory that caused a true believer to commit atrocities in reliance on the theory:

* Hitler and his top aides believed in the theory of ballistics
* Hitler and his top aides relied on the theory of ballistics to bomb London
* Therefore, the theory of ballistics is likely wrong

===Proof by numbers===
Also known as "appeal to the people" (Lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. An appeal to the people follows the form:

:Most people believe P
:Therefore P is true

"Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others.

===Special pleading===
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''

[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading follows the form:

*If Person X is in set P then Q happens to person X
*Person A is in set P
*Person A cites R circumstance, unrelated to P or Q
*Therefore Person A is not subject to Q

For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.

==Fallacies of Defective or Weak Induction==
Fallacies of defective or weak induction are fallacies which are due to a lack of understanding for how well premises lead to a conclusion.

===Argument from silence===
''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantium'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true. The fallacy follows the form:
*If P then Q
*P cannot be shown true
*Therefore Q is false

For example: "Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist".

This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: "the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence."

===False cause===
False cause (Lat: ''non causa pro causa'') is a fallacy which arises when a poor cause/effect link is used within an argument, especially if coincidence or chance are not taken into account. The fallacy follows the form:

*P causes Q (faulty reasoning)
*P is true
*Therefore Q is true

For example: "I used to be a well paid teacher until I started being a tougher grader. When my students' grades went down, so did my salary. Therefore, I must have been paid based on my students' grades." While this sounds like a logical explanation, not all factors are taken into account. For example, the teacher's school could have been subject to budget cuts, or maybe the teacher was overpaid at first and now his salary corrects his true worth.

====''Post hoc ergo propter hoc''====
''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' (Lat: "after the thing, therefore because of the thing") is a subcategory of false cause fallacies. In this type of argument, a close temporal proximity is used as a justification of a cause/effect relationship. ''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' arguments follow the form:

*P happened, and then Q happened
*Therefore P caused Q

For example: "Right around the time the sun goes up my alarm clock goes off, so the sun causes my alarm clock to go off." Clearly this is not the case.

===Non sequitur===
: ''Main Article: [[Non sequitur]]''

A ''non sequitur'' (Lat: "It does not follow") is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection, or sometimes any connection at all. This form of argument follows the form:

*P
*Therefore R is true

For example: "Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession."

===Overgeneralization===
Overgeneralization (also called hasty generalization or converse accident) is an error in reasoning which comes about by making a logical leap far greater than what the data allows. Overgeneralization follows the form:

*P is Q
*P is in R
*Therefore R is Q

For example: "I just read that three kids were arrested yesterday for drug possession. Teens in this country are really going downhill!"

Overgeneralization the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.

====Proving too much====
Proving too much is a form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented.

===Proof by authority===
Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' ("argument proceeding from clout") or ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' ("appeal to unqualified authority"), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].

*P says Q
*P is an authority in his field
*Therefore Q is true

A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists. A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well.

==Fallacies of Presumption==
Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made.

===Accident===
The fallacy of accident occurs when a generalization is inappropriately applied to an individual. A fallacy of accident follows the form:

*Some P are Q
*R is in P
*Therefore R is Q

For example: "You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]".

===Contradiction===
:''Main article: [[Contradiction]]''

A contradiction is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradiction, some of the premises must be false. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning:

*P
*Not P

===Loaded question===
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''

A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Another example is, "Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?"

===Proof by assertion===
Proof by assertion is an argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. This form of argument follows the form:

*P is true

Often the argument is simply repeated over and over, and no evidence for support is given.

Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, infinite regression, manufacturing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.

====Circular reasoning====
:''Main article: [[Circular reasoning]]''

[[Circular reasoning]], also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.

====Infinite regression====
: ''Main Article: [[Infinite regression]]''

An infinite regression results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause ''it.'' An infinite regression follows the form:

*P1 causes Q1
*Q2 causes P1
*P3 causes Q2
*Q4 causes P3
*And so on, forever

For example: [[Panspermia]], an alternative to [[abiogenesis]] as a proposition about the origin of life, suffers from the infinite-regression flaw so long as it fails to state positively what conditions could have brought about an origin of life on a planet other than the earth, ''other than'' the alleged mechanism of the "seeding" of life on the earth itself.

====Manufacturing facts from a theory====

Manufacturing facts from a theory is the assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact.

In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact have failed, the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the "fact" still exists and someone hasn't tried hard enough to find it. This is especially true when someone develops evidence that the inferred "fact" could not possibly exist.

====Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong====
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]'' 

This fallacy occurs when one theory is judged by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This form of fallacy follows the form:

*Theory A says that if P then Q
*Theory B says that if P then R
*Therefore theory A is wrong

For example: "Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago."
It should be noted that although the above argument by itself is a fallacy, strong evidence supporting the death of dinosaurs 65 million years ago, as well as other evidence, would result in the argument being a proof by contradiction, not necessarily a fallacy.

===Straw man===
:''Main article: [[Straw man fallacy]]

A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. A straw man argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*Person A says P
*Therefore Q

Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:

*Person A believes that a military program should be cut
*Person B argues that since Person A wants to cut military funding, he wants to leave the country defenseless to attack

This is fallacious reasoning, because there is no way to know ''why'' person A believes what he does, and Person B has used one reason which suits his own purpose. For example, it's quite possible that Person A wants to cut the program because he wants to change the funding to something which he thinks does a ''better'' job at defending the country.

===Tautology===
:''Main article: [[tautology]]''

A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτα''' ''tauta'', "these") is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means "the study of this" or "the study of these." Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.

==Fallacies of Ambiguity==
Fallacies of ambiguity are fallacies which arise from ambiguity in language used.

===Amphiboly===
Amphiboly is an ambiguity which arises though loose or awkward phrasing:

For example: "Save soap and waste paper".

===Composition===
The fallacy of composition occurs when the parts of a whole are incorrectly used to describe the whole.

For example: "Since one of the battleships is ready to deploy, the whole fleet is ready to deploy".

===Conflation===
Conflation is the treatment of two different concepts as one.

For example: "Comparing apples to oranges".

===Division===
The fallacy of division occurs when it is argued that what is true for the whole must be true for its parts.

For example: "That company is very important. Since Joe works at that company, he must be very important."

===Equivocation===
Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.

For example: "The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off."

===Moving the Goalposts===
[[Moving the goalposts]] is jargon used almost exclusively by evolutionists to decline to answer a question that is the logical next step in their argument. This next step is avoided by evolutionists by claiming that their critics are "moving the goalposts."

For example, Darwinists claim that asking how the theory of evolution explains the origin of life is "moving the goalposts," even though it is a logical question to ask.

== Related References ==
<references/>
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]
*"The Fine Art of Baloney Detection." Sagan, Carl. ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark.'' Ballantine: New York, 1996; pp 201-218.

== See Also ==
* '''[[Liberal logic]]'''
* [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]

{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

KimSell — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:49:57 GMT

KimSell: /* Morally bankrupt */

==Couple of points==
* Interventionalism is an ugly kludge. The word should be "interventionism".
* Some of the terms are just not Conservative in '''any''' meaningful way. For example "design by committee" is used by both Liberals and Conservatives to describe the same problem.
* A word to describe Conservative concept may be worth calling a "Conservative word", but the mere fact that Conservatives like or dislike something doesn't mean the word is Liberal or Conservative. "Grassroots" isn't a Conservative word-- it's a word for local community activism, regardless of political bent. Ditto phonics. "Condescention" isn't a Liberal word, and it was originally, considered to be the Christian virtue of treating one's social inferiors as equals.
* I don't know anyone who denies the '''effectiveness''' of abstinence, Liberal, Conservative, or pink-and-green-striped.
[[User:Pepperlynn|Pepperlynn]] 17:48, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: Your first point is good, and I just changed it. You could have changed it yourself.

: Your second point is baseless. The conservative terms do reflect conservative insights. Sure, sometimes liberals use them. Sometimes atheists quote from the Bible too.

: Your third point again is misguided. Liberals say "community organizing" or "community activism." Conservatives say "grassroots". The concepts are different, though similar. Think about it more.

: Your fourth point shows you don't yet recognize the liberal viewpoint in its full deceit. Stick around here and you will. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)

==Some suggestions==
How about 'responsibility' (1737) and 'self-discipline' (1838)? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 08:58, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Superb ideas!!! Fantastic. Please add them. I have some that will add also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:19, 10 January 2009 (EST)

The list is good, but it doesn't say why they are ''conservative'' words. Perhaps something could be added related to this? Also, I have a suggestion: 'Rags to Riches'? *Hopeful* [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

What are the criteria for "conservative words" (as distinct from "liberal words"?) [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:10, 10 January 2009 (EST)

As per "radar", I suggest "sonar" and "laser" (also acronyms, from similar domain), and "radio".

: (edit conflict) Words that express more precisely a conservative concept, or criticize more effectively a liberal characteristic. I'm going to insert Mike Salter's suggestions above, for example, and feel free to add your own.

: The distribution of the words as a function of time (and perhaps what was happening at the time) will become illuminating.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: P.S. I don't see sonar, laser and radio as adding any conservative insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: Understood. But "radar" does? [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:27, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::: Yes, because it was the first and it has broader use than your other example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:28, 10 January 2009 (EST)
::: I understand precedence going to the earliest word, but don't see how "radar" expresses more precisely a conservative concept, or criticizes more effectively a liberal characteristic. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:33, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Your point is well-taken, and I agree this is borderline. However, I would still say that "radar" is a conservative concept/insight that is used effectively to convey a powerful conservative idea. Let's see what others think before deleting it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Well, RADAR was created in Britain just before WW2 - indeed, it was one of the reasons why Britain defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. So I'm not really sure why it's on a list of American Conservative words when Britain is highly liberal by comparison to America. Also, I added one - 'self-determination'. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Frankly, I'm confused. I normally think of "radar" (in the non-scientific sense) as meaning perception. "In the public's radar" means "something the public notices." Is there a different conservative conception of the word? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 15:14, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The inclusion of "radar" is debatable, but essentially it is a powerful self-defense mechanism conceptually analogous to the [[Reagan]]'s concept of [[SDI]] and the [[Second Amendment]], which [[liberals]] loathed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:49, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Here's two:
*pro-life ([http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pro-life 1976], though I'd prefer a better citation since the quote they have underneath is very anti-conservative.)
*normalcy (1920 in the Conservative sense, although dated back to 1857 in a mathematical sense. In a rare glimmer of unbiased truth on a political subject, the WP article even states: ''"Furthermore, the concept apparently encapsulated what Americans wanted, since he was elected president over his Democratic opponent James Cox by the greatest margin since the popular vote was introduced."'')
-[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Fantastic suggestions, both of them. Very insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

"elitism" (1947) - Seems to be used much more widely with this last election campaign. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 15:26, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:Conversely, "populism" and "grassroots," which have formed an important basis of conservative politics since 1980 (earlier?) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:17, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: "grassroots" is a good suggestion, and I just added it. "populism" is not a term used particularly by conservatives; nor does it yield any conservative insight that I am aware of.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::Seriously? Populism is used continually to refer to Reagan, and more recently, George Bush and Sarah Palin, as they seek to speak for the "people" as opposed to "elites." Strikes me as deeply conservative. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:44, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: I don't doubt that liberals, the media, history books, and a diversity other people use the term. I doubt that any of the conservatives you mention, or any other conservatives, use the term much. It would be easy for you to prove me wrong, if I were wrong. I don't see anything conservative or insightful about the term. Majority rules? That's a mundane, almost meaningless concept at best. It begs the question of what the majority thinks at a particular time, which of course is very fickle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Pat Buchanan calls himself a populist (though it notes Goldwater and Reagan would not use the term). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v47/ai_17161967] Rove calls Bush a populist on taxation [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905EFD61130F930A15752C0A9659C8B63]. I suppose there are two different concepts of the word: first, the classical "majority rules" idea which was rejected by the founding fathers in favor of checks and balances, and second, the modern term, conservative "populism," which refers to deriving your power from the people and relying on widely and deeply held conservative Christian values (example would be Palin's emphasis on the "real America" and blue collar workers) as opposed to deriving your power from intellectuals and media magnates. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:21, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Phyllis Schlafly refers to the Goldwater ideology as populist, and she'd know! [http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1998/june98/98-06-10.html] [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:31, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The word ''populist'' has a far better tone than the word'' populism''. Similarly, the word ''fundamentalist'' has a far better tone than ''fundamentalism''. In political contexts, these are four completely different words. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:32, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The problem comes when liberals attempt to use the terms as smears, and we stop using them as a result. I for one am proud to call myself a fundamentalist, and I know many other who feel the same way. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:35, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::::: Me too. I take pride in saying I believe in fundamentalism. All would agree that ''-ism'' added to almost any word gives it a negative tone, yes? For example, "science + t + ism = scientism" and scientism always refers to a bad set of science-related ideas. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:42, 10 January 2009 (EST)
(Unindent) You have a point there. But now you have liberals calling muslim terrorists "fundamentalist muslims," to try to paint us with the same brush. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:54, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The cites above are interesting but inconclusive. RickD's point in distinguishing "populist" from "populism" is superb. None of the above cites refer to "populism" in a conservative or even favorable light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Some suggestions off the top of my head: Truth, Integrity those these are quite general I think they contrast well with the article on liberal deceit. [[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 21:16, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Pro-life==

Andy, do you have a cite for the earlier attestation of "pro-life" than the one I provided? I think it's great that you've found a date that predates [[Roe v. Wade]]. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:38, 10 January 2009 (EST)

==Atheism==
It's not an English word; it's Greek. The claim is hardly "Silly," ASchlafly. But given your other claims on the page, IE that "quote mining" A: is a word and B: Was never invented, I guess I can forgive you for thinking that. [[User:RaymondS|RaymondS]] 00:04, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Use of the Adjective "New" ==

Is "new" the right word to be using for terms that originated in the 1600's and 1700's? `I'm not saying they should be removed from the list, but referring to them as "new" implies that they were originated with the modern conservative movement. Maybe these should be referred to as ''Powerful'' or ''Significant'' conservative words, which makes their date of origin irrelevant. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Origins==
I used the Oxford English Dictionary to correct the years of origin for some conservative words--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 12:45, 11 January 2009 (EST)

: You made a mess of the entry. For example, the date you inserted for "conservative" is not for the political sense used here. Now I have to clean up your mess ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:13, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::Then you should have made it clear you wished this to done in the current political context.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 13:20, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:::Be courteous, please. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:22, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:: The atheism date may perhaps need changing too, in that case. In the 16th century it probably applied to matters in which there was no superficial need for God, or to people who had never been given a choice regarding the matter (for example, in the 16th century you could be burned for being a Protestant/Catholic or for witchcraft; imagine what they would do to a modern atheist!). Today, however, the term has been changed to mean one who has apparently ''voluntarily'' rejected God. I hope this helps; I also added racism to the list of Liberal words earlier. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Spiritualism==
This may be a cultural/linguistic difference, but in the UK 'spiritualism' has a very specific meaning, of belief in communication with the dead. This was very popular in the early twentieth century, even Conan Doyle was a believer, but has since abated, though there are spiritualist 'churches' and mediums around. I would have said that 'spirituality' was the opposite of materialism, or 'religious feeling', 'religiosity', 'belief'. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)
:Not a cultural difference, but a plurality of definitions. Spirit-conjuring charlatans like to use the term, but in a philosophic context, ti's opposed to materialism. A similar opposite is "idealism," which also a number of unrelated non-philosophical definitions. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:17, 11 January 2009 (EST)
::I suggested dualism, which seems the best fit to me. Materialism can be phrased as the believe that everything boils down to matter, there is only one ontological world/realm and that's the realm of matter. I don't think there is an exact opposite of that (well, perhaps believing in no worlds at all, but that's just stupid), there are just alternatives like dualism and pluralism which believe in resp. two or more realms of existence and of these two dualism is the strongest held position.
::Another kind of opposite would be idealism, the belief that there is only one ontological realm and that's the realm of the mind, but even this one is more of an alternative than an opposition and not a strong position either.
::Anyways, asking for an opposite of materialism isn't very realistic, since it all depends on what you deem an opposite. What's the opposite of "one"? Is it zero, minus one, any number greater than one or "eno"? It all depends on the context, and in the context of ontological philosophy dualism is the strongest opposition to materialism. --[[User:TBrouwer|TBrouwer]] 18:43, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::: The opposite would be a sensible equivalent of anti-materialism, or immaterialism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:18, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Reversion ==

I had to revert many of Saxplayer's dates, and some minor edits were lost in the reversion. Feel free to reinstate if their quality is improved (e.g., spell "tyranny" correctly, or give a date of origin for "racism"). Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:33, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Conservapedia ==

Surely this must be one of the newest words that should earn a place! --[[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 23:09, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Definition / Categorisation ==

I'm reluctant to edit the page, as it may be reverted, but I have a suggestion for the opening. The term "conservative word" isn't defined, and could have many possible meanings, such as "a word coined by a conservative", or "a word for a conservative principle", or "a word commonly used by conservatives, but not by liberals or other groups". The list being produced includes examples of all these. Perhaps the page should therefore be split into accordingly different sections: "Words coined by conservatives to describe liberal principles", "Words which encapsulate conservative principles", "terms and concepts invented by conservatives", and so on.--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:53, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: No, I disagree. The meaning is obvious enough and splintering into different categories would obscure rather than enlighten. Your three suggested "different" meanings in fact lack any significant differences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:25, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: I concur with ASchlafly. As well as obscuring the information, if I were to go onto a page and see in the contents box "Words coined by conservatives to describe liberal principles" or "Words which encapsulate conservative principles", I would quickly go and find another page. They hardly grab one's interest. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:42, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== New word for 'liberal'? ==

Does anyone have any suggestions for a more descriptive word for 'liberal'? I find 'liberal' to be an unsatisfactory description for liberals in the present day, since they tend to support large government and curbs on freedom. Perhaps an alternative word would better sum up the set of views that liberals hold?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:47, 3 February 2009 (EST)

==[[Fellow traveller]]==
Is this a conservative word? I think its from the early 1900s and originally described communist sympathizers who did not belong to a communist party. It also might be a good word for now to describe your "terrorist sympathizer" situation.

Other suggestions: design-by-committee and democide. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:53, 8 February 2009 (EST)

: All three are superb suggestions for this entry. Please add them with informative material, such as date of first use. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== New article -> New liberal words? ==

I believe we discussed this prior to the server move where we lost a weeks worth of edits. I remember creating a new article on [[New liberal words]], by removing that section from this article. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:24, 17 February 2009 (EST)

== Words? ==

Many of these are phrases not words. How long can a phrase get? Can Reagan's acceptance speech be listed as a new word? We need guidance on what a word is. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 10:41, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: What are you talking about? The vast majority ''are'' words. If you're genuinely so confused, then I doubt we can help you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:44, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:: "Terms" would probably be a more accurate description than "words". However I assume that most people will be able to work things out from the examples given. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 10:47, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:: "affirmative action" is two words, "Affirmative" and "Action", a full 43% of the listed "Words" are really phrases like this, not including the words with hyphens. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:38, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Humanism ==

Since Humanists and Big Bang were originally pejorative terms should they be under the conservative list? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:38, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: No, because they are liberal terms now. And I doubt their origin was conservative, either. Fred Hoyle was not a conservative. He was a liberal who rejected the theory of evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:27, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::Wasn't Hoyle ''ridiculing'' the idea of the [[Big Bang]]? I'll go take a look at the [[Fred Hoyle]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:30, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::: Yes, he was ridiculing it. But liberals adopted the term and made it popular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:: Evolution is a separate issue. they are only united by the fact that they both are in the standard naturalistic view of the origin of the universe. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:59, 22 February 2009 (EST)

== We should make a unifying convention or get rid of the divide ==

There are words that belong in both groups, that or we need a clear convention used through out. Communism is most often used by Conservatives, its a sore subject for liberals (you know, with the millions killed and mass poverty and all) and they rarely talk about it. I just want a better convention than "because Andy figures this way is best". --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:17, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== A new word? ==

Andy - "self determination"? It started around colonial times, so it could well be from the 1700's. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:45, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

: Date is 1670, and I'm sure it's all that conservative. Sometimes it is a euphemism for something harmful, like communism in Cuba. But thanks for the suggestion!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:12, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

:: You're very welcome - I made the suggestion because I felt that it is one of the reasons that America freed Iraq (a move opposed by liberals and supported by conservatives); so that the people there could hold fair elections, rather than suffer under Hussein's despotism. At the end of the day though, you probably know more than me on this subject, so I'll defer to your wisdom! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:19, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

::: You raise interesting issues, but I think Saddam Hussein was also "self-determination" by Iraqis, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

::::(Edit conflict) Oh, and what about "survival of the fittest" for a liberal word? I noticed you mentioned it in your lecture. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I think you're right about Saddam Hussein coming to power, but I also believe that towards the end of his reign many wanted him out, but were compelled to vote for him or else be punished (this is why I think the American system, with its two-term limit, is the best in the world). Mugabe is a good example of this; when he came to power, he was hailed as an African anti-oppression hero, and Zimbabwe was held up as an excellent example of post-colonialism. Now, however, his people want him out but are prevented from voting him out by the security forces (and when they did vote him out, it was declared illegal) and the world, including Africa, recognises him as a madman and a tyrant. In the meantime, the country is starving and in the grip of a cholera epidemic. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

"Natural selection" is a misleading euphemism, and the explanation discusses why. Also, it's improper to refer to creationists accepting a claim by evolutionists as though that somehow fully resolves the matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:32, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action is a conservative word? ==

Why is "affirmative action" considered a conservative word?

It was first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 (not 1965, as the essay states), and later "pushed" by LBJ.

Criticism of it is certainly a conservative concept, and it is now largely used critically by conservatives, but it hardly seems to qualify as a conservative "word" (or, more accurately, "term"). [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:08, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

: Good point and etymology. I'll move it to the "difficult to classify" section.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:26, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Politically correct ==

I can't help but notice that this term appears in both the 'New Conservative Terms' and 'New Liberal Terms' section (along with two different dates and explanations). Obviously, it can't be both! While it would appear that it was indeed coined by liberals to help their cause, I would say that its meaning has flipped and it now has negative, oppressive connotations. Perhaps the 'Hard to Classify' section? However, I leave it up the the judgement of an admin to sort this conundrum out. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Oh, and 'survival of the fittest' to go with natural selection for a liberal term? (Before I forget!) [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:15, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

: Fixed it per your suggestion, figuring that "politically correct" is used more by conservatives now. I don't think either side uses "survival of the fittest" and I think the euphemism "natural selection" covers that concept. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Can't say fairer than that. Thanks for the fix! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:56, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Some further suggestions for words ==

Constructionist (1835-1845): Clearly, a valuable term when discussing the original intent of the Founding Fathers; equally clearly, a conservative one.

Capitalism (1850-1855): Goes almost without saying.

Big Government (unable to find a date for this one)

Right to Life (1970-1975): Pro-life is already on the list, but I think this is an important term, too, since it emphasizes that life is an essential right.

Moral Sense (1690-1700): Originally coined by Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:51, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Virtual Thesaurus has an interesting essay,
[http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/1786/ A Brief Glossary of Recession-Speak] which may contain words appropriate for this article. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:31, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

==Constant==
This word was in use a long time before 1832. It appears in the King James Bible, for example. [[User:Pepperlynn|Pepperlynn]] 23:12, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
:Also, what, exactly, makes "constant" a "Conservative Word"? I don't see it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 00:12, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
:Oh, and a reference for Pepperlynn: 1 Chronicles 28:7. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 00:16, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

:: My dictionary says the noun form (something unchanging in value) originated in 1832. That's surprising, but it is what it is. That's what makes this an educational project.

:: I agree it's debatable how conservative this term is, but the notion of unchanging values seems conservative to me. You don't think so?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:18, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
:::The ideological attraction to unchanging values is conservative, but there is n conservative claim on the concept of constancy. Yours in Christ,--[[User:JWeatherman|JWeatherman]] 22:46, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

== Questions ==

This is unlikely to be a popular view, and I can guess the sort of comments that might very well be sent my way as a result of this, but I believe that this article is deeply flawed and is setting a dangerous precedent in the context of political discussion here.

The second paragraph begins by stating that conservatism will inevitably triumph over liberalism. Conservatism and liberalism as political groupings only exist relative to each other. If every single person were tol hold conservative or liberal views then they would not be named as such. It glosses over the dynamic nature of these terms themselves. 'Liberals' or 'Conservatives' today do not believe the same things they did 10 years ago let alone 100. The words mean different things and I think it is naive to assume that their current connotations will remain consistent. Not only are the words themselves dynamic in their meaning but I cannot possibly see how any aspect of human history would lead to the conclusion that one set of political beliefs will 'triumph' over another, at least for more than a few decades. History has been shaped by conflicting ideologies and it seems completely against human nature to imagine that the future will be any different in this sense.

Although me calling this a 'dangerous precedent' is rather melodramatic I'll admit, I just think that it is rather odd to be claiming aspects of the English language as being inherently 'liberal' or 'conservative', although there are a very few obvious words linked clearly with one or the other, most on this list are simply normal words that have been 'claimed'. The whole process of selecting words is highly subjective, and to measure the 'dominance' of one ideology over the other by such a means seems a very strange way to go about it. Though there are a few words that can clearly be directly linked with conservatism or liberalism, this article has, in my opinion, taken it to the extreme. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 21:14, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

: Robert, I don't know why you expect such a backlash, or why your comment is so long-winded. I agree that a few of the words on the list are debatable, but the vast majority plainly are conservative or liberal in nature. And a comparison of the two lists is enlightening: the conservative words are more insightful, helpful, and durable. That speaks volumes about where we're headed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:19, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::I'm sorry if my initial comment seemed somewhat ill-mannered, but all too often such discussions can result in the term liberal being thrown around as an insult rather than sticking to the issue, though I'm glad to see that I have been proven wrong thus far. And sorry if my posts are rather long-winded, that's just how I write I'm afraid. I still think that the way conservatism and liberalism are defined differently across the world and throughout history makes the compiling of any such list a futile task. Making claims as to how insightful or helpful a word is, is of course highly subjective. A self-styled liberal would probably say the exact opposite to yourself on the matter which means the debate never really gets anywhere. And I think the question of 'where we're headed' is far to complex to be answered using a few highly subjective words as a guide. Your country has just gone from a relatively conservative to a relatively liberal administration, and my own country looks quite likely to go back to conservative leadership after 12 years of labour. If there is one thing that history has taught us, i think it's that nothing remains constant for long. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 22:45, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::: That's your view, but the evidence is that the United States is growing more conservative just as the English language is. This entry shows that the creation of insightful new conservatives words is greater in quality and frequency than that of new liberal words. Over time, culture and politics must inexorably follow the lead of language. That doesn't mean a liberal politician won't use smoke-and-mirrors to be elected occasionally against the grain, but the flow dictated by language cannot be reversed. Ah, perhaps I've stumbled onto another new term: "smoke and mirrors"!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: Actually, Andy, I believe language turns more liberal over time. I agree with you regarding the new words, but like all languages, English does evolve. To describe the language as "conservative" would really require the number of words in it to be reducing, perhaps to something like 1984's Newspeak! Why do we have multiple words for the similar concepts? Plus, look at our syntax - it's nothing like the English of Shakespeare's time. [[User:Andyt|Andyt]] 17:25, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: English adds new words. If you call that evolution, so be it. Others call it growth.

::::: You're welcome to disagree with the direction of English's growth, but the evidence in this entry is overwhelming that English is becoming more conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Besides my main point, I would also counter by suggesting that it is language that follows the lead of culture, not the other way around. The language is of course part of the culture, but new words are only likely to come into existence when they have something to describe in the first place. It is cultural shifts that lead to the coining of new words and phrases and some become so well established that they enter the common vocabulary. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:29, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

== Big bang ==

You quite sure about that being used to mock the suggestion of how the universe was formed? I was under the impression that it was a scientific theory proposed by a few physicists, not a liberal word used to mock creationism. --[[User:Jack456|Jack456]] 17:40, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

==New word==
I've thought of a word to describe people who live in this (or any) country and ''take advantage of it'', but spend all or most of their effort ''criticizing or demeaning'' it: misopatria (hatred of one's country), or misopatrist (one who hates his country). What do you think? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:00, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

:I like it a lot! I think I'll continue to use "traitor", though, at least for now. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:10, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
::No thanks. Traitor is much more simple. --[[User:Jack456|Jack456]] 18:13, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Thanks BHarlan! Yes parodist Jack, we strive for simple words (hey, sounds like something called ''newspeak!'' [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:05, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

"Traitor" means something slightly different from what Addison suggests. Addison, how about adding your suggestion to the table in the entry that seeks a word for the concept? You're right that it describes millions of malcontents.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

== Electricity ==

Electricity was a word created by William Gilbert 1646, and was researched by many great scientists, such as Robert Boyle, [[Benjamin Franklin]] and [[Thomas Edison]]. I suggest it as a conservative word because it has allowed many great technological innovations through the ages, but is untainted by association with theories that carry a political agenda.

:Interesting suggestion, but I don't see enough [[conservative]] insight in the largely neutral "electricity" term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
::I see your point, though electricity is currently opposed by many 'green' liberals who try to interfere with electricity production (see [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7447371.stm here]).

==Relativism==
Are you sure that relativism is a conservative term? More often, the term is preached against by conservatives. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 15:45, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

: It's a word created to criticize. The "-ism" ending is tell-tale sign of being pejorative. Examples of "isms" created or used by liberals to criticize are "isolationism" and "protectionism" and "creationism".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

== Morally bankrupt ==

Thanks, Jpatt, for the insight!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
 Pat Tillman was morally bankrupt?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 12:49, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

KimSell — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:49:19 GMT

KimSell: /* Morally bankrupt */

Pretty Soldier Sailor Moon

KimSell — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:36:02 GMT

KimSell:

[[Image:SailorSenshi.png|thumb|right|250px|The characters of Sailor Moon]]
The '''Sailor Moon''' series of ''[[anime]]'' is aimed at Japanese schoolgirls, and (with some mild censorship) it has made its way to America as well. A 14-year-old girl is given special powers by a magic cat and told to become a "pretty soldier".

:"Usagi wants nothing more than to hang out at the video arcade with her friends and flirt with cute guys, like any young girl would. Yet now, she now has this familiar nagging her to be a better fighter, telling her the fate of the world rests on her shoulders. She is being forced to grow up when she should be revelling in her childhood. What Japanese child, or any teenager for that matter, ''wouldn't'' relate to that?"<ref> [http://www.themanime.org/viewreview.php?id=405 THEM anime reviews]</ref>

:"Also enjoyable was the interpersonal relationships between the girls themselves and how they feel about their parents."<ref> [http://www.japanhero.com/tokusatsu%20reviews/pretty-guardian-sailor-moon.htm Pretty Guardian Sailor Moon Review] </ref>

The show's popularity amongst fans has resulted in a spin-off live action series, numerous Sailor Moon-themed musicals and 20 albums.

==Critical evaluation==

The series has been praised for its original, supposedly Christian emphasis in a culture where less than 1% are Christian. But it has been criticized for the revealing costumes and glimpses of nudity,<ref> [http://christiananswers.net/spotlight/tv/2002/sailormoon.html Sailor Moon (TV Spotlight) - ChristianAnswers.Net]</ref> as well as for the homosexual relationship between two of the girl characters.<ref> "Sailor Moon doesn’t pull any punches. [[Homosexuality]] in particular was embraced and expressed ..." [http://www.denkyu.com/?p=331] </ref>

==Notes==
<references />

[[category:Anime]]

Talk:World History Lecture Seven

KimSell — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:31:46 GMT

KimSell:

== Old English ==

I like what you have to say about it, but I don't agree that it's as unrecognizable as (I think) you're trying to say.
:''Eft he axode, hu ðære ðeode nama wære þe hi of comon. Him wæs geandwyrd, þæt hi Angle genemnode wæron. Þa cwæð he, "Rihtlice hi :sind Angle gehatene, for ðan ðe hi engla wlite habbað, and swilcum gedafenað þæt hi on heofonum engla geferan beon."''

:''Some simple pronouns like "he" are recognizable, as are the Old English equivalents of verbs like "were".''

This is just my take on it, but if you even hazard a guess at OE pronunciation, and read the line aloud, there are several words (even nouns) that are recognizable! And there are the obvious ones, as you pointed out, like "him", "that", "for", "and".
*''Eft'': after
*''axode'': asked (the x>ks is called metathesis, and people still do it (improperly) in English today when they say "aksed")
*''engla'': angel
*''heofonum'': heaven (alright, there's a case ending, but it still looks like heaven!)

:: Great work! Go ahead and add a paragraph in the lecture with your observations, if you like. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:34, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Oh my gosh, thanks for that fast response! I hardly had time to finish reading about feudalism, which I found developed in France a couple of centuries before England. Since Middle English borrowed the word "tyranny" from French "tyrannie", is it possible that the concept may have existed in France/French before we grabbed the word in the 14th century? The same could be said I guess for numbers. I might not understand what you're trying to say, but Latin had plenty of numbers, so did German and others (Hebrew, Arabic?), and they were all around before English was even on the horizon! (My girlfriend is a linguistics major and talks about etymology ALL the time. It's a good thing I'm equally interested in it :)

:::: I don't see any contradictions with the lecture in what you say above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
:::: ''There would have been no concept of "tyranny" under feudalism before that time.'' My only point was just that maybe the concept of tyranny existed before the English word, in the French word "tyrannie", or Latin, or Greek (where it ultimately came from). But anymore I'm not trying to point out that anything's wrong, per se, just expanding.
::::I've never gotten a response from you before, it's nice to finally "meet" you! [[User:JParker|JParker]] 18:10, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::Hi JParker! [http://home.comcast.net/~modean52/new_to_old_english_t.htm This dictionary has "nýdgeweald" for "tyranny"]. Obviously the concept is older than that. On numbers, you may be interested by [http://www.zompist.com/numbers.shtml Numbers in over 5000 languages]. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 06:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Andrew, how are you defining ''somewhat primitive'' with regard to Old English? The sentence looks a bit like you're saying it's primitive because we can't understand it today; I'm sure this isn't what you mean. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 06:55, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

: Denise, in response to your comment and in explanation of alteration of some of your edits, we don't subscribe to the fallacious view that all languages are equal. See [[Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words]] for how English lacked terms for concepts and then developed them anew. Old English lacked those and many other terms, and had a vocabulary that was only a tiny fraction of the vocabulary of English today. That makes it primitive, despite how much liberals may pretend that is politically incorrect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Don't worry, I was only asking what your definition was as a matter of interest, I wasn't pushing any fallcious views :). I just think that you might usefully rewrite the sentence to uncouple the first half (that we can't understand it today) from the second half (it is primitive).
:: To check - are you saying that bigger lexicons (more lexemes?) are a sufficient or merely a necessary property of a language to make it less primitive than another language? [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 10:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Denise, discussion is not productive if you insist that all languages are equal. That point of view is a dead end and makes further inquiry pointless.

::: Big vocabularies are advantageous. Words that express powerful, important concepts (as in [[Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words]]) are advantageous. I realize that doesn't fit the politically correct dogma that all languages are somehow equivalent, but we're going to teach the truth here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:21, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: Did I ''say'' all languages were equal? [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 10:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: Denise, regardless of whether you admit it or not, your view that most or all languages are somehow equal is not conducive to productive inquiry. I teach the truth and do not waste time trying to cater to linguistic political correctness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Andrew, you are ascribing to me a view that I don't hold. I find it ''entirely plausible'' that one language may be more efficient or more expressive or easier to acquire (for instance, I'm told that Chinese is very difficult to learn as a non-native) or less ambiguous or whatever than another - and furthermore that these properties may be measured empirically! I just don't think (in the absence of evidence) that the number of lexemes (or inflected words) is likely to be good measure of most of these properties.
:::::: If you want to point me at a paper or book that describes what you mean, I'm happy to read it - there are, after all, a good number of conservative Christian universities in the US and elsewhere, many of these will have linguistics departments whose ideological credentials you presumably do not find objectionable - why not let me read up on what you mean? [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 14:13, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

==Genocide==

Sorry, are you actually teaching children that there were no genocides before the 20th Century? Really? The original inhabitants of Tasmania would be surprised to hear that. Or at least they would be if they had not all been killed in a Genocide. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 11:53, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:Kim, you have to be more substantive than that if you want to persuade anyone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Every single member of the population of Tasmania was killed. How would you describe that if not as a genocide?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 13:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::Unsourced is how I would describe it. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: Kim, you haven't even convinced me you understand what "genocide" means, and you provide no dates, details, links, etc. As I said, you're not going to persuade anyone that way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Very well, a few dates for you.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Victims
! Killers
! Dates
|-
| Aleuts
| Russians
| 1745-70
|-
| Beothuk Indians
| French, Micmaws
| 1497-1829
|-
| Caribbean Indians
| Spaniards
| 1492-1600
|-
| Bushmen, Hottentots
| Boers
| 1652-1795
|-
| Aboriginees
| Australians
| 1788-1928
|-
| Tasmanians
| Australians
| 1800-1876
|-
| Morioris
| Maoris
| 1835
|}

Also, an interesting quote, guess who said it.. "The immediate objectives are the total destruction and devestation of their settlements. It will be essential to ruin their crops in the ground and prevent their planting more"

One more: "This unfortunate race.. have justified extermination".

Sorry, but the idea that "[t]he systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group" is a 20th century phenomenom is frankly laughable. Sorry, but just because the word is new does not mean the practice is new. Just as the emergence of the word "six" into English does not mean that people could only count to five before that, so the fact that the word genocide did not exist says nothing about wether it happened. In fact, I am not even certain why someone would think that was the case. Would you agree that homeschooling did not occur before 1980?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 14:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

: I think that the phrase "war of extermination" or "extirpation" was used prior to the emergence of "genocide". [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 14:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

: Kim, I don't think you even understand what "genocide" is. It's not one side defeating the other in war. Also, please do yourself a favor and learn how to spell basic words like "phenomenon" and "whether".

: Give us your very best example of what you think was genocide before the 20th century, with details and your very best link describing it. I doubt you'll find a single one that fits the traditional meaning of the word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:06, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: I quoted what the word genocide means. It means "[t]he systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group" Each of the items in the list above meets that description. It is rather obvious though that you do not have an open mind on this issue. I will leave this discussion for others.--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:31, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Just to prevent this turning into a longer argument than necessary, shall we agree in advance to go by the Merriam-Webster definition "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" as the traditional meaning? [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 15:29, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:World History Lecture Seven

KimSell — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:24:55 GMT

KimSell:

Talk:World History Lecture Seven

KimSell — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:11:28 GMT

KimSell:

Talk:World History Lecture Seven

KimSell — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:07:56 GMT

KimSell: /* Genocide */

Talk:World History Lecture Seven

KimSell — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:07:33 GMT

KimSell:

Talk:World History Lecture Seven

KimSell — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:53:58 GMT

KimSell:

Liberal Bias in Popular Dictionaries

KimSell — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:11:51 GMT

KimSell:

Many world renowned dictionaries contain liberal or atheistic bias. In many popular dictionaries definitions of certain controversial terms contain liberal bias, mainly through excluding the fact that said term is disputed and only a theory.

* The Oxford English Dictionary defines evolution as "a process by which species develop from earlier appearance as an explanation of their origins", the definition contains no information stating this is only a theory and does not point to alternate theories which are just as or more viable.

* Conversly, the Oxford English Dictionary defines creationism as "the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, '''rather than by natural processes such as evolution'''." So when they define creationism, it is presented as a controversial theory with alternatives but when they define evolution there is no mention of creationism at all.

* The OED definition for the word "liberal" is given as "willing to respect and accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own." or "(in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate reform." It never once mentions school prayer or abortion.

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

KimSell — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:39:29 GMT

KimSell: /* Humor */

==Dark Ages==

I have to ask: does this really qualify as a "mystery?" Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: "No, the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't really so backwards." Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the "Dark Ages" in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term "Dark Ages" for precisely that reason.

Should it really be termed a "mystery" just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the "dark ages" with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::Perhaps a better question would be "Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)

==Humor==
Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]

::: You misunderstand what a Greek "comedy" was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by "humor"? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term "comedy" did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.

::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.
::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.
::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'.
::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.
::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.
::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.
::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.
::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.

::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by "humor" and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

KimSell — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:02:27 GMT

KimSell:

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

KimSell — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 13:59:55 GMT

KimSell:

Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

KimSell — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:35:04 GMT

KimSell:

Here are some mysteries or unresolved issues about World History:

#In what language did Adam speak with God, and Eve?
#What is the history of marriage?
#How did the Egyptians build the pyramids?
#Did (pre-Abraham) Hebrews in Egypt participate in building the pyramids?
#How did people construct the ziggurats?
#How did the level of literacy in Ancient Greece compare with the United States now?
#In what language did Jesus preach?
#Why did Islam grow so rapidly?
#Who was right, the Catholics or the Protestants?
#Is modern Israel a fulfillment of biblical prophecy?
#Is democracy compatible with Islam?
#Did people have a higher intelligence (IQ) in ancient times than today?
#Why was there the fall and decline of the Roman Empire?

== See also ==
* [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History]]

[[Category:Essays]]

The Daily Show

KimSell — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 12:34:37 GMT

KimSell:

'''''The Daily Show''''' is a [[satire|satirical]] program that airs on Comedy Central. It is known for catering to an audience of [[public school]] teenagers{{fact}}, more than 60% of whom watch television more than three hours a day.<ref>http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/memphis-youth-make-progress-on-risky-behavior/ (study of Memphis students)</ref> In fact, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly characterized the Daily Show's audience as "stoned slackers". Yet a Nielsen Media Research study showed that "viewers of Jon Stewart's show are more likely to have completed four years of college than people who watch "The O'Reilly Factor". <ref>ctv.ca, 'The Daily Show' fires back at Bill O'Reilly, Mon. Sep. 27 2004 [http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1096335704230_106]</ref> In addition, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey, "Daily Show" viewers know more about election issues than people who regularly read newspapers or watch television news, "even when education, party identification, following politics, watching cable news, receiving campaign information online, age and gender are taken into consideration."<ref>CNN.com, 'Daily Show' viewers ace political quiz, Survey reveals late-night TV viewers better informed, by Bryan Long, September 29, 2004 [http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/28/comedy.politics/]</ref> [[Liberal]]s have recognized the [[leftist]] slant of the show by giving it a [[Peabody Awards|Peabody Award]] and nine [[Emmy|Emmys]].<ref>IMDb - Awards for The Daily Show [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115147/awards]</ref>

== Early Years ==

The show was originally hosted by [[Craig Kilborn]], but in 1998 [[Jon Stewart]] replaced Kilborn.

== Jon Stewart on ''The Daily Show'' ==

Jon Stewart is currently the host of Comedy Central's ''The Daily Show''. He often satirizes the [[George W. Bush|President]], the war in [[Iraq War|Iraq]], [[United States Congress|Congress]], and [[United States]] foreign policy.<ref>http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060711_jon_stewart_bush_diplomacy/</ref> Like other network news channels, Stewart often shows video clips, sound bites, and news stories in which [[politicians]] look silly, often contradicting themselves, or showing [[Senate]] speeches that seem ridiculous.

== Correspondents ==

The comedians can be seen as showing a [[liberal bias]] while performing their "news stories". The segments are usually aimed at poking fun at and satirizing the political parties in power. Thus, Stewart began by [[mockery|mocking]] of [[Republicans]], but now makes fun of [[Democrats]], as well as other topics in the news. Some argue that he demeans [[conservative]] positions, such as gun rights and the [[pro-life]] movement, or [[Christianity]].<ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/browseresults.jhtml?showId=934</ref> One segment in particular, "This Week In God", satirizes [[religious]] values, and [[God]].<ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72342</ref> <ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72182</ref> During the episode aired June 27, 2007, [[Lewis Black]] compared Conservapedia's "[[Homosexuality]]" article to [[Wikipedia]]'s, sarcastically describing it as "way more interesting," mainly because Conservapedia's article described it far more graphically. In their coverage of the [[United States Presidential Election, 2008|2008 U.S. presidential election]], most of the guests have been liberal, such as former president [[Bill Clinton]], wife of [[Barack Obama]] [[Michelle Obama]] and former British PM [[Tony Blair]].

The show's most featured guest on the show remains Senator [[John McCain]], though they had only entertained him as a guest back when he had a more liberal agenda and have been avoiding him since his presidential bid in 2008.

== References ==

<references/>

==External Links==

[http://www.thedailyshow.com The official ''The Daily Show with Jon Stewart'' website]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Daily Show, The}}

[[category:Television Shows]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

KimSell — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:46:35 GMT

KimSell:

{{Controversial}}
Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
[[/archive4|4]]
[[/archive5|5]]
[[/archive6|6]]

==New proof that Obama is not a Muslim==
Recently on his vacation in Hawaii, Obama ate Spam Musubi, also known as spam sushi http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/22/spam-musubi-obamas-hawaii_n_152854.html. It is against Muslim law to eat pork. This, with his smoking, drinking beer, and having Rick Warren praying at his inauguration, I think this should really be edited out.

: Spam can be prepared in many different varieties, and its use of pork is neither widely known nor guaranteed. Your comments about the other activities are way off base; smoking in Syria, for example, is nearly 50% among males [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iuatld/ijtld/2002/00000006/00000003/art00002?crawler=true] and I don't think beer is absolutely prohibited under Islam. Nor should you read so much significance into inviting a Christian speaker to give an invocation; such invitations are common at official events.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 17:44, 22 December 2008 (EST)

::SPAM® Classic is made of just a few simple ingredients. Ham, pork, sugar, salt, water, a little potato starch, and a mere
hint of sodium nitrite to help SPAM® keep its color. Sounds delicious, and it is.04:46, 23 December 2008 (EST)
==Thou shall not bear false witness==
I am a Conservative and proud of it, but there are many parts of this article which are unsavory in character, the falsies in just the introduction deeply sicken me, the thought that our next president was not born in this country is not something I wish to have posted on this website. Barack Obama is a perfectly good person and he will not destroy the country, please, I think this needs to be revised, because for a site that has a very long article about bias and deceit this seems to be teeming with those two things, whether from the left or the right,negative or positive, deceit is deceit. I would also like to say, the accusations of those who write this and those who enable the writing of this are no better than any liberals on wikipedia, come on, we have to set an example, we shouldn't stoop to their level. I am a Christian and we must remember "Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness" and that is what I see in this article, we must be Christians and set a Christian example.--[[user:Rpond|Rpond]]

== Jesusland at it's worst ==
Every source on here is either extremly questionable or completly false. The writer gets aroundfact checks by using MAY and MIGHT to desplay the fact there is a chance Obama can save his mortal soul before he dies and goes to hell for being a muslim. He is a good christian, and while that is not my religion, I respect him greatly. {{unsigned|RCEN}}--20:30, 30 November 2008

== Lenin Poster ==

The statement about the Lenin-like poster is informative. We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:Andy, did you happen to take a look at the reference? The article claims that "Obama also ''revealed'' his ''deep Marxist/Leninist roots''" and that "clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was ''obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint'' to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs" (emphasis mine). The citation, which was a blog, by the way, and not in any way a trustworthy source of informative information, gives no evidence to back up these statements. It shows a poster of Lenin and a poster of Obama, both of which show profiles of the figures. Assuming these pictures weren't entirely made up, do you really think that this slight similarity is Obama's way of confessing closet Marxism? Not to mention the fact that Obama likely didn't make the posters anyway -- maybe we should accuse his (very expensive!!) marketing designer of being a Marxist/Leninist. 15:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama and beer ==

There are several stories (with photos) of Obama drinking beer, which as an intoxicant is banned by Muslim sharia. <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/05/06/20/125-6web-Obama_Beer-minor.standalone.prod_affiliate.91.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/36055.html&h=325&w=485&sz=47&hl=en&start=28&um=1&usg=__ShpWdieNIwhr4Rp3jHtLe7U9MB8=&tbnid=Se90xFLBo6rNQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bdrinks%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN </ref> <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156_t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156.html&h=332&w=400&sz=16&hl=en&start=15&um=1&usg=__Yubc0nmus36Cf4Rrf7BL7-33-0g=&tbnid=xuWGKQ1Sl8_bQM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbeer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG</ref> No rational person can say that a practicing Muslim wouldn't violate the law in such a blatant, repeated manner. Another strike against the goofy Muslim charge. And remember, we don't censor here. Godspeed. [[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 12:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: I think many American Muslims drink beer. Nice try, though.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 11 November 2008 (EST)

::And how many "dangerous" American Muslims are there that have loose enough morals to blatantly disrespect their own religious law, but are still a threat to Americans? (Of course this is all granted that he IS a secret Muslim, which I have given up trying to discuss) So I see nothing wrong if Obama turns out to be a secret Muslim. Nice try, though. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:54, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::He also smokes cigarettes, to complete his subterfuge. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:42, 11 November 2008 (EST)

There are no rules against muslims smoking anyway. A muslim drinking beer is like a christian defacing a bible. If you're a muslim you don't drink alcohol... its simple

== Hussein reference ==

It's factual and it's informative. If there is reasoned basis for deleting it, let's see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: Again, no reason has been given for deleting the Hussein reference, and there is none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:: Andy, this is false. Reasons have been given on this talk page numerous times before. I just had a quick look, and found reasons being given in all archives except the first, as well as other places on this talk page. So you are wrong to say that no reason has been given, and wrong to say that there is no reason. And, as I have pointed out in the edit comments, five senior administrators have said that they disagree with it being there. Is your view on this somehow superior to those five put together? Do you want this to be a collaborative encyclopaedia or your blog? The former demands that you not impose your opinion regardless of who is disagreeing. Imposing your opinion regardless suggests that this is your blog. I know you don't consider it to be the latter, but that's the way it's looking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::Not a blog but an encylopedia. If it were a blog, your opinion would carry as much weight as anyone else's. Let's put this one in [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: If it were a blog, the blog owner's opinion would carry the most weight. Almost all blogs are the opinions of an ''individual'', not a group of people. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Philip, the truth is not dependent on consensus, and 5 out of several dozen is not a consensus anyway. Give your best reason for deleting this information here. Since the beginning we have had a policy not to delete factual, informative material, particularly when it is liberal ideology that motivates the demand for censorship of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I said five of the ''senior'' administrators, which numbers about eleven. So that's five out of eleven, not dozens. Further, that's five against and one (yourself) for, as the remainder have not offered an opinion that I'm aware of. (One perhaps did support you, but because they wanted to support you, not because they considered it a valid argument.)
:::: My reason is relevance, not (primarily) accuracy. I'm not disputing that his middle name is Hussein. The claim that "most Christians would not retain" their (former/Muslim/Arabic?; it's not clear) name is not supported by the references, and even if it is true, means little in individual cases. That is, even if 99% changed their name, Obama not changing his name might mean no more than him being in the other 1%.
:::: And this is just one of the points in that section. The entire argument that Obama is a Muslim is built on very circumstantial evidence, selective evidence, and logical fallacy, and is rejected by other conservatives.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Philip, it obviously is relevant, which you say is your primary objection. We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that. We provide the information and let the reader decide. If some readers want to conclude that someone with a Muslim name is actually a Christian, even though less than 1% of those raised as Muslims convert, so be it. We're not going to censor this factual information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: "''...it obviously is relevant...''": Because ''you'' say so? If it was so "obvious", then you wouldn't have five senior administrators disagreeing with you. No, it's not obviously relevant at all, and you've not demonstrated the relevance.
::::::: "''We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that.''": Given that I and the other senior administrators are not "liberals", and the rejection is based on relevance, not "dislike", why are you introducing red herrings like this? Has your argument got no more substance than irrelevancies like that?
::::::: "'' We provide the information and let the reader decide.''": Only if it's relevant. Otherwise we are just introducing padding for readers to wade through and discourage them getting to the relevant stuff.
::::::: "''We're not going to censor this factual information.''": It is not censorship to remove irrelevant information, and I'd appreciate you not implying that I'm trying to censor anything.
::::::: In summary, you have failed to produce any reasons substance as to why it should be retained.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Exactly. The point of Conservapedia is ''not'' to censor information, but to leave it to our readers to decide. The MSM has tried to push this under the rug, so the least we can do is offer these arguments to the intelligent public. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: The problem is that these points are fallacious and lead to a conclusion based on specious arguments. That is neither "trustworthy" nor encyclopedic. Obama may not be your brand of xian, but he's certianly no brand of muslim. Your inability to accept that this is incorrect despite repeated arguments wherein you have shown nothing but fallacious arguments drawing poor conclusions hurts the credibility of all Conservapedia. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 11:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Did anyone notice how ASchlafly posited the question at or near closing time Tuesday night and declared that he recieved no answer at or near opening time on Wednesday? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Keep the reference, but 2 examples of people having changed their names for religious reasons does not mean "most" people would change their names as stated in the article. A good reference on this topic would list a percentage (presumably greater than 50%) of people who have switched religions also changing their names.
::I am sure we could come up with a very long list, but this article would not be the place for it. A sample of a couple of names to illustrate the point being made is surely adequate for all except those who wish to undermine the accuracy of the piece. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Based on the idea that a "[[Muslim]]" is someone who is "[[submission|submissive]]" to the will of God, I would say that many Christians and Jews can therefore (loosely) be described as Muslim. Why do you make it sound like being Muslim is a bad thing?

Don't play on fears that all Muslims are terrorists; that is illogical, even if it is true that most recent anti-Western terrorists are part of the [[Islamic civilization]].

I object to anyone trying to impose a single view on matters of controversy. It would be wrong, Philip, to insist that "it is not true that Obama is a Muslim". I helped to champion Wikipedia's NPOV policy (until liberals decided to abandon it), and it would be a good idea to try it out here - instead of making bad-tempered personal attacks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:"''Why do you make it sound like being Muslim is a bad thing?'': It's nonsense to suggest that that is ''all'' "being a Muslim" entails.
:"''It would be wrong, Philip, to insist that "it is not true that Obama is a Muslim".''": Ignoring for the moment that I'm not actually making that claim, why would it be wrong to insist that, ''if it '''is''' wrong''?
: Now back to the point that I'm not actually making that claim. Has it escaped your attention that it is Andy, not me, that is making the absolutist claim? Until your last edit to the article, it said unequivocally that "Obama is a Muslim". It is ''me'' who has being trying to remove that claim, and ''Andy'' who has been insisting on it. So why are you directing your comments at ''me''? I am ''not'' claiming that "Obama is not a Muslim". Rather, I'm claiming that there's no good evidence that he is a Muslim, and a fair bit of evidence that he is not, so therefore the article should not claim that he is. You seem to agree, having (at least twice, I think) changed the article to remove that absolute statement, yet you are directing you criticisms at me, rather than the person insisting that a particular view ''is'' true. Why the double standard?
: "''...instead of making bad-tempered personal attacks.''": Along the same line, how about you direct your comments to the person/people calling me names ("liberal") and repeatedly side-stepping the argument with irrelevancies instead of (or even as well as, if you prefer) criticising me who is being repeatedly ignored, misrepresented, and called names?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::Philip, I never made an "absolutist" claim in the entry that "Obama is a Muslim." There is compelling factual evidence that Obama is a Muslim. But your deletions (censorship) were of factual evidence, not of an absolutist claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::: Andy, until Ed Poor edited it very recently, the article said "Obama is a Muslim", without any qualification. At least some of the "compelling factual evidence" listed in the article is false, not compelling, and/or logically invalid, particularly the ones that I have been removing. Andy why do you keep calling my deletions "censorship" when I have repeatedly denied that they are and explained why they are not, and you've not justified how they are? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, you've repeated your same claim again and again, yet I see no evidence of it. I don't think the entry ever said that "Obama is a Muslim" without qualification. If it did, then you could easily quote it. You haven't.

:::: Your insistence on deleting facts from the entry, such as Obama's non-American pronunciation of "Pakistan", can properly be described as censorship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:37, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Why don't we let each reader decide for himself how believable each source is? I'd hate to see a claim deleted simply because one party in a dispute doubts it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:58, 27 November 2008 (EST)

==Debate On Obama's Religion==

The debate is continuing at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?‎]] It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Reference ==

<references/>

Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action? Untrue. ==

I am no fan of Obama. I do plan on respectfully opposing him via various channels on the internet. However, I believe I should state my opposition to this sentence of the article: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action."

I have not read the rest of the article because I believed months ago and for good reasons that Obama was going to win this election. For example, the unpopular war and poor economy that was partly caused by a guns and lots of butter spending strategy (Bush should have learned from LBJ committing us to a war and the Great Society programs at the same time). I also thought that it would have been easy for the Republicans to win 12 years in a row given the low quality of the Democratic party. I think the Republicans snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. I also think Americans have too much debt (last time I heard the average American had lots of credit card debt). One of the reasons for the great depression is that American's had too much debt at the time. I think Bush's call for Americans to do to do more shopping mall spending was a joke. If anything, Americans need to increase their skills to be more productive (The libraries are open but you might have to watch less TV. Last time I checked the average American watches 3 hours of television a day) and work harder to pay off their debt. American's are going to get out of the hole by increasing their productivity. It seems as if Bush did not want to learn from economic history and was only looking out for short term fixes. Well sooner or later, common sense says you have to pay the piper.

Getting back to Obama, obviously, Obama's marital success in terms of not getting divorced compared to Ronald Reagan is not the result of affirmative action. I am sure I could come up with others. I have not read the article for the most part because this sentence turned me off to the whole article. Judging from the ""He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action." sentence, I believe a lot of time is probably being spent to defend an article rather than improve it where obvious improvements could be made. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)

: Staying married is laudable but in this context it would not be considered a "clear personal achievement." If you would like to add a footnote exception to the remark along the lines of, "he has been married for x years," I'm not opposed but I would expect that to caveat to seem off-topic, or even sarcastic, for most readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::One CP writer told me he equates divorce with adultery, and he accused Reagan of adultery on this basis. Is this the consensus view of Conservatives? Or just his own idea? Or what?

::We ought to be clear on the standards by which we judge public figures. And consistent, too. I mean, which is worse, committing actual adultery (JFK, Clinton) or getting divorced and then remarrying? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Biblically, divorce is not adultery. However, divorce is wrong unless the spouse has been unfaithful. Remarriage after a legitimate divorce is okay. The question is whether remarriage after a wrong divorce is okay. Many believe, I think that although the act of divorce may be wrong, that is a forgivable sin like any other sin, and remarriage is not a further sin. And I'd tend to agree that committing "actual" adultery is worse than divorce and remarriage. However, the point that Conservative was raising was not between those two cases, but between divorce and remarriage compared to marriage without divorce.
::: I'm not convinced that Obama's marriage does not constitute a "clear personal achievement". Given the divorce rate these days, especially among prominent people, I would think that it ''was'' a clear personal achievement. In fact I'd consider staying marriage a "clear personal achievement" for anybody these days, given all the pressures on marriage, including the peer pressure that divorce is okay.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::I rarely disagree with you, Philip, as I find your comments to be some of the more considered on this board, but here I would have to disagree. Jesus makes it quite clear that divorce *is* adultery, not *like* adultery. More then any other text, especially OT text, I take Jesus's words to heart. Mark 10
::::2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
::::3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
::::4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
::::5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
::::6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'
::::7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
::::8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
::::9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
::::10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
::::11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
::::12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 09:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I didn't say that divorce is "like" adultery. I said that it's ''not'' adultery. And the evidence you've offered to refute that doesn't refute that. The Bible says that someone who divorces ''and remarries'' commits adultery, not that someone who ''divorces'' commits adultery. You can't have adultery without sexual intercourse, which would be taken as given with someone remarrying, but not a given with someone just divorcing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama spiruality interview ==
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html a interview from a pretty religous website about Obama. Should it be mentioned? Or since it kinda contradicts abit of the article should it be ommitted? --[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:What one might say in an interview really means very little, Vmember, particularly if one is seeking to achieve a position by hiding one's essential nature or beliefs. So really what he says when seeking to impress is irrelevant. It is what he does and has done, and what he says in unguarded moments, that matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:16, 12 November 2008 (EST)
*um then shouldn't it atleast be mentioned somewhere in the article about this interview maybe as a response to questions about his faith section? And why is him maybe being a muslim all the way at the top of the article? Shouldn't be be somewhere towards the middle? I've never seen in all my time part of a article pushed into the intro section. Also the article contradicts itself by stating that Obama is most likely a muslim while at the same time pointing at that he was a member of a radical Christian church. That doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways.--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::You can if you're a sleeper for radical Islam. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)
**Wait you seriously think that? Hmm fringe ideas and theories on any subject is detrimental to a discussion let alone a encyclopedia. It's dangerous thinking like that is why us conservatives lost the election and alienated so many moderates and weak liberals. Would there be any objection if I were to move the muslim part to the middle and add a section with his response to questions of his faith?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)
***Does this look better? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Help:Practice_Page&oldid=555527 Hmm I kinda think instead of giving facts supporting the theory Obama is a muslim editors are trying to push it off as straight fact even though theres been evidence against it. Isn't that a tactic only liberals use and a form of deceit?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Poster ==

Don't delete the insight about the poster. I learned from the insight, and I'm sure others have also. We don't censor here. We let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:I already explained (above) why the "insight" is not actually an insight, is not supported by the source, and is likely false. Believe me, I would love it if Obama really did intentionally model his posters after those of Lenin in a subliminal message to Europeans, but there's simply no evidence of that.

:You reverted both of my edits. Do you have problems with both of them, or just the first one? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:42, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:: Sorry, I just have a problem with the deletion of the poster edit. Your other edit looked fine, but it came right after the controversial one and there was no easy way to separate the too.

:: The similarities between Obama's poster and the famous Lenin image is too obvious for words. We don't need a citation for observing, for example, that 2+2=4. If a reader wants to reject the obvious similarity between the images, then the reader is welcome to do so. Censorship is not a preferred approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::I'm not denying that they are similar, I'm denying that their similarity "[reveals] his deep Marxist/Leninist roots" and "was obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and belief". Can I change the text to reflect that, while the two posters are similar, there's no way to know that it's a confession? (I pointed out before that if anyone is imitating Lenin here, it's probably the over-priced poster designer). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I'm fine with rewording, as long as it doesn't inject liberal spin or make it look like Obama didn't approve it with the similarity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I'll try my best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Your revised wording is great. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Is anyone else put off by the fact that the Germans really hated Lennin? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Fun poster [http://img.skitch.com/20080723-pbt7dkk5ksgbystrri5px6s9fr.jpg] --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST) The imagery is more common that you might expect. Nothing new under the sun as they say --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted==

Mr Schlafly this page is absolutely disgusting. I am totally against Obama as you know, this is the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen. We should leave this page as information about him as a individual, not about why we hate him and you should too. 90% of the page is opinion, and is totally innapropriate. I suggest making it into two pages. One about Obama with just simple facts about him and his backround, and you can make another about everything we hate about him. Pages like this are why we are losing our trustworthyness.
Thanks, --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

:Here here. At times I find this article amusing as an ironic hate piece, but at best it degrades this site and conservatives in general. Liberal or conservative, poor logic is poor logic. Because Obama and Lenin each had monochromatic posters featuring a pose directed toward the right it is evidence of Marxist intentions. Because Obama said the words "my muslim faith", irregardless of any context, it used as evidence of being a muslim. I don't even know what to say about the mind control thing, it's really amazing to me because as a religious person it reminds of the feelings I had when I discovered the truth of Jesus Christ: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany" [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 19:31, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted Conservative too==

I did not vote for Senator Obama for political reasons, but I believe he is a good man; this article is simple character assassination; you do not go into his views and show how those are disagreeable (his views on abortion, and his want to make a hasty withdrawal from Iraq) and instead you simply accuse him of being a Muslim, and anti-American etc. also a blog is not a credible source; a blog is someone's opinion. Anyway the accusations levied upon him are for the most part completely inaccurate. He was born in The United States, he wrote his autobiography, he is not a Muslim, he is not anti-American. Please keep the disagreements political.--[[user:Rpond|Rpond]]

I don't know who wrote this, but it shouldn't have been deleted. --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

: The odds are less than 1% that "Rpond's" posting is genuine, in light of his misspelling of "conservative" and his other rants. It is appropriate to delete insincere or deceptive postings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:: It is an interesting experience living life each day getting verbally attacked for being a conservative then coming here and getting persecuted (justified edits to factual and encyclopedic wording) for being a liberal. You seem to be very fond of the less than 1% statistic, and have used it many times in many places, but I've never seen any solid reasoning or studies behind it (although in this case your gut instinct does seem to be credited implicitly) I think perhaps you live in a highly conservative eco chamber and aren't getting out enough to notice how little resonance this sort of thing has out in the real world. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::: Way to show your liberal stripes, BrendanW. Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated here, so please keep it civil. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 19:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Would that be an ad hominem attack like calling someone a liberal? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:24, 13 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Are you insulted by being described as a "liberal"? Or are you angry that you're not fooling anyone?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Either Way its still an Ad Hominem. However I am a little "l" libertarian, and strict constitutionalist (excluding the racist portions that is) which makes me pleanty conservative, I'm also an objectivist in the Ayn Rand model, highly capitalistic and against socialism. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 09:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Liberal is not an ad hominem, it's a statement of your political views (whether accurate or not), which is completely valid to make in a political arena such as this. Calling someone sarcastic, or making sarcastic remarks about how they live is certainly ad hominem. My two cents--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:27, 19 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: "Liberal" ''is'' an ''ad hominem'', for two reasons:
::::::::* "''ad hominem''" refers to an argument about the ''person'' rather than about the ''issue''. So even if it is accurate and descriptive, it's still about the ''person'' rather than the ''issue''.
::::::::* An '''''abusive''' ad hominem'' is when you say something ''nasty'' about the person. If "liberal" is an accurate description, or even if it's not but it's said in the reasonable belief that it is, then it's not an '''''abusive''' ad hominem''. But when it's said without any grounds other than disagreeing with a single point of view, then I'd classify as abusive.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==Cool it==

I've protected this page; only admins can edit it for the moment. Many of us have strong feelings, and we have used this page to express them.

But I would hope that we all confine our comments here to specific suggestions on how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:45, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Did you read that reference? ==

The claim is that OBama might be a Muslim and that he might swear in on a koran. The reference -ref- Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]-/ref- is about how Obamma is not a Muslim and did not use the Koran to be sworn in as a senator. I simply do not see how it belongs. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Welcome to Conservapedia. Truth is relative to Andy. -[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

It might be more accurate to say the truth is nothing to Andy if it gets in the way of political attacks. If Andy actually knew anything whatsoever about being a Christian, he would know not to bear false witness.-[[User:CBrown|CBrown]] December 6 2008 (EST)

== Code name ==

The article plainly says that Obama did have a role in picking it. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:My article clearly says that the White House Communications Agency chose the name for him. Hence the original edit.
:I tried to find a source directly fromt he Secret Service or the White House Communications Agency, but neither of their search functions were working. I'll keep looking. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:06, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::"President-Elect Barack Obama – 'Renegade' – had a say in choosing the code name that his guards use when they are whispering into their microphones." From the article cited on our Main Page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:::''These not-so-secret names are chosen by officials at the White House Communications Agency, which was not inclined to comment on the selection process. In a previous news report, an agency spokesman said the names are assigned by "sheer whim."'' -- From my (stateside) source. You can see why I was confused.
:::I did further research (hence my half-hour long absence) According to [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/11/13/pssst_renegade_and_renaissance_are_in_the_house/ this] source, the WHCA chooses a list of names, and the President decides which one he likes best. So we were both right! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:40, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::::Everybody wins! Yay! -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)

A "renegade" is a ''deserter'' of a cause, so '''if''' Obama was actually raised as a muslim, and '''if''' the codename has any non-arbitrary significance, it would be evidence that he is '''not''' a muslim, rather than the other way around.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:27, 26 November 2008 (EST)

== For the love of God!! ==
HE IS NOT A MUSLIM. I donated 500$ to support McCain and voted for him but this beyond retarded. Please remove that info, because right now nobody in their right mind can take this seriously. Also take out the Koran thing he used the bible in the senate. [[User:Nig89|Nig89]] 20:17, 15 November 2008 (EST)

: Your comment is long on your dubious assertion of a credential, but short on substance. Give us your reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Why does Obama's religion matter so much? 18:57, 15 November 2008 {{unsigned|JamesZ}}

: Good question. I hope your fellow liberals will answer it for you. They are the ones having unexplained hysteria about a simple observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::The word you are looking for is "accusation" not "observation". An observation would be stating that he has some traits similar to Muslims. An accusation is claiming that he is a Muslim, regardless of his own protests. On the accusation note, great job assuming anyone who doesn't believe you is a liberal Aschfly. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 00:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)

You don't have to be a liberal to object to blatant lies perpetuated on an ostensibly educational website by a man who claims to be both an educator and a Christian.
-[[User:CBrown|CBrown]] 15:04, December 6 2008 (EST)

== Was Barack Obama truly raised a Muslim or is he a Muslim? ==

Previously I wrote the following: Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST) Mr. Schlafly wrote the following: " I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)"

Here is my response to Mr. Schlafly's reply to my previous post on the Obama/Muslim issue:

I am not a fan of "Liberal Christianity" as I believe it often fails to fall into the realm of biblical/orthodox Christianity and when it does so it is not Christianity at all. With that being said, the article does give compelling evidence that Obama is a member of the camp of "liberal Christianity" and not biblical Christianity. If Obama is a "liberal Christian" he is not a Muslim. There are two logical fallacies called the [http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page2.htm#sloth slothful inductive fallacy] and [http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] whereby "Relevant evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence"."[http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm] '''Andy, I believe you are committing these two logical fallacies as can be seen by the material in the above cited work by the National Clergy Council. I would strongly suggest not skimming the material as it gives compelling evidence that Obama is a "liberal Christian" and therefore not a Muslim.'''

'''Next, was Obama truly raised a Muslim and therefore does the less than 1% of people raised Muslim ever leave the religion statistic apply. I don't think a compelling case can be made for the 1% argument being applied to Obama. I cite the following:
'''

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm]

'''I will end this post by respectfully asking Mr. Schlafly a few reasonable questions''':

1. How many Muslim men are you aware of that go to a "liberal Christian church" for 20 years, get married in a "liberal Christian' church, and have their children baptized in a "liberal Christian" church, and call a Reverend of "liberal Christianity "my pastor" while living in a relatively free and democratic country like the United States? I ask this question because it appears as if all these apply to Obama.[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58954][http://volokh.com/posts/1209531850.shtml] Accordingly, '''How many similar historical examples can you give of Muslim men who did these type of things when they lived in a relatively free and democratic society like the United States?
'''

2. According to the press, Obama has visited churches and synagogues but has not visited a mosque while running for president.[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/opinion/edcohen.php] Can you show me a single instance of Obama ever visiting a mosque while he has been an adult?

3. '''Is the case for Obama being a "liberal Christian" stronger or is the case of Obama being a Muslim stronger when the principle of total evidence being weighed is applied?''' If you state the case is stronger for Obama being a Muslim, please defend your position by truly negating the strong evidence that he is a member of "liberal Christianity" and giving compelling evidence that he is a Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:I thought the two of you might enjoy reading [http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html this 2004 interview with Obama], where he discusses his faith, his baptism, and so forth. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:04, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Both of you miss the point. It's not what Obama '''says''' - that has no relevance whatsoever. It's what he '''is''' and what he '''will do'''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::: If what he ''says'' has no relevance, why is one of the supposed evidences for him being a Muslim something he ''said'' (the bit about "my Muslim faith")? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::::Bugler, I know I mentioned what Obama did and said which certainly has bearing on what Obama "is". Therefore, you did not in any way provide a counter argument. I also suggest you answer the reasonable questions I posed to Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservative, the roots of Al Quaeda lie in the 1940s and 50s, if not before; radical terroristic Islamic fundamentalism is not a recent phenomenon. Much of its mindset and organisational apperatus was borrowed from Leninist Communism: the notion of cell, of enrtyism, of deep penetration. Now, how difficult is it to imagine that an intelligent child, of American parentage, schooled in the Islamic environment of 1960s Indonesia and vulnerable to the influences swirling around in that environment, might be schooled and indoctrinated as the sleeper to end all sleepers, given extreme dispensations to protect his cover, allowed to eat pork, drink alcohol, marry out, attend and indeed profess to be a Christian, even to publicly renounce (on the face of it) the Islamic faith? Surely the prize would merit the game. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:24, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::So you're honestly speculating that Obama might be a member of Al Qaeda, and we're expected to believe that you're ''not'' a parodist? Riiiiiiight. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Oh, that old tune yet again. Can't you Liberals find a less boring stick to beat me with? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Oh, don't get me wrong, I think you're doing a great job. Keep it up. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Bugler, in light of the evidence I gave above concerning Obama's supposedly being raised a Muslim '''and the lack of evidence to support it''' plus the evidence I gave above to support Obama being a member of "liberal Christianity" , your post is at best a Hail Mary pass. Secondly, I noticed you did not answer my questions or give any solid historical parallels for your far fetched speculation. If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades I would certainly be indebted to you if you could give it. But I would add, since you never gave any compelling evidence he was raised a Muslim, this Leninist parallel speculation is a non starter anyways. Thirdly, you refer to "the prize". What prize? If you going to embrace conjecture that is contra evidence certainly you should tell your audience what the supposed prize is supposedly going to be. Should I fear I am imminently going to be put under Sharia law? Lastly, I am not stating your a parodist, but I certainly believe it is more likely that you are a parodist than it is likely that Obama is a Muslim. Your somewhat eloquent but empty defense of the indefensible proposition that Obama is likely a Muslim, certainly provides a reasonable reader to suspect you are a parodist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:41, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::I've not heard the term 'hail Mary pass' before, despite being a good Catholic boy: please enlighten! ''If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades'' Not a president, but the private secretary of the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt was a Communist plant: how many were undetected? Certainly therer remain suspicions about the 1960s/70s UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson. ''What prize?'' Surely that is obvious. As to the objections you raise, I think it unlikely that he will use the ceremony on January 20 to declare a United states Caliphate. However, the prospect of an Islamic radical sleeper in the Oval Office raises any number of possibilities. And finally: your open suggestion that I am a parodist is welcome: a refreshing change from others here who smear me by innuendo without your honesty and openness. I assure you in all sincerity that I act with the best interests of God, Conservapedia, Freedom and Democracy always at heart. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Bugler, [http://www.wisegeek.com/in-football-what-is-a-hail-mary.htm Hail Mary pass]. Secondly, your Willy Brandt attempted historical parallel falls flat. I did a quick search on the internet and this is what CNN states about Brandt: "As a teen-ager Brandt first joined the Socialist Party of Germany (SPD) in 1930, but one year later switched to a more radical spin-off, the SAP."[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/brandt/] Brandt apparently was a socialist early on (teenager to be precise), but you have not give a compelling argument that Obama was raised as a Muslim and given the information I gave above regarding there being a lack of evidence for this proposition and evidence against it, your Leninism supposed historical parallel is still a non starter. You are certainly not applying the principle of using the total evidence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Henry Wallace, FDR's Vice President, was a "sleeper" communist and replaced by FDR for that reason. Alger Hiss, a top aide to presidents, was a proven "sleeper" communist. A big lie is often easier to pull off than a little lie.

What's remarkable is how strenuously people deny that Obama is a Muslim. His fathers (real and stepfather) were Muslims. There's no denying that Obama was raised a Muslim, and his conduct as an adult underscores that he, like 99% of others raises as Muslims, did not leave that religion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: What's remarkable is how strenuously you claim that Obama is a Muslim without any evidence of substance, and in opposition to other conservatives, including five of your own senior administrators, who disagree with you, despite being opposed to Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:An interesting question is ''why'' people try so hard to deny it to ''themselves'' when the evidence is so clearly there. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, Wallace appears to have had been a one time Republican who later had openly leftist views. [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Wallace cannot be counted as a long time "sleeper agent" who was a very high ranking public official through infiltration. Secondly, Alger Hiss never achieved a high ranking government official status like a president, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc.[http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/who.html] I do think that when someone goes for a very important government position, such as a President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, a higher degree of scrutiny often occurs. For this reason, I believe you are having trouble coming up with a historical instance of a very high ranked official in the Western World being a sleeper agent. Furthermore, by the time Hiss was charged who had been two years out of government and was working for the Carnegie Foundation. I believe it is invalid to use Hiss as an example of an ambitious sleeper agent who had gotten to the top of government when he had resigned from government 2 years before he was charged. Next, I do think my questions in my previous post were quite reasonable that you left unanswered. Also, and this is really at the heart of the issue, you never really countered this information which makes the idea of Obama being a sleeper agent a non-starter because it appears as if he was never truly raised a Muslim:

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for '''secular humanism''', a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In response to your indented general comment above, there's nothing magical or divine about presidential politics that ensures honesty. Woodrow Wilson was paralyzed by a stroke for more than a year while president, and the public did not know. Your argument that it is impossible to keep such things from the public is simply wrong. Wallace was not widely known to be a communist or else Roosevelt would never have been elected with Wallace on the ticket. Roosevelt finally figured it out (or was tipped off), and without explanation replaced Wallace. The leftists were dumbfounded by this move, as they were on the verge of making Wallace president when Roosevelt died. Oh, and the sickness of Roosevelt was also kept from the public. He died from his illness within a mere weeks of becoming president for the fourth time. The public didn't expect that either.

: In response to your specific questions, you're quoting self-serving and implausible statements. Obama was raised by a Muslim stepfather. He learned to view the Muslim call to prayer as the most beautiful thing in the word. There is no real indication any change by Obama, and his keeping of the name "Hussein" illustrates that he did not have a rare adult conversion from Muslim to Christianity. All indications are that such conversion was politically motivated to persuade the public, and one might say that was obviously successful with some! But I doubt Obama will continue his charade indefinitely. Watch for aid to impose Islam on more foreign countries, and watch for inclusion of the Koran at official ceremonies, if not on Jan. 20th itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is "quoting self-serving and implausible statements". Even five of your own senior administrators disagree with you, but, like Wikipedia, you persist with imposing your own view on this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, I don't think you can give me a single piece of evidence of Obama's mother being a Muslim and given there is evidence against this matter that is not surprising. It also appears as if Obama has a great influence in his life which is not surprising since she was his biological mother. In addition, Obama appeared to have received some Catholic education when he was young. Therefore, your supposed case that Obama was raised a Muslim is certainly not built on a bedrock of solid evidence. Accordingly, the Obama article should not state that Obama is likely a Muslim. Next, I never stated that it is impossible for someone to get to a top political office as a sleeper agent but merely improbable and historical determinations should be reached probabilistically. Also, while it may have not been known that Wallace was a communist (if indeed he was a communist which is a matter I have not investigated but which could certainly be true), there does appear to be indications that he had openly strong leftist views for even the Democrats.[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Therefore, you historical precedent argument in this case is certainly not a stronger one in terms of Wallace being a "sleeper agent". It does not sound plausible to me that a Communist sleeper agent would have openly strong leftist views that even the Democrats found distasteful. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In Muslim families, like the one Obama was raised in, the father dictates the religious upbringing of the boys. Please learn more about the Muslim traditions. With so little awareness of it by Christians, it's no wonder Islam is trouncing Christianity around the world.

: Alger Hiss was later proved to be a communist and read up on how he was the TOP adviser to FDR at the key WWII conference carving up Europe. Not only was he a sleeper communist agent, but the liberals denied it for decades even after Hiss was convicted in court. Only in the last few years did one of his co-agents admit the truth. Please learn about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Islam is "trouncing" Christianity? In what way? Greater population growth, perhaps, but that's not relevant here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::Andy, have you made the case that Obama's stepfather was a staunch Muslim? I know you have not because it appears as if Obama attended a Catholic school when he was young. Therefore, you still not have made the case that Obama was raised a Muslim. Next, Hiss may have been a top advisor at one point in his life, however, an advisor is not a very top government official (President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.) who certainly often faces much more scrutiny. Andy, given historical precedence and the greater scrutiny that is often given to people ascending to the very peaks of government power, I do think the case for a sleeper agent rising to the pinnacle of power in a government institution is very tenuous to say the least. I think this principle of sleeper agents not ascending to the pinnacles of large organizations is true of institutions outside of government as well. For example, people when being sarcastic in replying to a yes or no question, will sometimes say, "Is the Pope Jewish?" meaning that the pope is not likely an adherent of Judaism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, it appears as if there is strong evidence that Obama attended a Catholic school but there may not be evidence that he attended a school that truly could be called a Muslim school. Please read [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp this article.]

Regardless of whether or not CNN or the AP did their work with diligence, there appears to be no controversy regarding that Obama did in fact attend a Catholic school. Therefore, I still maintain that the claim he was raised a Muslim does not have strong support. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: Catholic schools welcome Muslim students. They still do. The Muslim students virtually never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Catholic schools may very welcome Muslim students but what staunchly Muslim father sends his son to a Catholic school? Andy, you still have not jumped over the evidential bar that Osama was raised a Muslim. The so called Muslim school was apparently not strongly Islamic or possibly not even Islamic at all ( [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp read this article.] ) and the stepfather appears to not have had a strong Muslim faith as evidenced by the fact that he sent Obama to a Catholic school. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

In the Unification Church, it is not unusual for parents to send their children to a Catholic grade school. So what if they come home, crossing themselves when they pray? Overall, the education is better there than in public schools, so if they can afford it the practice makes senses. I daresay mainstream Christians likewise don't mind the sectarian differences. Any way out of secular humanism is often fine with them.

It appears likely that as president, Obama will be more sympathetic to Islamic countries in his foreign policy. Maybe he'll even be able to get them to lighten up on their "destruction of Israel" goals, or allow [[religious freedom]] for Christians and Jews. Are [[Turkey]] and [[Indonesia]] good examples of this?

I see good in all religions, and I don't see Islam as irredeemably evil. So what if Obama is or was Muslim? There is [[no religious test for office]], and he can't be impeached for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Another case for Obama being Muslim==
During a campaign rally, two Muslim women in Muslim garb, were removed from prominent camera view. The reason is A) Obama doesn't want his image assoc. with Muslims B) or doesn't like Muslims (we know the opposite is true). Now, he doesn't want images of Muslim assoc with him because he is A) secret Muslim or B) the American people will think he is a Muslim. (Which 27% already do). Did Obama try to hide his Muslim background and is that plan still in progress?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Are A and B the only choices on why Obama does not want himself associated with Islam? Is a false dilemma being proposed? For example, setting aside whether it was right or wrong which is a whole other discussion, did 9/11 drive up the American public's negative beliefs and/or attitudes regarding Islam? Would the American public look less favorably upon a candidate who received some Muslim religious education (Obama also received Catholic training in his youth. And there is certainly reason to believe that a certain degree of philosophical skepticism was imparted to Obama via his mother). In short, I think the above post fails to use the principle of using the total evidence (see my posts above) plus contains a false dilemma. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Why does him being a muslim actually matter? If he is a good man and a good president then how does his religeon matter, some of the greatest leaders in the world have been Jewish or Muslim, not Christian

== “Less than 1% Muslims convert” – Prosecutor error? ==

OK, time for something new and I direct this particularly to Aschlafly. There is a logical fallacy called the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is very subtle but real enough to send innocent people to the execution chamber. In fact, many lawyers and judges don’t understand it. It works like this. Please concentrate: this isn't all that easy.

Let us suppose that it is true that Barack Obama was at one time a Muslim, even if this was at an immature age when he really had no say in his faith. And let us grant that only 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity. The argument which Aschflafly uses time and again is to deduce that that this means that, notionally at least, that there is a 99% chance that Obama is a Muslim.

The fallacy of the argument is that it does not recognize that the IF Obama was in that 99% of Muslims who did not convert, there would be no practicable way he could have run for President. Therefore the chances that he is one of those who DID convert are raised far beyond the mathematically obvious one of 1%.

Let me give you a real-life example. A woman had three children and each expired early in infancy of “cot death”. The prosecutor did his math and advised the court that there was a “one in 70 million” chance of this happening by accident. Therefore, the jury was heavily disposed to assume that she was guilty of the serial murder of her children. But the fallacy of the case is that she was ONLY arrested because of the rareness of the 3 children dying of cot death in the one family. But even if this only happens one in 70 million families, in a large country such as the U.K or U.S.A, and over a period of decades, it is BOUND to occur, purely by accident. If we then tell a courtroom that there is only a 1 in 70 million chance that she is innocent, we are guilty of the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is tantamount to arresting a man who comes into a lot of money suddenly and is arrested under suspicion of larceny. He explains that he won it on a lottery, but the Prosecutor says he has looked into the “Lottery” business, and there is only a 1 in 20 million chance of winning it, therefore there is only a 1 in 20 million chance the indicted man is telling the truth.

In Obama’s case, once again, EVEN if it is true that only 1% of Muslims convert, AND ALSO true that he was born into the Muslim faith, the fact that his circumstances allowed him to run for the Presidency argues that he was one of those Muslims who DID convert, and thus makes his chances of being a non-Muslim substantially greater that 1%. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:I understand your math, but your reasoning does not convince me. The lottery example was the most unfortunate attempt.

:Although in any given lottery, the chances may be 1 in 20 million for one person to win - the fact is that '''every''' lottery has a winner.

:The problem with Obama's religion is not so much ''Which is it?'' but, "How shall the electorate now regard its new president elect?" Will Obama be pro-Muslim (because he's Muslim or was raised Muslim)?

:A related question is, "Will Obama be pro-Black because he is black?"

:I get along equally well with black Christians as with white Christians, so this is not an issue for me. I've also found Muslims personally just as honest, reliable and hard-working as Christians. What's all the fuss about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: The lottery example was valid. Apart from the fact that not every lottery ''does'' have a winner (the prize then jackpots to the following draw), the point is that the 100% certainty (every lottery has a winner) applies to the lottery as a whole, whereas the 1 in 20 million odds applies to any ''given'' individual. The issue here is about a ''given'' individual, Barack Obama.
:: I hope that you are asking that last question ("What's all the fuss about") to Andy, as he is the one insisting on the claim against almost everybody else other than a few acolytes.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::I like maths and logic, so good section. This isn't arguing for the prosecution error, but just about statistical sampling. I suppose you could ask how many muslims convert, but it might be more accurate to ask how many American born muslims convert, or how many muslims that have had a Christian baptism have genuinely converted (I hope there's a special place in hell for those that were faking their baptism)--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:45, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::::In [[Dante's Inferno]], I don't think there is. Any kind of liar goes to the bottom of the eighth circle though. I wonder whether covert apostacy was known in Dante's time.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::::MylesP, have you been reading [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/0007240198/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227138689&sr=8-1 Bad Science?]

== Awesome article ==
Just wanted to say, finally a good resource about obama. Fantastic research about the muslim piece, it really shows him as the closet muslim like he is. Shame the libs just don't get it !! [[happymoon|happymoon]]

== Great comedy article ==

It's a shame people don't get the jokes. Just wanted to pop in and say keep up the good work! Was referred here by a friend who also got a kick out of this article. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 11:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:Read the article properly before you start calling it a joke. You've been looking at Obama from a left wing viewpoint; try looking at him from a right wing viewpoint. It'll do you good.--[[User:WHurst|WHurst]]

The article is full of fiction. Stuff like this is part of the reason why Conservapedia is a joke to everyone who isn't a member here.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

==This will be a hit on stormfront==

America reaches a milestone in his history and all you guys can do is peddle false lies which have been repudiated by just about everyone in the political business. The comment about 'possibly been sworn in by the koran' is not only false, but a terrifying example of what racism and ignorance is capable of. You may not be white nationalists, but your inability to reasonably discuss this man's faith without resorting to the most despicable acts of scaremongering is typical of the tripe we see on racist websites.

Keep this crap up and you'll make sure to keep the black vote away from your party for the forseeable future. [[User:JCharlton|JCharlton]] 17:50, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::Race and religion are two different things. Why do liberals always resort to racism? Maybe its becaus you don't have any real arguments against the issues raised here? This isn't wikipedia, we deal in facts here. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 20:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"Facts" as in already repeatedly proven falsehoods such as Obama being a Muslim? This page is filled with outright lies. [[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Reply ==

Don't know where to start. Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim. What's it to someone who (1) is an atheist, (2) is an Australian, (3) is a Christian, or (4) would support him regardless? Frankly, the opposition by some is puzzling.

Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here. Perhaps we can all agree that it's worth learning more about what many say has quickly become the world's largest religion, and the strongest religion in Europe today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)

If you are going to repeat a proven lie, you shouldn't be surprised when people call you on it-[[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

:It really shouldn't be that puzzling Andy. They are calling out what they believe to be falsehood. When people made spurious, questionable claims about Bush, how did Conservapedia respond? Did you include the information or remove it? Its the exact same thing. You tried to keep the spurious information out of it. The name "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" implies intellectual honesty, and on this particular aspect most people here (myself included) find this pile of circumstantial evidence to be based on poor conclusions, false arguments, and illogical reasoning to be an absurdity without any solid claims that say he is a Muslim. The burden of proof is on you to -prove- that he is, not provide a loaded mountain of evidence that is obviously taylored to imply that he is with no proof whatsoever other than bad logic. I can't believe this topic is still going. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 22:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:: There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood. Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim. Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%.

:: Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%. Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::When you promote someone over yourself here, the beef can be over censorship. Until then, it's just people saying they think you're wrong. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:16, 17 November 2008 (EST) ''<-like me, for example...''

Don't fall for the devil's tricks. These "conservatives" are not true Christians. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 23:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"''Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim.''": Yes, I would like you to explain that. Because ''you'' are the one enraged at that. I, on the other hand, am "enraged" that he is being accused of being a Muslim on the basis of logical fallacy, lousy arguments, and false claims.

"''What's it to someone who ... is a Christian''": As a Christian, my concern is for the ''truth''. Why do you continually try and misrepresent this as censorship, liberal lies, or whatever?

"''... some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here...''": That is not the issue I'm arguing. You are again raising red herrings. The issue is the claim that he is a Muslim, which claim is not supported by the evidence.

"''There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood.''": No, Andy, it '''is''' spurious, and ''you'' lose credibility with ''your'' baseless claims that he is a Muslim.

"''Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim.''": On what grounds? Certainly not those in this article.

"''Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%.''": "That" is not given. Rather, it's bizarre how ''you'' adamantly insist that he ''is'' a Muslim given the lack of evidence.

"''Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.''": I'm going to shout because you obviously didn't hear me before: "IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP TO REMOVE IRRELEVANT INFORMATION, AND I'D APPRECIATE YOU NOT IMPLYING THAT I'M TRYING TO CENSOR ANYTHING."

I've pointed out a number of problems, and your response has been to slander the criticism as censorship and liberal, to introduce red herrings, and to assert your opinion as fact. What you have ''not'' done is actually address the issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:How dare you accuse Andy of slander. And what hypocricy. The only slanderer, Philip, is you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 03:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: Yet you make no attempt to refute that it was slanderous, nor to substantiate your accusation against me. In other words, a substanceless response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, regarding "''(Islam being) the strongest religion in Europe today''": you never cease to amaze us with your wealth of knowledge of the world outside the USA, be it UK, the whole of Europe or Australia. Kudos to you! --[[User:Europeo|Europeo]] 07:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::''Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here.'' I think that's a statement with which anyone would agree. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate==
{{QuoteBox|1=It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at TexasDarlin and many other blogs to conduct the solid, investigative research that the media, the democratic national committee, agencies of the federal government, Barack Obama himself, and Congress should have done on the eligibility and qualifications of Barack Obama. The first serious look at Barack Obama ’s Constitutional eligibility began on this blog, with the exposure of the birth certificate mystery, Obama-Soetoro’s Indonesian citizenship, and analysis of the constitutional problems with Obama’s multiple citizenship status irrespective of birthplace.
 
Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to change the outcome of the Democratic nomination and the election—especially in light of the MSM bias, the Obama campaign’s tactics, and DNC shenanigans– for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his lack of experience, stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda ([http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/] ) and the startling depth of his secrecy.
 
Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth, explosiveness, or unpredictability of this phenomenon we have witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama ! We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge of possible dissolution of our country, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water, or running away to avoid the explosion….either scenario leads to serious burns!
 
While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosive change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America. We can use the 2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.
 
The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.
 
'''Four Questions'''
 
I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country. By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.
 
These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and the existing lower court dismissal) before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond by December 1, 2008. It is also disturbing that these questions are before the U.S. Supreme Court when the candidate himself or the DNC could easily have dispelled any speculation by providing simple documentation.
 
While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter required Obama to respond to Berg’s writ of certiorari. Even if, as some have said, Souter ’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution, and will determine if the full Supreme Court decides to hear the case. In responding, Obama will be essentially arguing why the writ of certiorari should not be granted.
 
In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg in the lower Court should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”. But some Judges do actually realize the question may be beyond their jurisdiction and ‘ask for help’ by clearly making appealable and reversible errors that a higher court can rule on. The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.
 
The questions presented for review are:
 
*1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
*2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?
 
The “questions presented for review” in the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate, but instead to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.
 
Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on his past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed respond that the writ should not be granted because (1) a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified. Notice he is in a position of arguing technicalities here, and completely misses his own obligation to prove himself.
 
Although doubtful, it is also possible Obama would try to argue that the 14th Amendment says that “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” are “American citizens”, thereby satisfying the requirements of Article II. I really can’t imagine he would bring this up, unless asked in a hearing, as the question of the 14th Amendment’s modification of Article II is a constitutional matter that only the Supreme Court can decide. Recall that on Obama’s own website he claims that he is a U.S. Citizen under the 14th amendment.
 
I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not to release his COLB, citizenship records, passport files, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.” He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution, including, as above, that the 14th Amendment applies to Article II. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond?
 
If Obama responds in any other way, he could be forced to disclose and/or identify when, how, and what steps citizens can take, or what steps are taken, to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. Using the process he acknowledges—for example, the “DNC vetting process”–he may then be forced to prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II by showing the documentation he provided to the DNC, if he provided anything to the DNC. Alternatively he could concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS, and that “America has to take his word for it”. Would the Supreme Court then order him to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?
 
One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. “Checks and balances” can mean procedures, legislative processes, acts, bills, agencies, or resolutions. Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution promoted by Senators Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies. In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill). The Senate resolution was developed in April, 2008 to “validate” John McCain ’s natural born citizen status when it was unnecessary, and in some ways the resolution’s language can be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS. Looking at the text of the resolution and supporting statements, Senator Leahy has the following curious exchange with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (emphasis mine):
 
Chairman Leahy. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President….You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
 
Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
 
As Berg’s case has evolved, he refined the scope of defendants who now must also respond to the writ, including the DNC, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and its Chair, Senator Dianne Feinstein , the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and several Pennsylvania government officials.
 
With the exception of the DNC, who also joined in Obama’s initial motion to dismiss the lower case on lack of standing, I think the other defendants’ responses might be decidedly different. The FEC could claim that it actually has no jurisdiction in the matter by way of its charter and organizing documents, and that even if it did, it is far too understaffed to perform investigatory functions, as cited by Senator Feinstein in testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on May 28, 2008 (link to http://rules.senate..gov/hearings/2008/052108feinsteinopen.pdf). And will Senator Feinstein blame the Bush administration, or will she admit that she too just assumed the DNC vetted Obama and that he was eligible?
 
After reviewing Obama’s legal argument against granting the writ of certiorari and the other defendants’ responses, Justice Souter will then review Berg’s response before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will hear the case. Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter required Obama to respond to the writ of certiorari. In my opinion, Justice Souter would not have granted this appeal from Berg if he thought the issues were irrelevant and not worthy of the Court’s attention.
 
How does the Supreme Court react? Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the lower Courts to resolve the matter expeditiously, requiring the release of documents? Will it order the FEC, Electoral College, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures? Will they agree with Obama, if he mentions it, that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?
 
Although the Supreme Court will not want to be seen as determining the outcome of another election—even for the perception of “fairness”– the questions presented in the writ are completely different than presented in Bush v. Gore. Under Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court clearly has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Legal scholars will point to Marbury v. Madison ( link to http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19) as precedent if the full Supreme Court accepts the writ, orders the lower Court in error, directs it to secure Obama’s documentation, and chastises the DNC, FEC, the PA state agencies, the Senate, and Senator Obama for not doing their job, and not forcing the production of documents itself, while still retaining jurisdiction.
 
If this is the outcome, a motion could be made by Berg to stay the vote of the Electoral College pending the outcome of the case. If the Justices are concerned about the matter and integrity of the 2008 election, that motion could be granted. The expedited discovery of documents would proceed. Yes, I understand this is a long-shot and speculation on my part.
 
And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama ? Is it up to your employer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation? Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America? I believe that the burden of proof on eligibility rests solely and unconditionally on Barack Obama’s shoulders. I am not alone in this belief (link http://americamustknow.com/Documents/OBAMA%20LAWSUIT,%20Class%20Action.doc).
 
Alinsky Returns?
 
As I sit in disbelief and alarm even writing this article—that something as basic as citizenship status of the potential POTUS is in front of the Supreme Court at this late date—I am reminded of a framework set forth in an earlier article, The Trojan Candidate (link to http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/), and the use of Alinsky-style community organizing techniques to advance an agenda of revolutionary change. In this article I posited that Barack Obama has a hidden agenda and part of implementing his agenda involves the use of techniques developed by Saul Alinsky and discussed in such books as Rules for Radicals (http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm).
 
'''From the Trojan Candidate:'''
 
Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers [community organizers] and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’ The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict ’and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.
 
What could be the reason for withholding his citizenship papers and birth status, especially if he has nothing to hide? Does he plan to use this in some way to “rub raw the resentments of the people” [and] “fan the latent hostilities to the point of over expression”? The concerns about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility will be met with accusations of “racism”; that the “system” wouldn’t do this to a white man, and that the republicans or others are trying to ‘take Obama out’ on a “technicality”. And worse.
 
If Obama is ineligible, he could rightly be called a ‘dangerous enemy’ and forced to stand down. It is at this point that “the word ‘enemy’ is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people…” and the maneuvering and baiting of the establishment forces it to back down, with Obama prevailing whether having shown his documentation or not. As you contemplate this, think of all the money, the inevitability narrative, the shutting down of dissent, the timing of events, the threat of violence and insurrection, the establishment of the office of the president elect, and the simply overwhelming of America with all things Obama. This certainly pulls the light from shining on the real Barack Obama ’s Trojan candidacy.
 
If Obama is proven ineligible, does not stand down or even if he does stand down, it is not unreasonable to expect some “in-your-face” hostile reactions and calls for immediate changes that permit Obama to stay. How ironic: in defense of liberty and the Constitution, we will be called ‘racists’.
 
'''Implications for the Future'''
 
The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s qualifications and intentions in the next four years.. Currently there are 17 different legal actions in various state and federal courts, which now challenge the validity of the electoral process across the country, regardless of outcome (see http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf) .
 
Just my suspicion, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework. I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures” as discussed in this 2001 radio interview. (link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VctiYQplw8)
 
As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, that the DNC did not do its job, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions. The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility. I personally doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the Constitution.
 
Up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications. We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution. Looks like our age of innocence is over.
 
It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.. If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, which ¾ of the states have to ratify. None of this can happen before the January 20th inauguration.
 
The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong. Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy nor do they provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates. Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud, and the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”. I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”. We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.
 
What is next for our country? Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, and we’re not going to run away, then we’d better start creating an alternative vision. A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:
 
“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…” [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/four-questions-for-the-trojan-candidate/]}}
{{unsigned|TK}}

==Andy, if it can perhaps be quibbled that there is merely a 20% chance of Obama being a Muslim, then why is the Obama article stating that he is likely a Muslim? ==

Dear Andy,

You wrote above regarding the probability of Obama being a Muslim the following:

"Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%."

Andy, if it can be perhaps be quibbled that the likelihood of Obama being a Muslim is merely 20%, then why is the article still stating that Obama is likely a Muslim? Second, Andy do you think that a reference work should use scholarly caution and that scholarly caution helps make a reference work authoritative? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:In this case, what you describe as 'scholarly caution' means knuckling under to Liberal suppression of facts and discussion. The scholarly option is to seek out the truth, no matter how disturbing that truth or the process of uncovering it might be to those on the left. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy I also fear we are not doing our site any favors in this area. If Obama is a Muslim, he is certainly keeping that under wraps. There is no indication that he would suddenly take the oath of office on a Koran. Such a turnabout that he lied about his Christianity would destroy his ability to govern. It is more likely, if he is a Muslim, that he would support Muslim causes without making a profession of his own faith. We should also realize, based upon his policies, that if he does have Islamic ties that they would be akin to the type of ties that John Kerry has to Catholicism, very poor. His views on abortion alone would be considered extreme Western decadence within the greater Islamic world view. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Bugler, I purposely chose Andy's words that "perhaps one can quibble that the probability is 20%". Therefore, if Andy is correct about the 20% issue then the statement that Obama is likely a Muslim should be removed from the article. I am just following Andy's statement where the logic leads if his statement is true and no knuckling under is necessary. I do think it is fair to say that people come to an encyclopedia to read facts and not speculation. Speculation weighs down an encyclopedia by eroding its credibility. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Saying "One could argue that X is 20%" doesn't in any way mean accepting that that X '''is''' 20%. It merely allows the existence of theoretically possible grounds of debate. If I said there were grounds for arguing that the planet Jupiter was made of cheese, likewise it doesn't mean that I think it is reasonably possible that such is the case. Andy is (in my interpretation of his words) admitting grounds for debate; it does not mean that he (or anyone else who takes a rational view of the issue) accepts only a 20% likelihood. The whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he '''can't possibly''' be a Moslem." Liberals cling to dogma like an unweaned child to its blanket; we conservatives prefer debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, not from wish-fulfillment fantasies. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.
::::::: And no, the whole point is ''not'' to support liberal views. That's a false claim. And if you as a conservative prefers debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, why are you reversing my edits without offering any rebuttal to my points?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
''Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.'' You haven't read it, have you? Read it again, nice and slowly, take your time, and especially consider the Jupiter analogy. As for the vulgar abuse in your edit summary, I will let that speak for itself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
: Bugler, I will concede that point. Instead I'll say that Andy's point that this was a response to was rather unclear as to its aim, and I was reading his comments differently.
: However, I will add another response to your previous post. You say that "the whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he can't possibly be a Moslem." The problem with this claim of yours is that it's ''not'' the way the argument is being used. That is, the arguments are not being used to ''oppose'' the claim that he couldn't possibly be a Muslim; the arguments are being used to ''support'' the claim that he ''is'' a Muslim. If they were being used the way that you say, then at least some of them would have some legitimacy. But being used the way they are is invalid.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

It might be good to create a subarticle, with [[Barack Obama]] as the main article. We have templates for this; Philip is our template custodian and can place whatever we need.

I protected the article, because edit wars don't serve our readers; and they don't help us contributors much either.

I didn't look at Andy's last version. I just guessed it might make a good starting point.

Let's discuss, rather than trying to "get our way". Wiki collaboration should result in stability. Let none of us rock the boat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: The problem, Ed, is that these things have already been discussed at length. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks, Ed. I agree that edit wars are undesirable. I don't consider that I was edit warring. I was trying to protect this article, which has been arrived at in its current form after much debate, from unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism. In the course of doing so I have yet again been accused of mendacity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:51, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: They are ''not'' "unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism". When you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: Thanks, Ed, for bringing stability. As Bugler points out, there is nothing in my observation that "perhaps one" can quibble whether the likelihood Obama is a Muslim is 20%, 60% or 90% that justifies censoring the evidence and statement that he is likely a Muslim. Juries make such determinations based on the evidence all the time; so do encyclopedias. The evidence is compelling and will not be censored or downplayed here, despite some (for unknown reasons) disliking it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::: Andy, I have repeatedly pointed out that it is ''not'' censorship. Why do you keep repeating that false claim? Also, I have explained ''why'' the claims are "disliked", why do you falsely say that the reasons are unknown? As I said to Bugler above, when you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. And the evidence is not only not compelling, some of it is false and some is logically fallacious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, of course there is evidence. And being a Muslim is not a punishable in the US, so the jury need not use the standard of "[[beyond any reasonable doubt]]". It's more like a lawsuit, I guess, where you need only be 51% sure to vote one way or the other.

::Personally, I'd like CP to make some indication that some conservatives are still in doubt about [[my Muslim faith|"his Muslim faith"]], but that desire does not outweigh the need for editorial harmony.

::It is liberals - rather than conservatives - who insist on censoring all views contrary to theirs, in the US. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: Ed, when the issue is the president of the United States, then even less than a 51% chance is often sufficient to be influential, just as less than 51% chance is enough to deny someone an important job.

::: Someone is missing the the point about [[my Muslim faith]], which omits the telling phrase: "Muslim faith." No Christian would use that specific phrase so casually in reference to himself. How about someone saying "Allah the Creator"?! Christians don't use the phrase.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::Actually, Andrew, Arab Christians do refer to [[God]] as [[Allah|Al'''lah''']], and never use other names such as the English/Germanic "God".-[[User:Zan|Zan]] 16:18, 10 December 2008 (EST)

== Falsifiability & "My Muslim Faith" ==

Aschlafly, Ed Poor, etc. -

Is there any piece of evidence that, assuming it existed, would convince you that Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim? You've now admitted there's a chance he's not a Muslim, so what piece of evidence would convince you that he's not? As it stands, your argument seems unfalsifiable, and ridiculously conspiratorial: everytime someone offers evidence that Obama's not a Muslim, you just reply with, "oooh, he's a tricky one! He must have worked to cover that up!" That's not a respectable, logical argument: it's an inability to recognize fact when it's put before your eyes. What piece of evidence could convince you of that, if any?

Further, if I go through the George W. Bush talk page I bet I'll find a million examples of you apologizing for Bush's rhetorical missteps, and arguing that when he says something incorrectly, it doesn't mean he's stupid. Why, then, are you not willing to take Obama's slip of the tongue as the same thing - unconscious error, not indicative of any deeper meaning?

The fact is, you have no principled basis for the distinction. Nor are you going to accept any evidence that Obama's a Christian. You're just clinging to a pet theory when even your own administrative staff tells you you're wrong.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 10:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Towards stability via discussion ==

:''unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism''

Vandalism is replacing the page with "Stinky loves Myrtle". Unilateral editing is doing your own thing, even when you know someone else will just want to revert (see [[Editing etiquette]]).

Let's come closer together, rather than battle it out on the page itself. Talk pages are for talking. Let's hear some more talk! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:The problem with that, is that if people talk about it, and say almost anything to disagree with the current state of the article, they are likely to get blocked for the "90/10 Rule against talk talk talk" or "liberal namecalling" or some other excuse. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Tim, that's simply not true. The [[90/10 rule]] guards against nothing but talk. It's easy to make substantive contributions to comply with the rule, and it's easy to refrain from namecalling in discussions. In fact, both are essential to keep the level of discourse and learning here at a high level.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::The [[90/10 rule]] might guard against nothing but talk, but it sure seems to guard against some kinds of talk a lot more than others. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 10:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::If so, there's nothing wrong with that. Jaywalking is not prosecuted as much as petty shoplifting either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, you can tell yourself that all you want, but this much is clear; the 90/10 rule is a content-neutral rule applied in a manner that amounts to viewpoint discrimination. You only apply it against liberals. You've long since abandoned the stance that you "don't block ideologically."
:::::This site has survived for two years ''only'' by ruthlessly persecuting anyone who disagrees with your worldview. Tim is right, but I'll take it one step farther: I think the reason you censor people who disagree with you is because you know you'll lose in a fair fight. The Barack Obama article is just one more example of that. Except now, even your own sysops disagree with you, so you devolve into insulting Philip and dodging the question.
:::::Of course you can block me, and prove Tim right.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 11:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::@Aschlafly: I don't get your analogy. Jaywalking and petty shoplifting are different crimes. Excessive talk by a liberal and excessive talk by a conservative is the same "crime". So the "prosecution" ought to be applied equally against both, right? Otherwise it isn't a ''rule'', it's just an ''excuse'' to make people you don't agree with go away. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Rob, within the same crimes prosecutorial patterns are different. It's called "prosecutorial discretion." It is used every day by law enforcement and it is obvious why it is needed. I'm not going to waste my morning spelling this out for you. Take a basic course on criminal justice, or simply follow the news.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Andy, you're misunderstanding "prosecutorial discretion." You're right that policemen have the right to decide which crimes to prosecute, but if they differentially allow white criminals to get away with murder, and seek the death penalty for black shoplifters, it would give rise to a disparate impact lawsuit and be illegitimate, racist, and wrong. We're arguing that your actions here are closer to abuse of prosecutorial discretion to kick out your enemies, than to the case of using prosecutorial discretion to preserve resources.
::::::It strikes me that what you're missing is the difference between "content neutral" and "viewpoint discrimination." Take a course in the First Amendment, or read a book on it; it might help your understanding of the word "censorship," too.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I would say you are partially correct, RobNewberry. Sometimes people need to be "invited" to leave, much like a dinner guest who overstays their welcome. If a person comes to Conservapedia knowing full well it is a conservative/Christian friendly wiki-encyclopedia, and is a liberal, the question is why? If the answer is they support Andy Schlafly's idea of an conservative alternative to the decidedly left-of-center editor dominated Wikipedia, that's great! All voices should be represented on the Net. But if their intentions are merely to argue and dispute conservative or Christian points of view, that becomes a subtle form of vandalism, inasmuch as it is a great time waster for those who genuinely want to contribute their conservative/Christian POV, and build this encyclopedia. My own opinion is that those who obsessively create new user names, only to argue against conservative values, and disrupt/time waste, are actually terrorists of the Internet kind. What other reason would they have to stick around? Any board or wiki does and should have the absolute right of association.

This would hold true for a conservative joining a known liberal board or wiki, and spend all their time disputing the members, arguing without end, and seeking to put their conservative point of view into their discussions or articles. I am not for truncating free speech automatically, but after weeks and weeks of disputing everything, knowing you are not going to change CP into Wikipedia's more liberal world-view, or have CP adopt all of Wikipedia's member conventions, a person's efforts then cross over into something more, what I have taken to calling Internet Terrorism. CP has an owner, it is his right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. If people agree, with even a part, they stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, other than being obstinate or having malicious intent, could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and the ability of like-minded individuals to associate with those they agree with, without constant disagreement begin? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Please don't refer to anything that isn't terrorism as terrorism. It might be censorship or vandalism or disruption. But terrorism is something else entirely. There is no terror involved in what you describe above and associating the term with it helps to undermine fear of the real kind. Terrorism should not be taken lightly. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TK, I agree with you completely that people probably need to be "invited" to leave. My only problem is that this is done under the guise of 90/10 rule. I think this is done so that Andy can still claim something like "We don't ask editors to leave because they have a certain viewpoint, only Wikipedia does that." Make too many liberal edits, though, and you'll find that you have somehow violated the 90/10 rule. I say drop the deceit and just ban people with the comment "We don't like your viewpoint. Goodbye." It's about being honest about what kind of place this wiki really is. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Ajkgordon, one definition of "terrorism" is "intimidating gang activity". Regardless of your rather parochial idea of its meaning, kindly refrain from saying something I clearly labeled as my own opinion, invention, is wrong usage. Organized activity, like from ''certain groups'', to disrupt other boards or wiki's, no matter how loosely organized, if it is at all coordinated, is intimidation, ergo, "terrorism".

:::RobNewberry, I know that when I was an administrator, I often followed Andy's lead in doing just that, block with the comment "Bye". As Schlafly often says, it isn't very hard to copy edit, add a source a few times a day, especially if one is spending hours and hours debating on talk pages. A person doing that, and not being obnoxious, they shouldn't be blocked. But I mostly see people with absolutely no contributions to CP, and looking at their history see only talk page posts, being blocked. Someone constantly reverting an article because of idealogical disagreement, and making no other contributions, should be blocked, or have the good grace to leave. There is more than one way to run a wiki. That's why they come with settings. Some wiki's require review of submissions before going live. Some require registration in order to edit, others do not. You sound fairly reasonable, obviously an informed person. Surely you can understand how people would grow tired of debating a topic without end. If you don't go to Wikipedia and try to insert something favorable about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter. Then when you are reverted, change it back. I don't think your experience will be a pleasant one. ;-) ----[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::RobNewberry, your own comments are misleading and illustrate the problem, because now I have to waste my time correcting them. The [[90/10 rule]] applies to people who talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributions. Nothing could be simpler. Talk is a time-waster. Different viewpoints, if logical, are welcome here. Incessant talk as can be seen on countless other sites, is not. The talkers can rant elsewhere. We're here to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Andy, you're being very dishonest about the application of the rule. Your explanation of it includes several value judgments - "different viewpoints, if logical" - all we're arguing is that your definition of "logical" is "that which agrees with you." That's where the discrimination we're talking about comes from.
:::::Interestingly, while you spend some time characterizing anyone disagreeing with you as "liberal censorship," in a somewhat dishonest definition of "censorship," you seem unable to recognize that what you're doing is REAL censorship, the use of power (rather than argument & debate) to squelch uncomfortable beliefs. Open your mind.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 12:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::TK, if your definition is from Mirriam-Webster's, then it's '''''violent and''' intimidating gang activity''.
::::My request was but a courteous plea for proper usage of the term for a current and dangerous phenomenon. Scattering the term around and using it to define childish, irreverent and irritating vandalism degrades the purity of the term and lessens its impact when correctly using it. If that's parochial, so be it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::TK and Andy, let me ask you a question. If you visited Wikipedia, and saw that, say, the Dick Cheney article contained an unreferenced assertion or an unfounded attack, you would initially try to edit and fix that problem, correct? Then, if another WP editor reverted your edit (which you believed was completely correct), you might either undo the reversion, or you might make a comment on the Talk Page, right? Now, here on CP, those of us who see something that ''we'' believe is incorrect or unfounded usually face a few problems. (Do not assume that all of us have evil intent against you - I'm entirely happy for you to have a conservative-leaning encyclopedia, and simply wish the information be factually correct and credibly referenced). First, the article may be locked, as this article is. In which case, there's nowhere to make the complaint except on the Talk Page. Second, if we can make them, our edits are often reverted, often with no supporting data provided (cf the Muslim debate here), so we usually have to make a comment on the Talk Page about that fact. It only takes one back and forth comment as we debate our position before a 90/10 block is usually enacted. Finally, those of us who frequent CP in an attempt to monitor the extreme forms of distortion that crop up now and again (as per any online community) may be shy of actually editing the articles, since bans are so often administered, so we instead first make our comments on the Talk Page. Frequently, a new user's single comment on a Talk Page is enough for a 90/10 ban. So it's pretty hard to believe that 90/10 is really about 90/10 when there are often no other options but Talk. And it's pretty hard to believe you're interested in establishing 'trustworthyness' if you aren't prepared to listen to evidence from other perspectives. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 12:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: FredX, users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time. It's easy to contribute substance. It's the reason we're here. No project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk. Try it at work sometime if you don't believe me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Andy, consider this: "talk talk talk" is useful if it's being done to convince you, the only person with control over the article, that you're wrong. Talk towards the truth is not useless talk: it's incredibly substantive. As it stands now, it's you, Bugler, and TK versus everyone else on the site. It might be time to recognize that all this talk has the "substance" of proving your error.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:08, 18 November 2008 (EST)

FredX, having a Conservative/Christian - friendly encyclopedia does not obligate CP to prostitute those beliefs by allowing people who are not Christians, who are not Conservatives, to alter articles or their tone, to fit their outlook. The truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no? You and I could argue 24/7, over the existence of God, to use an example. No matter how many "facts" you presented me with, it would not alter my ''knowing'' he exists. Political and religious thought is highly subjective. One mans "distortion" is another mans valid "truth". To repeatedly try to alter someone's beliefs is a form of bullying. Read what you are saying. No one has the obligation to appoint himself "Internet Monitor of Truth". Your conventions of how a wiki-encyclopedia come from where? It is totally lacking in logic to think the conventions of one place should be used at another. If I go to the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, and appoint myself the "truth" monitor there, what would happen?

If you have a complaint, you can always avail yourself the email links to other users. Or post your objection on the author's talk page. We aren't talking here about people objecting. We are talking about people who will not take "no" for an answer, and demand that their truth is better than another's. Once your point is made, posted, doing it again and again, without end, accomplishes what, other than you being able to vent? I don't spend time arguing with liberals at the Kos or HuffPo, because I know they do not agree with me, never will. I am not a YEC, yet I am here. What would be accomplished for me to argue, without end, with Philip Rayment (to use a known example of a YEC member here) over the age of the Earth? His "facts" as to Earth's age, are his. Mine are mine. In building an encyclopedia, or in any project, the trick is to focus on the areas we can agree on, and not let those we don't bog us down. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Actually, TK, I couldn't disagree with any of your comments, but for this one - "the truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no?". That's certainly true when it comes to matters of dogma or belief - it's true, we might never agree on what is "true". But there is much here on Conservapedia that is ''not'' dogma-related, and is simply factually untrue. To take this particular article as an example, might I ask if you believe the Muslim-related material might not be better presented if gathered into one section, entitled "Speculation on Obama's Muslim beliefs", instead of being scattershot throughout the article, unreferenced, misquoted, and asserted with no validity. That would actually HELP this debate, yet is certain to be disallowed under a threat of "we don't hide the truth here", yet who's truth is that? And my mere suggestion of disagreement with this thesis likely marks me as a candidate for a ban. Certainly it's likely that if I answer one more time in this reasonable debate with you, I will likely be blocked by ASchalfly, Bugler or others - simply for debating. But how else would I debate my suggestion - the article is locked? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 14:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Perhaps worth pointing out here that FredX did indeed, as he had predicted, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AFredX&year=&month=-1 receive a 90/10 ban] while trying to debate the content of this article. I imagine he rests his case. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 16:25, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Talking with enemies ==

In the section '''"statements"''' Obama is criticised for claiming Roosevelt spoke to our enemies. Now it is true that Roosevelt did not talk to Hitler, but he certainly ''did'' talk to Stalin, who most Americans consider (and hesitantly considered back then) an enemy, and it is Stalin that Obama is presumably referring to. Rather than letting Hitler conquer Russia while the United States kept to its own war effort, or letting Patton continue on to Warsaw and Moscow after victory against Germany, Roosevelt was willing to talk to the Communist Enemy to co-ordinate action and to ultimately permit the Bolshevik conquest of eastern Europe. Naturally there are divergent opinions over whether in this particular case compromise was the best course of action, but what Obama is obviously expressing when he refers to Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, all of whom negotiated with the Soviet enemy, is that it's better to come to talk with and possibly compromise with an opponent we may feel ideologically at polar opposites with instead of just blindly fighting whenever the oppurtunity presents itself.

For that reason it is advisable that the section is removed as it relies on the assumption that Obama was referring exclusively to Truman and Roosevelt's relationship with Hitler rather than with Stalin. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 12:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Your reasoning is confused, and your conclusion makes no sense at all.

:Compromising with an enemy is often the wrong thing to do. Your [[all or nothing]] analysis doesn't support it: it's rarely a case of "give in or fight blindly". Perhaps you have assumed that America only '''felt''' it was ideologically at a polar opposite from atheism and totalitarianism. This is [[liberal dogma]], not CP editorial policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::You misunderstand completely. ''I'' didn't say anything about whether or not America should compromise - Obama did. Whether or not it should has absolutely nothing to do with the issue I was raising.

::What I was saying was that the section is trying to make it seem that Obama has no grasp of history, that he was claiming that Roosevelt and Truman talked to our enemies (assumed to be Hitler, Mussolini and Hideki) when those Presidents didn't. However, Roosevelt and Truman did talk to our enemies, namely Stalin. Obama was referring to the talks Roosevelt and Truman had with ''Stalin'', not Hitler, and thus he was right to claim that Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy talked to our enemies. Therefore the section is false, not because we should compromise with our enemies, but because Obama did not make a mistake as the section apparently claims.

::Hopefully I have made myself more clear. But I will repeat to make sure: I am not saying anything about whether or not it is right to compromise with enemies. I am not saying that the communists were only apparently our enemies - in fact by suggesting that Roosevelt did not talk with enemies when he clearly talked with Stalin the section in the ''article'' implies that Stalin was not really an enemy. What I am saying is that Obama was perfectly justified in saying that Roosevelt and Truman talked and compromised with our enemies. This means exactly what it says, ''not'' that compromising with our enemies was perfectly justified. I apologise if I was not clear the first time, that's why I've rephrased the same point a second and third time.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Well? Am I understood now? Is the section going to be removed? [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 18:56, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== compared to wikipedia article ==

It is interesting that the wikipedia articles on Obama does not mention Pakistan. In fact, his three week trip to Pakistan was documented in a New York Times article, but metion of it was removed at wikipedia with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama&diff=252397639&oldid=252397137 this edit]. It looks like some wiki contributors are running interferance at wikipedia. The conservapedia article is a nice balance to that article, though the part that he "may be sworn into office at his inauguration ... using the Koran" is dodgy, and sounds almost National Enquirer-ish. I think the wording could be improved, though I haven't looked into it. It would not surprise me if Barack Obama were a Muslim, and it would not surprise me if he were a liberal Christian with weakly held beliefs and a fondness for his early teachings. At wikipedia, I also didn't see any mention of Bill Ayers on Obama pages. That is very strange. The sad part is, if President Obama appointed Bill Ayers to be the head of the Department of Education, I don't think we would see much difference in the American education system--at least in the public schools--as people that think like him are already in control. Anyway, keep up the good work. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 12:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good points, BigMike! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Thanks. Here is a quote "If there is an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process of law, that threatens my civil liberties."--Barack Obama, 2004 DNC speech. (Yes, it is what some would call a quote mine, but it is a direct quote of a complete sentence.) That being said, I agree with others that the article would be better if it were to document the fact that many people are speculating about whehter or not Barack Obama is a Muslim, including adding their reasoning. But trying to make a case that he is a Muslim in this article isn't turning out too well in my opinion. It's good to see some changes have been made. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 22:50, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Suggestion for compromise ==

Since it's clear that none of the editors involved are going to be able to agree, why don't we take Mr. Schlafly's advice [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=554261&oldid=554228 earlier on this talk page] where he says "We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide." How about, instead of going back and forth, back and forth, we instead allow the inclusion of evidence ''against'' Obama being a Muslim. The reader can read the evidence on both sides, and decide for themselves. Good idea? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Practically, I think that's a workable compromise. Theoretically, of course, it's problematic: neutrality towards an incorrect idea is not objectivity. The idea that Obama is a Muslim is objectively wrong, and should be excised. But, practically, I'm willing to go with that compromise. Great idea from a helpful sysop!-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Not a sysop, but every now and then I have a good idea ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::I think this is a very sensible idea. I don't agree with any of the arguments that Obama is a Muslim, but obviously a few people here are determined to cling to them, so including the counterarguments as well would be a good way to balance this part of the article & end the conflicts over this. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Also, if the argument would take up a great deal of the article, it could be moved to a separate page. What's the policy on linking to debates from regular pages? I know there are two Obama/Muslim debates going, and I think linking to them from the article might not be a bad idea. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 13:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::(/signed) Totally agree, if all the arguments are presented then anyone who is open minded can make up their own mind. Those with closed minds won't be convinced either way, no matter what arguments are presented..--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:''"Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)"''[http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7882247&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.11.1 as required]. This was one source found in 5 minutes work and if anyone doubts the quality of the source [http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/InsideFox/AboutUs?pageId=5.1 please look here]. This is just a single source found at 00:25am after being out all night doing charity work. As I find others I will post. I will also point out that I do not consider this, or subsequent evidence put forth, as 'talk' as I am responding to a direct request for information by the creator of this site--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Another, same conditions, contributor makes clear that he thinks that Obama is at best [http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/02/barack-obama-is-not-a-christian/ a deist], at worst an atheist, but at no point offers an argument for Obama being of an Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:31, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:As above, [http://www.jewsonfirst.org/08a/obama_religion_attacked.html 'Minnery, who served as Dobson's interlocutor on the program yesterday said during the broadcast that Obama was "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology."'] Again, at best the argument says that Obama is a deist, at worst is trying to set up his own sect of 'christianity', but no evidence to show that Obama is of Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:And again, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317031,00.html "....to baseless e-mailed rumors that he is a Muslim and poses a threat to the security of the United States."]--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Logic argument: I believe it has been mentioned that Obama may be a Muslim because of his lack of dancing or dancing skills. If that belief is true then every man lives in the UK and is either i) not out of his head on 'e' or ii) over the age of 25 is muslim, as no man in the UK that does not fit the two previous definitions ''ever'' dances seriously with full use of his arms, at least, not outside of ballroom dancing. I admitted that is observational evidence, not just of myself but numerous others, but observational evidence is still evidence, and considerably better than suppostition and hearsay, two lower classes of 'evidence' ('that is which is seen').--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:More. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201322.html Washington Post, but hey, ''I'm'' not going to be the person who raises objections as to their factual accuracies], I'll leave that to the lawyers, my knowledge of libel laws just ain't that good. Of course, there are always those that will argue on the point of "Classes in Islam are offered to the predominantly Muslim students at the school....", but then that requires proving that Obama was a Muslim with a level of evidence above supposition and hearsay.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:And now it is 01:00 and I need my sleep. Page 2 of Google tomorrow.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:00, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Since CP is the Conservative/Christian-friendly encyclopedia it is, while other points of view should be included, it is wrong to bully it into providing the equivalent of "equal time" to those who are not Christian and/or Conservative. Those who disagree should stop wasting time with this and move on to places that are more accommodating of [[liberal deceit]], Atheist [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:56, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:You are absolutely right. This is the Christian encyclopedia, at least one of the online ones. That means the Word is God, and God is truth. Let no argument be hidden, for that is the path of the Fallen, the jealous and the wicked. For those with God are armoured with Faith and armed with the Truth and are truly capable of determining the gleanings of Truth from argument and do not need protection, for the Word that is Truth guides their path--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:05, 18 November 2008 (EST)

This article is filled with unsubstantiated rumor and speculation, stated as fact. If Conservapedia is going to claim to be "the Christian encyclopedia", and its editors are going to claim to be Christians, then they should stop filling their articles with the same deceit they hypocritically accuse liberals and atheists of. And it does not make me a "deceitful liberal vandalizer" to protest outright blatant lies perpetuated by those pretending to be Christians.
[[User:CBrown|CBrown]] 7 December 2008

== Accusations of Homosexuality ==

The story is starting to spread that Obama is a homosexual or bisexual and may have been involved in the deaths of some of his past lovers<ref>http://chgocutie.blogspot.com/2007/12/nathaniel-nate-spencer-tucc-sanctuary.html</ref>. In shades of a Vince Foster type scandal I'm wondering if any mention of this development should go into the main page. Larry Sinclair<ref>http://larrysinclair0926.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/chicago-packet.pdf</ref> was the initial source, but evidence seems to be mounting<ref>http://redinktexas.blogspot.com/2008/07/larry-sinclair-obamas-bad-penny.html</ref> that Obama has a gay past he's been hiding.
::I really wish someone with authority to edit the article would add some mention of Obama's homosexual leanings. There's evidence of murder, harassment and extensive political corruption and the article makes no mention of it. Isn't it the responsibility of a reliable source to present all the facts, negative and positive, about the soon to be President?--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:46, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== A better approach to highlighting Obama's negatives - Highlight More Best Arguments against Obama vs. the throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall approach ==

Instead of the article focusing more on claims that are certainly not undisputable (Obama being a Muslim) I think the article could do a better job of pointing out the negative things about Obama that have a much higher degree of certainty.

Examples of things which could be highlighted more:

1. Other than a footnote which few people will read, does the article highlight sufficiently '''his extremely liberal voting record''' as a Senator?[http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/] Perhaps, some of his more extreme votes could be highlighted.

2. There is the '''Obama/infantcide''' issue which might be highlighted more if it is mentioned or mentioned if it is not currently mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRpIf2F9NA and http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

===Consequences of the current state of the article===

It seems like the article takes a throw a lot of negative spaghetti against the wall and hopefully some sticks approach. That is not how you create a compelling article in terms of when it highlights some of the negative aspects about Obama. Dubious claims in the article make the valid claims less prominent. Also, it is not surprising that the Obama article is not ranked high by the search engines like the Conservapedia [[Bill Clinton]] article is (I have not read the Bill Clinton article but I suspect it is better than the Obama article. I do know that Conservapedia's Bill Clinton article is ranked #6 by Google). I think that is because it is difficult to get conservatives to link to the article and the article is easily dismissed by liberals and they do not see it as a threat. If you want the article to be informative and influential any dubious claims have to be weeded out and the legitimate matters have to be highlighted more. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== First Black President? ==

Should we have an article on the [[First Black President]]? I had created one, but [[User_talk:Ed_Poor#First_Black_president|Ed said we should talk about it here first]].

The citations I found that indicated Obama is not the first were [http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1461.cfm], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&curid=65751&diff=561761&oldid=561751], and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=534592&oldid=534582]. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:11, 18 November 2008 (EST)

*I would suggest "Bi-Racial" as the most accurate term. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:13, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Please do create an entry. Thanks for the insight. Of course, the other reason for omitting the liberal claim that Obama is the first black president (aside from its likely inaccuracy) is the dubious significance of the assertion. By now our society is long past judging people by their race, and Obama's election illustrates how exaggerated the liberal claims about continued racism really are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Gee, your right, I mean how do we know he is the first black president. I mean they didn't have photgraphs back then, so maybe John Adams was really a brother! For that matter, how do we know he is the first muslim president? Maybe Iran-contra was Reagan's way of helping his fellow Islamists!
:Seriously though, is it really a liberal claim that he is the first black president? Other than you, who is claiming he isn't? [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 18:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TTerm, perhaps you don't know how to click on a link yet. BHarlan provided several of them above for you. Also, TTerm, this isn't a blog. Contribute substantively, or rant elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Two of those links just link back to conservapedia. The third references "research" by a man named Leroy Vaughn. The claims and evidence seem dubious to say the least. Whatever the veracity of these claims, it is wrong to call this a "liberal" claim since most conservatives believe him to be the first black president as well. [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 20:59, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Great. Would you mind undeleting [[First Black president]], if the software allows it? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Done, without yet reading it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I for one find it hard to believe that you would have agreed with that research two years ago Schlafly. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 23:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==How to collaborate==

If you'll notice, me last few edits to this article were sweepingly changed back by [[User:Aschlafly]]. However, neither my initial round of edits, nor his response, has resulted in animosity. On my part, at least, I have nothing but unbounded respect for my co-editor here.

We are not against each other, although our approach is different. We are finding a synthesis which is (probably) better than each of us could do alone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::The Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States are collabrative efforts that him withstood the test of time, among others! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good for you, Ed (seriously - I wouldn't have been nearly as sanguine about it). The facts, however, remain that:
:#'''DanH''' - a strong editor and respected sysop - '''quit this project in disgust''' at what he saw as an attempt to "smear" Obama as a Muslim.
:#'''PJR''' - the most patient and eloquent defender of YEC I have ever encountered - '''categorically refutes''' the idea that there is any credible evidence that Obama is a Muslim.
:#'''Conservative''' - principal author of several of Conservapedia's defining articles - remains '''wholly unconvinced''' of the strength of the Obama/Muslim case, and is concerned that its inclusion in the article could '''damage Conservapedia's credibility'''.
:#'''Tim/CPAdmin1''' - one of the original members of this project - has '''repeatedly objected''' to its inclusion.
:#And finally, '''ChrisS''' - again, one of the original Conservapedians - even felt moved to describe this article as '''the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen'''. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=556523]
:What kind of synthesis do you hope to achieve in the face of such ''demonstrably principled'' opposition? These are not lone, liberal voices. These are long-standing contributors who collectively insist that '''this is plain wrong and must be removed'''.

:Good night (and good luck). --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 17:39, 18 November
::: And that's not all of it. At least two other administrators have also made known their opposition, via e-mail (which Andy got copies of at the time). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::We respect the views of a minority among us (and note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education). Regardless, obviously logic prevails over even the opinion of a majority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::: Andy, it is ''your'' view that is in the minority; JohnZ was citing the ''majority''. It seems that Ed (inadvertently) recognised that by his comment below. Hopefully logic would prevail, but unfortunately you are trying to make ''your'' minority and illogical view prevail.
::: And this yet again highlights a major problem here. You are throwing around these personal opinions as though they are factual, denigrating the opposing view and the people that put them, but not actually engaging the arguments and providing a logical response.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

The late Michael Crichton said, "The Nazis got 200 German scientists to say that Einstein was wrong, and then somebody asked Einstein, 'How does it feel to have 200 scientists against you?' And he said, 'It takes only one to prove me wrong.' " [http://www.perc.org/articles/article894.php] We don't go by majority vote around here, because the majority are (as our [[Founding Fathers]] indicated) simply not trustworthy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: So are you saying that the administrators who are in the majority on this issue are not trustworthy? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Hi Ed,

:I'm not usually known for my poor reading comprehension, but I can't tell which side of this thing your statement above is supporting. Is Andy vs. the 5 listed sysops the minority, or are the five listed sysops the minority as described by Andy ("[w]e respect the views of a minority among us)...")? Merci, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:02, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<-honh honh...''

:: Ed's comment seems clear enough to me. Logic is not the result of majority vote, and even less so the product of a consensus among the minority. Ed is opposing relying on the view of a minority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Good grief, man, must I spell it out? I'm on the side of finding out what is true! As J.M. Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" It is to the principle of truth-seeking which I express my devotion here, as well as to the collaborative process of its discovery. Stop trying to cover this story like a sportswriter trying to figure out which horse won the race. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:And what do ''you'' see as being the facts here, Ed? How do you hope to achieve your synthesis? --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, Ed, I'm sorry but I need it spelled out for me. This isn't a vague question for late night dorm hall meanderings. It's pretty concrete: the Obama-is-Muslim material, as Andy wants it presented, belongs in the article, or it doesn't. I can paint those two statements on horses and run them around a track if an over-extended metaphor will help here - only one of those horses can win. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:31, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<- will, however, need to learn to play the bugle (if not the bugler)...''

:Wow, Ed, that's extremely well put!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:21, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:ASchalfly - you said, "We...note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education". Might I ask what your own qualifications are in this regard, since you are clearly 'over-ruling' their opinions? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 18:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I'm going to write an article about [[the real horse whisperer]]. I have no more time to entertain you here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Amazing. A simple question, with only two possible answers, that could be answered in fewer characters than you just used to beg off. And if you think I'm entertained you probably do think those horses are talking to you. ''Anybody'' who sticks with the "this conversation is a dragged-out waste of time" is missing the point that the time is being wasted by the continued and false defenses presented. It's only a continuing waste of time because the people in the wrong unfortunately wield all the clout, so they are in fact allowed to say "nuh unh" and ''have it stick''. If SteveRandomperson had inserted this stuff, other regular users could remove it, and when Steve got into an edit war over it any of the five sysops listed above could simply end this thing. It's only dragging on because none of them can pull rank on the proponent of this material.

:''That'' is the source of wasted time here. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Aziraphale, your long-winded comment is incoherent, and your list of contributions is a remarkable violation of the [[90/10 rule]] against talk, talk, talk.[[Special:Contributions/Aziraphale]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: I'm afraid he can't respond Andy. He's been blocked. --[[User:WOwen|WOwen]] 19:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: I had no problem understanding Aziraphale's comment, so it is quite coherent, and he makes a very good point. It would make more sense to take notice of the problem than to brush it aside and silence him with a block. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==You're All Missing the Point==

Ok I've said this once before, but nobody seems to understand so I'll try to make it clearer.

'''YOU ARE ALL MISSNIG THE POINT'''

Sitting around debating whether or not Obama is a Muslim is doing nothing to discredit him, instead it just reflects badly on conservatives. If you stopped using circumstantial evidence to "prove" that he may have told one lie on the campaign trail (which inevitably does not affect his politics) then you would realise there are plenty of valid fronts you can criticise him on:

*Abortion
*Stem cell research
*War on Terror
*Criminal rights
*Lack of substance in policy
*Economic regulation

and so on... If you examined these in detail and explained why they would be bad for America, rather than dedicating copious amounts of the article to a farfetched claim that he's a Muslim in disguise, then you would not only convince conservatives that he is the wrong candidate, but also show politically neutral parties why they should not have voted for him. Instead, the article at the moment reads like a cross between a parody and a far right-wing blog entry, and will do nothing to convince anyone other than the most conservative voter. One of your own sources in the article clearly demonstrates that these attacks actually made people vote FOR Obama, and I can definitely say that if I saw this as the ideology of McCain I would have changed sides for the election.

In debating there is a argument known as an ad homenin attack, where you attack the debator and not his/her arguments. This is weak, because it demonstrates an inability to critically analyse the opposition's position. This is exactly what is happening here, you are ''trying'' to attack Obama's character rather than his politics. If you tried more of the latter, you'll find that you will convince many more people that Obama is not an appropriate president for the United States, and win much more credibility in the process. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 20:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== obama, Muslim or "liberal Christian" with a skeptical streak - The duck test ==

Andy, you claim that you are better educated regarding Islam than the oppposing sysops and that gives you deeper understanding of the issue. In response, I will first say that you have not shown that Lolo Soetoro was a staunch Muslim and given that Obama was sent to a Catholic school at some point I don't think you can show that his father had a great influence in his life. Furthermore, it appears as if Obama's mother was not married to the stepfather Lolo Soetoro long. In addition, his skeptical mother appears to have had the most influence in his life. Given that I have spent sometime studying Islam and had a Muslim housemate when I was younger and lived in a area highly concentrated with Muslims in the past, I don't think it is fair to say that I have great ignorance about Islam. I am well aware that patriarchy is present in Islamic families, but I am also aware that Obama's fathers did not appear to have great influence in his life.

I really think at this point that Obama's behavior is key in terms of the likelihood of him being a Muslim.

Most American Muslims are not rabidly pro-abortion, have great antipathy to the homosexual agenda, and abstain from alcohol. On the other hand, most "liberal Christians" who have a philosophical skepticism streak favor the "pro-choice" position and most do not have great antipathy toward the homosexual lifestyle. In addition, most "liberal Christians" have no problem drinking alcohol. Also, there is the fact that Obama's daughters were baptised.

Given the above, if Obama walks like a duck and talks like a duck, he is probably a duck. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)'

Obama's nominally Muslim father was not religious in the first place.[[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Reversion ==

All three items of evidence that Philip deleted are fully supported and hardly deniable. I don't know why Philip wants to delete them. The entries are educational also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:I'm afraid not one of them is "supported" in any way and all are deniable. None of them are educational, and all are merely unfounded assertion and speculation. The first accusation (for that is what they are) about him not changing his name is dependent on him being Muslim to begin with. If he is not Muslim, then he has no need to change his name, and you haven't provided any evidence he's Muslim. The second accusation, about taqiyya, depends upon him being a Muslim, and you have not provided any evidence to that. The third, about the pronunciation of Pakistan, is irrelevant, as that is the correct pronunciation of that country's name. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 23:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: As FredX says, they are ''not'' supported, and they are most definitely deniable. Simply making those assertions is not a supporting argument. And how can you continue to claim that you don't know why I want to delete them when I've told you several times? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:18, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:: Philip, you have to do better than that before deleting factual and informative material. All three points are enlightening and undeniable, and I doubt you knew any of them before reading them here. We let the readers decide here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::: Okay Andy, I'll try and lay it out as simply as I can for you.
::: For something to be included in this (or any) article, it needs to be both ''factual'' and ''relevant''. We could put in the article that Obama eats breakfast every morning, and that would (presumably) be quite ''factual'', but it would not be ''relevant''. Agreed?
::: So when you say that I should not delete ''factual'' information, as long as it is ''relevant'', I agree.
::: The problem is, however, that the claim about Obama using a Muslim pronunciation of "Pakistan", for example is '''not factual'''. This is because there is no such thing as a Muslim pronunciation of "Pakistan". We thrashed this out ages ago on the Main Talk page, so it's not as though this is new information to you.
::: So when you keep repeating ad nauseam that "we don't delete factual information", '''you are avoiding the point that it is ''not factual'''''. That's why I keep deleting it—because it is ''not'' factual—and you repeatedly claiming that it is factual '''is not a valid argument''', because it is merely an assertion, not evidence or reason. If you want the claim kept, you have to show that it is ''factual''. That is the very thing that you avoid doing.
::: I don't know how this can be explained any more simply. It is beyond my comprehension that you cannot understand this, which leaves outright deceit on your part as the only other explanation. But then I can't comprehend that you would be outright deceitful either, so I'm at a loss to understand what's going through your mind.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

"Letting the readers decide" would ring more true if you simply laid out the facts about Obama instead of riddling the article with unsubstantiated, repeatedly disproven falsehoods to skewer it toward your personal political viewpoint. Do you not realize that simply highlighting the positions he supports that conservatives are opposed to (his support of gay rights and abortion rights as just two examples) would do a better job turning conservatives against Obama than telling easily proven lies about him? The fact that you feel you have to resort to lies makes you look like you are guilty of the very thing you accuse liberals of: not having any actual factual argument to make. [[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Unbelievable ==

It's understandable that conservatives disapprove of Obama and much of this article reflects that. Smearing is nothing new to politics, but the poor logic shamelessly employed here is an embarrassment to American conservatives. As this site becomes a "de facto" conservative reference, more and more people will begin believing this is how conservatives reason and come up with their ideas. With great power comes great responsibility, and Conservapedia and Aschlafly fail disastrously as representatives of the conservative movement.

Under the pretense of "not censoring" and "letting the readers decide" the article is allowed to introduce deceptive evidence toward building weak and ultimately unproven hypotheses. Simultaneously, the exact opposite policy is used when contradictory evidence is presented.

This stunning hypocrisy can be best illustrated by how the "Obama is likely a Muslim" section is moderated. Several times myself and others have attempted to delete the statement "Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith." Yes he said the words "My Muslim Faith" but this is utterly meaningless as no context for the statement is provided. I could say "I approve of the killing of babies coming to an end" and using the logic here I could be quoted as saying "I approve of the killing of babies"

However, we cannot escape the fact he said the words "My Muslim Faith" and since Conservapedia doesn't censor information, it must remain in the article. Furthermore, it must remain in a section attempting to show secret Muslim faith, however misleading it may be.

Where the hypocrisy comes in is that there is an overwhelming body of information that suggests Obama is not a Muslim and in fact a Christian. For example, he was sworn into the Senate using a bible in 2005, he attended a (albeit controversial) christian church for decades, no one has ever observed him performing Muslim rituals (ie, praying 5 times a day). Even the "My Muslim Faith" comment is evidence of him being a christian when viewed in full context, as it's more than clear he meant to say "My Christan Faith". Attempting to mention any of this in the article will result in an almost immediate undo and block.

The intentions of this section are transparent: to pander to modern American distrust of Muslims to build distrust of Obama. The irony of this and the article as a whole is obvious and almost comedic, as even a semi-informed reader can see through the deception and will likely end up with a reduced opinion of Conservatives.

I expect to immediately be labeled a liberal for posting this. I need to say for the record, I voted for McCain. I attend Church. I have an American flag outside my house. However I cannot stomach this article and quite frankly am ashamed that such cheap hate tactics are being used by people calling themselves conservative.

[[User:Conservamike|Conservamike]] 23:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Your best arguments against Obama being Muslim amount to unsourced opinion on your part. You gave no evidence just expressed opinions. Personally, I would hope this encyclopedia would hold itself to a higher standard and demand sources. There is ample evidence that Obama is Muslim pretending to be a Christian. Arguing that he can't be Muslim because no one has seen him bowing to Mecca is an appeal to ignorance. The Koran permits Muslims to lie about being Muslim if it advances the Muslim faith.--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:42, 20 November 2008 (EST)

==Counter Evidence==

If we are letting the readers decide (as written above) then in order to keep this article fair and balanced we should add a section detailing the evidence that Obama is not a Muslim (such as his positions on abortion and stem cell research, his religious history, his Catholic schooling etc). If the evidence is truly overwhelming that Obama is a Muslim then there should be no problem with adding such a section, as readers will quickly be able to see that it is insufficient to counter the claim. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 08:57, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: Fine, post your best stuff here first. But claiming that Obama went to Catholic school is counter evidence is, of course, absurd. Stop by your local Catholic school and you'll see Muslims students who never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:: And Jewish students. In many areas the public schools are pathetic. In the absence of a good Protestant school, many parents are forced to choose between overly liberal public schools with poor curriculum, home schooling or a Catholic school. Many choose Catholic schools. The Jesuits tend to be in charge of the Catholic schools and they're actually pretty even handed in their treatment of non-Christian students. Saying someone attended a Catholic school or sent their children to one as "evidence" of their being Christian is absurd and betrays a deep ignorance of how the schools are actually run.--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:54, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Dunno if this is counter evidence, but my two cents about the misguided motivations of Obama's Lenin poster.

Most Europeans, East and West, would be severely alienated by any hidden or subliminal message that Obama was Leninist. Eastern Europe suffered under the communist iron heel for 45 years after WW2, including East Berlin. And Western Europe feared invasion. West Berlin was nearly starved by the communist blockade of the late 40s. Eastern Europe's rush to join NATO and the EU to ensure their free economies and societies is testament to this hatred of Soviet Leninist domination. Of course none of this goes to whether the poster was Leninist, only that if it was it was a serious mistake on Obama's part.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:54, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== My innocuous talk page contribution removed? ==

The Lenin poster one. Just wondered why.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Oh figured it out now, sorry --[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== About the Muslim allegations ==

Allow me to play devil's advocate. I am lost. As a conservative, bordering on a paleo-conservative, with a streak of classical liberal in the John Locke/Jeffersonian sense, who also fears the coming administration greatly (I keep thinking Jimmy Carter, stagflation, FDR, Civilian Conservation Corps, prolongation of the depression, and a world war), a man's religion is his own business.

This is the United States. Our forefathers fought and died for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In those rights are the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion.

The freedom of speech does give Conservapedia the right to impune the president elect for his supposed Muslim faith (backed by what looks to me to be evidence that is neither conclusive nor wholly circumstantial). But that doesn't mean Conservapedia should squander that right in an attempt to prove what is ultimately between him and God.

The first amendment also gives every man in this country the right to hold whatever spiritual beliefs he wants, and to share, or not share, those beliefs with others.

While I do think it is appropriate to mention speculation that President elect Barack Obama may be a Muslim, to the extent that such allegations exist and are notable, as I think they are, I do not think it is proper for this encyclopedia to attempt to make the case that he is a closet Muslim. The Muslim speculation should be relegated to later parts of the article, and reworked.

Juxtaposing a reference early on in the article, which, if you scroll to the references, indicates that Keith Ellison used a Koran in his swearing in ceremony, with the statement that Obama is an "apparent Muslim" is tawdry at best, and beneath a serious conservative encyclopedia.

Certainly, President elect Obama's political views deserve much more scrutiny from a conservative perspective, than whether or not he is a closet Muslim.

Senator Barack Obama was rated the most liberal senator, left of a self-declared socialist. I think we should focus on that.

President elect Barack Obama seems to hold political views that go against our Constitution. This raises the question about whether or not he can honestly affirm to protect and defend the Constitution.

President elect Barack Obama may institute nationalized health care, requiring children to be vaccinated in order to receive benefits, while bankrupting the private health care system for middle and lower class Americans. Where will this leave such children?

Barack Obama may very likely work to reduce or control home schooling and private schools.

Barack Obama may work to erode or eviscerate the second amendment.

There is plenty of political evidence for these other fears, and it is more appropriate to focus on these, and not his supposed secret Muslim belief system.

I recommend focusing on his easily provable liberal and possibly anti-American political views, and not waste too much time trying to prove he has some religious belief system. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 10:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:BigMike, I take it you're not an historian. People's beliefs matter greatly, and you can bet a real historian would not tolerate censorship of inquiry into someone's beliefs. Our other entries likewise provide information about the beliefs of other presidents, great scientists, and others. The insistence on censoring a similar inquiry about Obama's beliefs is misplaced and inappropriate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::I didn't mean to censor it, I just suggested a shift in focus. I meant to focus on extreme liberal political views first, as they are, to me, the most important. Change the prominence within the article, and change the tone. But you're right, I am not a historian. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 11:12, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::OK, your point is well-taken then. But the reality is that many of Obama's positions to date were posturing to win the presidency, and not necessarily indicative of his priorities as president. His beliefs matter more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::::No problem. I know this site takes a lot of pointless flack, and it is hard to seperate the wheat from the chaf. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 11:20, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Perhaps a template would help ==

The discussion on this page keeps covering the same ground over and over again. Aside from the wasted time and effort, a major problem is that new users often edit the page and become instantly embroiled in the controversy, sometimes leading to bad feeling and thus driving away potentially valuable contributors.

As a solution, I suggest a template is created and added to the top of the page and any others in this situation. The wording could be something like:

:''This article deals with a controversial topic and has already been the subject of lengthy discussion. Your input is welcome, but '''please check the talk page carefully''' to make sure that the issues you raise have not been dealt with already. New users in particular are advised to start by editing less controversial pages to get a feel for the site.''

Thoughts and suggestions very welcome.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 15:48, 19 November 2008 (EST)

*We do have such. Template "Controversial". But it has problems, and needs some fixing. use the {{ and type in Controversial, and see what I mean. I have read it noted several places it is broken. If you or anyone else knows what is needed, fix the template, and if it is locked, contact Philip Rayment or Ed Poor and let them know. Thanks, good suggestion. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Thanks - I've asked Mr Rayment. If that template's ever going to be used, I think this article could do with it, though the wording could be more diplomatic in my opinion.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 16:36, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::Perhaps it would be better slapped here, on this page? If anyone is going to change the article, hopefully they will look here first? Assuming this page is ever partially archived! :D --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I've fixed the bug, although I don't think putting the template on the article page is going to solve much. And by the way, it's designed for article pages, not talk pages; the link in it to the talk page won't work if placed on a talk page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:56, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== "Captured the White House" ==

Is it just me, or does this memorable line conjure up images of Barry and Joe, the special forces operatives, sneaking across the White House lawn under cover of darkness before launching a daring assault, creating a beach head in the kitchen before ensnaring their ultimate goal: the Oval Office.

Would the phrase "won the presidential election" be more encyclopedic?

[[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 16:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: Your phrase would be an improvement. Go ahead, and thanks--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::It would indeed be an improvement, but he cannot make it, as the article is locked. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 16:41, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Religious Affiliation ==

OK, I do not want to get involved in the whole debate about whether Obama is a covert (or even overt) Muslim. (Although the statistically savvy amongst you can probably predict with 99.9999% certainty what my view is on that matter.)

However, the article currently has two sections dealing with religion. The first ("Obama will likely become the first Muslim President") comes as part of the introduction. It provides a list of evidence supporting the author's view that Obama is a Muslim. The second ("Religious Affiliation") describes various issues to do with Obama's connections in the Christian church, and provides some quotes about his history relating to the Islamic faith. Nobody reading just the second section would come away beleiving the author thinks Obama is a Muslim.

The two seem a little contradictory - either the article does take the view that he is a Muslim, in which case the second piece needs re-writing, or the article takes the view that he is not a Muslim, in which case the first piece needs re-writing, or the article presents the issue as unresolved, in which case both pieces need re-writing.

Given that the subject is so controversial, I do not want to volunteer to do the writing. It would appear that Ed Poor is Appeaser-in-Chief - maybe someone should ask him to have a go?

[[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 17:01, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: So are you now saying both sides should not be presented??? The liberal opposition to the observation that Obama is likely a Muslim is as self-contradictory as it is unjustified.

: By the way, I don't think Obama has had any Christian affiliation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, there is plenty of conservative opposition to the notion that Obama is a secret Muslim as evidenced by this talk page. Andy, what conservative news organizations are still wedded to the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim? I have not checked but I am guessing that [[Cybercast News Service]] which runs plenty of hard hitting and reasonable conservative pieces does not currently promote the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:36, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I think all I'm saying is the two bits are inconsistent, in that the first leaves no room for the possibility of the second being true and vice versa. I think it's fine to present both views if that's what the authors want to do - but it has to be done consistently. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 06:37, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== Another shocked conservative here ==

I came to Conservapedia hoping to find a valuable resource on the internet for people like me but to tell the truth I have been shocked and disappointed by some of the content, and this article seems absurd to me. How can we be taken seriously if some of us are peddling nonsense like this? Any right thinking person knows Obama isn't a Muslim. I can't stand the guy but it's clear he's a family man and a Christian. This is just gutter politics, nothing more or less, and it reflects incredibly badly on us.

Most of the stuff in this article has been easily refuted on Snopes at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp. For instance, this shows pictures of Obama with his hand on his heart at the national anthem: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp which makes that picture featured on this page, without his hand on his heart, just another smear.

This is the kind of reason folks didn't vote for McCain - because it's just ugly smear tactics. I despair. [[User:MrCoulter|MrCoulter]]

:The thing that scares me is that the tactics continue even after the election. I dislike them, but during an election, I can at least understand them; that's politics. But now, with the "Muslim" and the "not born in the US" charges (most likely among others I can't think right now), it's like people are trying to de-legitimize the election, declaring him a false president before he's even sworn in. In the eyes of people who believe those allegations, Barack Obama's election was no more legal than a military coup.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 10:08, 20 November 2008 (EST)

:*The election officially lost its validity for many, with the ''fraud'' committed by the Obama campaign in the caucuses [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/caucus-fraud-proof/] which stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton. That was months before this article appeared. There are many pictures, all real, that show Obama with his hand on his heart, and without, so this photo was not altered. I suggest you at least open your mind, do some proper research, and perhaps you will learn of some valid questions, and the total lack of vetting by the media of their favorite candidate. The media has special rights granted in the Constitution. The real question is if they should continue to have those special rights or not, given their continued[[deceit]] in helping with Obama's leftist agenda. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:31, 20 November 2008 (EST)

::Rather off topic, but what are these special rights constitutionally granted to the media? [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 15:27, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Those rights are included within the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:

<blockquote>
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of '''speech''', or of '''the press'''; or the right of the people '''peaceably to assemble''', and to '''petition the Government''' for a redress of grievances."
</blockquote>

You can read more about this [http://www.consource.org/index.asp?sid=28&taxlist=180 here.] --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:36, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== The Truth is not always popular ==

In response to all the "dismayed conservatives" upset about the muslim section. One of the stated goals of CP is to highlight facts and stories that are suppressed by the liberal media. Obama's muslim heritage is one of the best examples of this right now. The mainstream liberal media refuses to even broach the topic! I commend Mr. Schlafly and Conservapedia for not censoring these facts for the sake of political correctness (in the eyes of liberals). Try to have a more open mind. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 13:55, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:Here here. It saddens me to see how incredibly effective the deceit of the liberal media has been. Many upstanding, conservative contributors to this site have been thoroughly insulated from the facts of Obama's muslim heritage. As Aschlafly has repeatedly pointed out, the evidence for it is extremely strong and, even if you don't agree that he ''is'' a muslim, the evidence is strong enough and so thoroughly censored that it should be presented on Conservapedia. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 15:26, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:I don't suppose it's occured to you that a person could have an open mind, evaluate the evidence, and still come to a different conclusion than you?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 15:30, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::Draw whatever conclusions you want, but don't expect the article to be changed or have facts removed to support the conclusion that you come to. The facts are the facts, they exist independant of popular opinion.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 16:39, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::: It ispossible that Obama is a Muslim, what is not possible is that this evidence that we have here on this page is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. It is not good enough. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:06, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Correct. Andy and a few others here have repeatedly ''claimed'' that the evidence is strong. The problem is that they have yet to produce ''any'' strong evidence, and some of the evidence produced is actually either wrong or logically fallacious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:28, 20 November 2008 (EST)

::::: No, Philip, the evidence speaks for itself and should not be censored. Conservapedia exists precisely because of such censorship on liberal sites and the media. I'm restoring the facts yet again.

::::: At bottom, liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship. We're seeing an illustration of that here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: '''ANDY, I AM NOT A LIBERAL. STOP CALLING ME ONE AND APOLOGISE FOR DOING SO.'''
:::::: '''Deleting false and irrelevant information is not "censorship". The "facts" are not facts, and you declaring them to be so does not make them so. You have ''not'' shown them to be facts.''' [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:06, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Philip. your post demonstrates how not to communicate properly on a project of this nature. Aggressive posts like that undermine collaborative efforts, quite apart from th want of courtesy. Your demand for an apology - even were it justifiable, and even were it not directed at the Founder and Leader of Conservapedia, who deserves your respect - is couched in unacceptable terms. And that is just the style. Turning to the 'substance' of your post, you are attempting to impose your subjective views on Conservapedia. The information deleted is not 'false' and 'irrelevant' except in your personal opinion. This is not Raymentapedia. The information has been deemed sufficiently relevant and raises sufficient questions to have a place here. That argument is incontrovertable. As for ''You have ''not'' shown them to be facts'', well, let us apply a little test here. You are so sure of your case. Can you ''prove'' them to be false? And please, ''manners makyth man''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:29, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Bugler, I wonder if there's any point in responding to you, as you appear to have a closed mind on this issue. But I'll assume for the moment that you are open to civil discussion.
:::::::: You accuse me of various faults, but totally ignore the faults on the other side. You say that posts like mine "undermine collaborative efforts", but totally igore that Andy imposing his will on the article ''in direct opposition to many other reputable editors'' is doing exactly that—undermining collaborative efforts.
:::::::: You question whether my demand for an apology is justifiable, but offer not the slightest reason to think that it's not. And somehow seem to think that a person name-calling someone else is above having to apologise for that simply because they are a site owner. Are you saying that Andy doesn't have to observe common courtesy?
:::::::: You say that "The information deleted is not 'false' and 'irrelevant' except in your personal opinion. This is not Raymentapedia.", but offer nothing but your personal opinion as support. And wilfully ignore that it's not just my opinion, but the opinion of a large number of the senior administrators. And also ignore that my claims are ''not'' opinion, but testable.
:::::::: "''The information has been deemed sufficiently relevant...''": By whom? Most senior administrators disagree. And that's the point—it's been ''deemed'' sufficiently relevant, it hasn't been ''demonstrated'' to be relevant. You accuse me of basing it on my personal opinion, but ignore that its relevance is nothing more than the ''personal opinion'' of Andy. Although Andy started this encyclopaedia, he called it ''Conservapedia'', not "Aschlaflypedia". Contrary to your unfounded implication, I'm not expecting it to conform to my personal opinion, but to ''logic and evidence'' and beyond that to the opinions of a majority of the reputable editors. You, on the other hand, are expecting it to conform to the personal opinion of Andy, who as site founder has the right to decide the commandments and who can have what privileges, but can't ''decide'' (as distinct from ''determine'') the truth of such things as whether Obama is a Muslim.
:::::::: "''The information ... raises sufficient questions to have a place here.'': The questions are only relevant if the information is correct, so that objection begs the question.
:::::::: The onus is on those making the claims in the first place to demonstrate them to be correct, not on me to demonstrate their falsity. In any case, the three points are slightly different. One (regarding his name) involves a correct fact making a point that is of little relevance and what relevance it has is based on another claim that hasn't been demonstrated. The second (taqiyya) is a logical fallacy, as it's not actually an argument that Obama is a Muslim. Do you, Bugler, deny that you are a Muslim? Then you must be according to this point, because Muslims deny that they are if it suits their purpose! The third (pronunciation) has been argued at length previously on the main talk page, not only without the claim being supported, but with good counter evidence.
:::::::: In summary, the arguments ''have'' been refuted, but Andy keeps reinserting them anyway, and when he does justify it, it's on the basis of "the evidence speaks for itself" or similar (if it did, then we wouldn't have so many disagreeing), that it's undeniable (if so, we wouldn't have so many denying it), that removal is liberal censorship (it's being removed by a conservative, and removal of incorrect or irrelevant information is not censorship), and so on. The one line of argument glaringly absent is any argument actually ''showing'' (as distinct from asserting) that the information ''is'' both accurate and relevant. This is true both from Andy and from the others such as you supporting him. If the information is so obviously correct and relevant, why is it so hard to actually show that?
:::::::: But I do thank you for one small point, Bugler. Unlike Andy, you did actually raise the point of testing the claims. Now can you demonstrate that they ''are'' correct and relevant? Please support your implied claim that if I speak nicely I will get proper answers, by giving me proper answers.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:06, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::''I wonder if there's any point in responding to you, as you appear to have a closed mind on this issue'' Ah, the old 'when did you stop beating your wife?' tactic, an old Liberal trick. Yagain, Philip, you fail to get the point. You claim that all your assertions are 'proved' and that no-one else's ideas are. This is both arrogant and wrong. You are the only one making assertions that 'X is fact',a nd you fail to provide any satisfactory evidence. Your further claims of legitimacy through supported from a shadowy clique of 'senior administrators' (unnamed) is an attempt to muddy the waters. Those who disagree with you, including Andy, also have support, from senior people here. And we are not saying 'X is fact'; we are saying 'here is a case to answer'. You have not answered it, and you actions in constantly reverting these passages amounts to an attempt to censor opinions with which you disagree. Saying that we 'have not proved our point' is disingenuous, and you know that. We cannot 'prove' our beliefs; proof will only come should our fears bbe realised. Is that a reason to remain silent? Had I believed that the Japanese might attack Pearl Harbor, based on an educated reading of the situation in November 1941, should I have remained silent because a proto-Rayment demanded written proof in triplicate? We are not dogmatic. We are raising fears based on a prime facie assessment of Obama's record and behaviour; we are not claiming that these are facts carbved in granite slabs. But you, Philip, are displaying liberal dogmatism. You say that your beliefs are not beliefs, but facts. And such an attitude is insupportable; especially insupportable as arrogance of belief is leading you into arrogance of behaviour. Throw slurs at me, by all means. But do not insult Andy, who is the founder of this project and our respected leader in this great endeavour. Learn discipline, as you should have learned it in your youth. The question has been debated ''ad nauseam''. Andy has quite correctly made a decision, to stop the ceaseless argument. And it would be seemly for you to accept and comply with this decision; and if you cannot bring yourself to back it openly, then to leave this topic and work on other matters in which you are interested. Display loyalty and work hard. Do not display defiance, do not keep attacking and undermining the leadership. Remember the objectives of Conservapedia, read the Commandments, and do your best to support Conservapedia and support Andy Schlafly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:03, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: "''Ah, the old 'when did you stop beating your wife?' tactic''": No, it's not, actually. That is a question with no correct answer. I didn't ask a question.
::::::::::::: "''You claim that all your assertions are 'proved' and that no-one else's ideas are. ''": Incorrect. I said that my 'assertions' have been backed by logic and evidence, whereas the opposing ideas haven't been. That's not to say that there is no evidicence that can be used to support them; it's saying that such evidence has not been offered.
::::::::::::: "''This is both arrogant and wrong.''": It's not arrogant if it's true, and you've not shown it to be wrong.
::::::::::::: "''You are the only one making assertions that 'X is fact',a nd you fail to provide any satisfactory evidence.''": On the contrary, as I've just posted to Ed above, it is Andy and people such as you who are claiming that 'x is a fact' (Obama is a Muslim), whereas I'm saying that 'there's little or no evidence that x is a fact'.
::::::::::::: "''Your further claims of legitimacy through supported from a shadowy clique of 'senior administrators' (unnamed)...''": You asked for their names, and I pointed out to you that many of them had been named on this page, so you have no good excuse for this false statement.
::::::::::::: "''Those who disagree with you, including Andy, also have support, from senior people here.''": I guess it depends on how you define "senior", but apart from editors with block rights, I haven't seen one.
::::::::::::: "''And we are not saying 'X is fact'; we are saying 'here is a case to answer'.''": Blatantly wrong. As I just said to Ed above, until his last edit, the article said "Obama is a Muslim". That ''is'' saying 'x is a fact'.
::::::::::::: "''You have not answered it...''": I have, a number of times.
::::::::::::: "''...you actions in constantly reverting these passages amounts to an attempt to censor opinions with which you disagree.''": I have pointed out numerous times that it is incorrect to call it censorship (and nobody has refuted that), and I've also pointed out that we are talking about truth claims, not ''opinions''. This is the sort of reason that you appear to have a closed mind. These sorts of things have been explained before, without being refuted, yet you keep repeating these discredited claims.
::::::::::::: "''Saying that we 'have not proved our point' is disingenuous, and you know that.''": Incorrect.
::::::::::::: "''We cannot 'prove' our beliefs;...''": These are ''truth claims'', not just "beliefs". And if they were just "beliefs", then they should be presented as such, not as truth claims.
::::::::::::: "''Had I believed that the Japanese might attack Pearl Harbor, based on an educated reading of the situation in November 1941, should I have remained silent because a proto-Rayment demanded written proof in triplicate?''": False analogy, because that's nothing like what I'm claiming, nor is the comparison the same.
::::::::::::: "''We are not dogmatic.''": Saying that "Obama is a Muslim", and resisting all attempts to remove bad evidence ''is'' being dogmatic.
::::::::::::: "''...we are not claiming that these are facts carbved in granite slabs.''": Essentially you are.
::::::::::::: "''But you, Philip, are displaying liberal dogmatism.''": Oh, so the dogmatism (that ''you'' are displaying) is "liberal", is it?
::::::::::::: "'' You say that your beliefs are not beliefs, but facts.''": Where exactly did I say that?
::::::::::::: "''But do not insult Andy, who is the founder of this project and our respected leader in this great endeavour.''": Even though he is insulting me, calling me names? Are you suggesting that I should not follow his example?
::::::::::::: "''The question has been debated ''ad nauseam''.''": Yes, with the only substantial evidence being ''against'' Obama being a Muslim.
::::::::::::: "'' And it would be seemly for you to accept and comply with this decision...''": Ignoring Commandment 1?
::::::::::::: In summary, yet again another long claim that your side is supported, yet with no actual support offered at all, despite you raising the point of testing the claims. You've mostly avoided answering the points I raised with you, instead launching into another lengthy criticism. Yes, that "closed mind" comment seems to have been justified.
::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:22, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Philip, I'd like to ask you a question (without wading into your arguments with Bugler). Are you accusing ASchlafly of bias or deceit? You seem to be inferring so and, if that isn't your intention, perhaps you should reconsider your phrasing. If it ''is'' your intention, perhaps you should be explicit. On a side note, a number of editors, myself included, have backed the inclusion of this information. Naturally, our opinions seem to be valued less, not being senior administrators, but they're still worth consideration. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 21:11, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: RodWeathers, I assume that you are not asking about accusations such as of Andy calling me a "liberal", but about the disputed content of the article. That being so, see my post on this page with a timestamp of "20:42, 19 November". And despite someone in the Sock Drawer suggesting that I wasn't being totally honest in those comments, they were totally honest.
:::::::::: Yes, I realise that a number of editors such as you have backed the inclusion; I referred to that in my reply to Bugler. But as I said, none of you have produced any ''argument'' for their inclusion; merely repeating Andy's unsupported ''claim'' that they are correct. So no, unsupported ''opinions'' are ''not'' worth consideration when logic and the evidence say otherwise.
:::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:31, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: Philip, I must respond in no uncertain terms, even if it means risking getting banned for saying my piece to an admin. I find your comments highly offensive, and indeed reprehensible. When you accuse my opinions of being illogical and unevidenced, you attack my character and attack my intelligence. You do '''not''' have a monopoly on logic, and what conclusions you consider logical are '''not''' universal. You can dance around it all you like, but what you are accusing ASchlafly, myself, and others of is no less than stupidity (inability to reach ''your'' conclusions through reasoning) or malice (intent to deceive through including this information). Many users on this site have reached different conclusions than you on this matter. We may not be administrators, but our reasoning is no less solid. Obama's religious past is suspect, and riddled with episodes that cast serious doubt on his alleged "christianity." We conclude from this, and his "gaffes" (to quote Picasso, "there are no accidents") that he is quite possibly a Muslim. There is no certainty of this, but the evidence is enough to necessitate the evidence's inclusion (along with its associated conclusions) on this website, further as the liberal media is adamant in its hiding of this evidence. You may disagree, but that does not give you the right to treat us with condescension. Obama's potential muslim heritage is '''not conjecture''' and it is '''not POV.''' It represents a broadly, if not universally held conservative view. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:37, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: RodWeathers, unlike some you support here, I don't ban people for "saying [your] piece to an admin", as long as that is done civilly.
:::::::::::: I did not, however, say what you accused me of. That is, I did not accuse your opinions of being illogical. Rather, I said that you'd only offered opinions, not logical argument nor evidence. That is not an attack on your character nor intelligence; merely stating facts that all you have offered is opinion. I never claimed to have a monopoly on logic, but logic is not whatever we want it to be; logic is a reasoned way of arguing, and simply offering the opinion that something is correct is ''not'' logic. And no, I'm not accusing you or anyone else of stupidity. I'm accusing you of only offering opinion, not logic nor evidence. I will qualify that a little by saying that I haven't analysed ''your'' comments in particular, but I have read them (any that have been posted in reply to discussions I've had), and I've noted that nobody has actually offered logical argument nor evidence supporting the claims that I've repeatedly removed from the article. And neither have you in this response.
:::::::::::: You accuse me of accusing Andy (and others) of deception, yet I ''specifically'' said in the earlier post that I directed you to that I don't believe Andy would deliberately deceive!
:::::::::::: As for casting doubt on his Christianity, if you were following this debate you would realise that I've never disputed that there is some doubt about his Christianity. What I'm disputing is that he is a Muslim. You also say that "we" conclude that he is "quite possibly" a Muslim, yet the article states that he ''is'' a Muslim; no "quite possibly" about it.
:::::::::::: At the end of your post you repeat the claims that the claims about Obama being a Muslim are "not conjecture and it is not POV", yet ''still'' do nothing to substantiate that!
:::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:05, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: Philip, you're welcome to "disput[e] that [Obama] is a Muslim." But we're not going to censor evidence that you and other Obama defenders are wrong about that. [[Liberal]]s inevitably demand censorship of ideas that challenge their views. You say you're not a liberal, but you do support gun control and you have insisted that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, an atheistic view. I'd be hard-pressed to think of a single politically conservative position that you've taken in nearly two years here, but perhaps there are some. Regardless, we're not going to censor here evidence about the beliefs of a president.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:18, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::: "''But we're not going to censor evidence that you and other Obama defenders are wrong about that''": First, I'm not an "Obama defender". I have a number of objections to him. Second, in what way are we wrong?
:::::::::::::: "''[[Liberal]]s inevitably demand censorship of ideas that challenge their views.''": Maybe so, but that doesn't mean that everyone who demands censorship is a liberal, and I've already rejected that removing false and irrelevant information is censorship.
:::::::::::::: "''You say you're not a liberal...''": Yes, I do, but more importantly, how is that relevant? Talking about ''my beliefs'' rather than ''the issue at hand'' is an ''ad hominem'' argument—a ''logically invalid'' argument. An argument typically used by people who have no valid argument. Why don't you stick to the issue?
:::::::::::::: So let's get back to the real question: In what way are we wrong?
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::Philip, I said that "liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship." That is not calling you "a liberal" as you claim (with inappropriate bolding). Perhaps you still maintain that supporting gun control is not a "liberal belief"; perhaps you also think that insisting that "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" is not atheistic. The evidence is otherwise. Regardless, information about the actual beliefs of the president will not be censored here to appease someone's dislike of it.

:::::::::::Historians and encyclopedias do examine the beliefs of presidents, and do not simply fall for self-serving comments by presidents. An independent inquiry is appropriate and will continue to provide the evidence for readers to decide, demands for censorship notwithstanding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: As LowKey correctly points out below, by saying "We're seeing an illustration of that here...", then you ''are'' calling me a liberal, which is a lot more inappropriate than some bolding to grab your attention. Further, if you didn't mean it, you could have simply said "I didn't mean to call you a liberal; I don't think you are", but no, instead you try and justify the name-calling that you also attempt to deny! So I still expect an apology. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: Philip, see point 55 in [[liberal style]] about demands for apologies, which was written long ago.

::::::::::::: You're more than welcome to your views and we welcome many liberals to this site. But you've advocated for [[gun control]] here and insisted that beauty is in the eye of the beholder (which is an atheistic viewpoint). So I don't doubt that you hold some liberal beliefs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:53, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::: As BRichtigen says below, the page refers to ''silly'' demands for apologies, which mine isn't. So I still expect an apology for calling me a liberal. (Incidentally, that point 55 is referenced to an article which doesn't mention apologies!)
::::::::::::::: Contrary to the way that BRichtigen read your comment, I think that "here" referred to ''on Conservapedia'', not ''in the U.S.''. But I'm not sure that I've even done that. I've said that I ''support'' gun control, and argued against many of the arguments put against gun control, but I don't think I've ever "advocated for" it. Neither did I "insist" that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But again, you are discussing ''me'' rather than the ''issue'', and worse, ''speculating'' about my beliefs, rather than being prepared to say, "Philip, I accept that you are a conservative". You seem to be implying that I'm a conservative who holds a few liberal beliefs, but you keep emphasising the speculated liberal beliefs and never acknowledge that I'm a conservative, which makes me wonder if you really do consider me a liberal.
::::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:56, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::::: Philip, you support gun control, and admit it. That is clearly a fundamental liberal belief, from which other liberal beliefs inevitably flow. You also repeatedly deleted a point in another entry based on your view that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is a view espoused by atheists. I don't think I ever called you a liberal but I am convinced you hold some liberal beliefs. I'm not going to lie and say otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 27 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::*point 55 in [[liberal style]] refers to ''silly demands for apologies.'' I can't see anything silly on Philip J. Rayment's demand.
::::::::::::::*AFAIK, Philip J. Rayment never advocated [[gun control]] '''in the U.S.'''. However, as an Australian conservative, he's for gun control '''in Australia'''.
::::::::::::::*I don't know how aesthetics come into play here, but for the record: yes, there may be absolute beauty, but for the sake of the fashion industry, our view of the beauty of a lot of things changes
::::::::::::::*And for the record: I'm not a liberal, neither, though I'm for gun control in my home country - but I don't want to export this model to the U.S. Have a look on the stance of the Catholic Church against capital punishment. Does this make the pope a liberal? --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 07:24, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, you are veering quite far off-topic here, a very liberal trait. You also are resorting to personal attacks, another liberal trait. You are also denying that PJR's evidence is intrinsically valuable, which is apparently an atheistic viewpoint. Are you a closet liberal?--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:02, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:JZim was blocked for this comment. Does anyone else see a problem? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:12, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::No, and anyone who does should have the personal integrity to resign. Talk, talk, talk, without contributing isn't allowed, never has been. That user signed up this month, and constantly engaged in argument and time wasting. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:31, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::: Personal attacks and accusations, troublemaking, mimicry, and absurd suggestions of atheism. I gave him 3 days to cool off. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:24, 25 November 2008 (EST)
:::But do you plan to give Schlafly a three day block also? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::::When he starts mimicing other users, making trouble while contributing nothing to discussion, and I'm capable of doing so, I'll consider it. Can we please leave it at that?[[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:29, 25 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Maybe only 2 days as there was no mimicry from Andy, and "troublemaking" would be stretch. The rest applies, though.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]]
::::::Hmm. Mimicing others is really not a valid block reason per se. You also said he was blocked for personal attacks, accusations and absurd suggestions of atheism. Can you just unblock JZim? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:34, 25 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Done. I'll leave it to the discretion of highers-up, but if you have a problem with Aschlafly, bring it up with ''him'', not me. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:42, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, why disclaim calling Phillip a liberal, and only provide half of the statement (only the latest) you made which did exaclty that. You said "At bottom, liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship. We're seeing an illustration of that here," in response to Phillip's post. You are directly ascribing liberal beliefs - which you had already made clear means political liberal beliefs - to Phillip. So yes you are calling him a liberal. If you wish to back away from that, the way to do it is to retract and apologise, not qualify and dilute.

Also, when you claim that pronouncing Pakistan the '''correct''' way is evidence that one is muslim, objections based on truth and relevance are not calls for censorship. They are merely calls for truth and relevance. (Really, such "evidence" is absurd) I notice a late addition to the "evidence" deals with Obama's popularity with muslim voters. If we saw a similar pattern amongst female voters, that would not be evidence that Obama is a woman. None of this is evidence that leads to a conclusion; these factoids (i.e. they are shaped kind like of facts) read as little more than exhibits for the prosecution.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:37, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:Many would say that the only way we can arrive at a true and complete picture of any politician is to take a look at their life before gaining elected office. Once running for office, or on that merry-go-round of always running for re-election, how is anyone to gain a glimpse of the real person? Every bit of information, once elected (especially as President) is so managed, so structured, a true picture can never be painted. With President-elect Obama, there are more unanswered questions than anyone I can think of elected President in modern times. Life isn't fair, and no matter if Obama's supporters dislike the continued inquiry, they should blame Obama and his people, not those seeking answers. If they had categorically answered answered, or permitted the release of his personal information, this all might have been put to rest. But they have continued to stone-wall. Isn't it odd, and indicative of [[liberal deceit]] that personal [[privacy]] is very important to liberals in their own personal lives, but they cherish that of the citizens much less! The reliance upon birth announcements in newspapers, and generic record of live birth, instead of releasing the actual, unaltered birth certificate to prove citizenship, differs from the records available on other modern presidents. The fact that Barack Obama didn't ask the Department of State to make public the travel records of his mom and dad is also cause for concern. Unless and until all information is made available by Mr. Obama, the inquiries Andy speaks of will continue, as that is the responsible course for encyclopedias and scholars who always take the long view, rather than focus on the passions of the here and now. This whole tempest is about those who don't want to hear or think about the possibilities, people willing to sell the truth short because of their political or world view bias. Scholars, and scholarly encyclopedias ask questions, and don't state as factual anything that lacks full disclosure, like Obama's religious instruction and training, his place of true birth, and his questionable associations. Conservatives fight for the truth, [[liberals]] seek to obsfucate and dismiss intellectual curiosity, always demanding "facts" that cannot be readily produced because the subject of the questions refuses to own up. Look at what your position is, and if the (liberal) shoe fits, wear it. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:46, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::Sweeping assertions do not make themselves true. "Inquiry" is seeming less and less appropriate for this. "Inquisition" would be more accurate, for one knowing the Spanish Inquisition's main objective (finding closet infidels). I have looked at my position (truth and relevance) and the conservative shoe is rather a nice fit, thank you. Presenting pronunciation, birth name, parental beliefs and voting patterns as evidence of any person's current belief is not presenting information in any useful way at all. It is demonstrating a conclusion that is looking for support. If the facts are not readily available, do not present irrelevant factoids in their place. I ''believe'' Obama's stated Christianity to be "liberal" and largely nominal, and probably politically motivated. But none of the "evidence" presented here has led (or would led) me to that conclusion, it is too weak and strident. There is much more concrete evidence to question Rudd's (PM of Australia) Christianity, but I do not see any of that on his CP article. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:10, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::[http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_logic|"Claiming that their viewpoints are being censored, while actually they are the ones censoring their opponents."] is #3 on the list of [[Liberal logic]] When it was about Sarah Palin or John McCain, where were the calls to end inquiry, being less and less "appropriate"? By United States standards, even self-proclaimed conservatives wouldn't be regarded as conservatives here. Asking questions, raising questions, is what an encyclopedia does, or as Andy stated: ''"Historians and encyclopedias do examine the beliefs of presidents, and do not simply fall for self-serving comments by presidents. An independent inquiry is appropriate and will continue to provide the evidence for readers to decide, demands for censorship notwithstanding."'' This isn't a debating society, it is a project to build an encyclopedia. The fact that supposedly "trusted editors" won't end this revert war, nor step back from this issue, is yet another sign (for most of us) of [[Liberal Deceit]]. Being a conservative also means respecting the authority of the powers that be. In being Christians, we are taught to submit to authority on earthly matters. I consider Andy Schlafly a trusted friend. Do we ever disagree? Anyone who has been around CP knows we have! But I have never repeatedly (or otherwise) reverted his work, instructed him on how my opinion made his wrong, how my thinking was logical, and his was not. The fact that so much of this time-wasting by an Administrator is allowed is more than proof as to how open-minded and indulgent Andy is, and the continued opposition, in repeated public displays of disrespect is unseemly, and certainly not reflective of American conservative values. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:16, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Your first sentence just confuses me, as the claims of "censorship" here are claims of "liberal censorship". So apart from being a hand-waving sweeping generalisation, it also seems to be a malapropism. Also, you seem to have misunderstood my "inquiry" comment. I am not saying that inquiry is inappropriate (intelligent inquiry, at any rate). I am saying that "inquiry" is an inappropriate term for what is going on here. I suggest "inquisition" as the correct term, referring to the fact the the Spanish Inquisition was undertaken to identify and prosecute secret infidels claiming to be Christian. Are you accusing Andy or PJR of liberal deceit? They are the two editors reverting, that I can see, so it must be one of them. Given that PJR gives reasons for removal and ''asks for'' reasons for inclusions, but Andy generally keeps claiming "liberal censorship" (but insists that he is ''not'' calling PJR a liberal), and your earlier observation about liberal logic one could conclude that you are refering to Andy. Now I don't think that that is the correct conclusion, but it ''is'' the conclusion that most closely matches the facts (i.e. every other conclusion makes '''less''' sense). Let's build an encyclopedia; let the inquiry be ''intelligent'' and factual; let real, relevant facts speak for themselves; avoid prosecutorial exhibits, avoid insisting on the most condemnatory interpretations when other interpretations are far more likely. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:51, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::: "''Being a conservative also means respecting the authority of the powers that be. In being Christians, we are taught to submit to authority on earthly matters.''": Whose authority does Andy submit to? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:48, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::*Philip, Andy Schlafly is the owner of this site. ''Here, he submits to no one''. And that is how it should be. If you are meaning generally, in his life, as a Christian, he submits, offers up to Jesus Christ and his Father In Heaven, who has the final "say" on everything. While one can appeal to Andy, one has absolutely no right to continue to question (or dispute) his will as to CP, especially as an Administrator, and publicly. Contrary to your false and misleading assertion on your talk page, ''"As administrators, we enforce the rules, we don't decide the truth. That is exceeding our authority."'' you have constantly done so, and continue to do so on this page. Please don't tempt me to present evidence of such, okay? I think Andy has been more than a good sport on this issue, but it is long past the time you should walk away from this, because your [[liberal]] opinion is not going to prevail. Perhaps you could concentrate on presenting scientific, or even good & irrefutable empirical evidence for the age of Earth? You have been using (trading on) your position as an Administrator of Conservapedia to continue to argue beyond the point any "normal" editor would be allowed to without being blocked by you or one of the other administrators. Your lack of humility, which is a Christian trait, has become an embarrassment. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:21, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: TK, you say that ''as a Christian'', he submits to Jesus, which is true, but your point was that as Christians we should "submit to authority ''on earthly matters''". Yet now you sidestep that by saying that Andy doesn't have to. Further, I (and others) would suggest that Andy sees Conservapedia as something that God has called him to do, in which case it is wrong to say that he "submits to no one" regarding Conservapedia.
::::::: To clarify my admittedly-ambiguous comments on my talk page, as editors (which hat I also wear), we need to try and ''determine'' truth, but we can't, as editors ''or administrators'', ''decide'' truth, in the sense of ''decreeing'' something to be so. As editors ''or administrators'', we can only attempt to ''determine'' the truth by the use of logic and evidence (as Andy agrees). But Andy is effectively here ''decreeing'' truth, because he's not been using logic and evidence to ''determine'' truth, but simply ''asserting'' that certain things are true. If you have evidence of me doing ''that'', then please present it.
::::::: My opinion is not a "liberal" one, and I'd thank you to not malign me that way.
::::::: Yes, I have been trading on my position as administrator to argue this point, because Andy is trading on ''his'' position as site owner to insert his POV into the article, contrary to the evidence ''and the views of other administrators''.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:03, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::::::And what happened to Matthew 7:1, which certainly can be applied hear in the same way that you yourself have applied it? [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:33, 26 November 2008 (EST)

:::::And the accusations continue. How is objecting to repeated condescending false accusations a lack of humility? Phillip attempted to keep this about the content of the article, but Andy's responses have either been to repeat assertions without support (or even argument) or (even worse) to use ad hominem dismissals to avoid addressing the objections. And you call that being a good sport? As to your comment about humility: speck, meet plank.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:00, 26 November 2008 (EST)

*Philip seems to have retired from his stubborn insistence to revert the owner of this encyclopedia, and my suggestion to you, LowKey is that you should now become just that: low key. CP's toleration of argument-without-end is becoming lower and lower because of non-discussions like this one. If you want to continue as you have been, why not go to Wikipedia and endeavor to engage Mr. Wells as you have Mr. Schlafly here? I very much doubt you would still be an editor there after so doing! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:08, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:*I ''am'' an editor on WP and my evangelical Christian (and hence conservative) standards - including my insistence on truth and relevance - get me labelled a fringe lunatic. It's interesting that '''the same''' standards get one labelled a liberal on CP. The difference is that on WP my Christian views are at least dismissed because they are Christian views, while on CP it seems that disagreement need only be labelled "liberal" do be dismissed regardless of the facts. I have seen almost as much prejudice and bigotry here as on WP, and considering the comparative sizes of the two sites, that's a serious indictment of the general enviromnent on CP. It's depressing that in this confessedly Christian environment fellow Christians are treated worse than they are treated by the misotheists on WP. I think I need a break (and here I though CP would be ''refreshing''.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:33, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::Funny you should put it like that, because most of us can't quite believe that you're still an editor here after your SDG shenanigans. --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:22, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::*While liberals have proved to be interested in retribution, attacking people personally and [[deceit]], JohnZ, Christians and conservatives believe in forgiveness. I understand why you "can't quite believe", because you just don't believe in anything other than material things. And while conservatives believe in ''facts'', from your comments, being on the outside looking in, liberals offer comments and supposition about things they cannot possibly know about first-hand. God's speed to you! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:37, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::::Hmm. Even if it's forgiven, my money's on it not being forgotten. You speak to TerryH much these days, TK? --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:50, 26 November 2008 (EST)

== ==

Not that it should make a difference in the first place to one's opinion of him, but the claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim has been repeatedly disproven. Not only is he a lifelong Christian, but his nominally Muslim father was in fact an atheist, and not a practicing Muslim himself. I find it unfortunate that people who call themselves Christians, conservatives, and patriots perpetuate repeatedly disproven falsehoods under the cover of truth, and blame any criticism of their lies on the "liberal media" and political correctness. It is not "liberal" or "conservative" to tell the truth. There are plenty of issues for conservatives to oppose Obama on without manufacturing information about him, and were you to do so, it would make mainstream America take you more seriously. This does not help the cause in the least.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] November 18 2008

: The above editor was blocked for 5 years for infractions that included editing someone else's comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::Thanks. I was rather shocked to see someone editing my comments to make me look like a racist, for no conceivable reason. That's a real low of deceit. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 00:09, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:*To [[liberals]], the end always justifies the means, sadly. We used to have a pretty good political discourse in America. Then the Bill Maher's, the George Soros's infected the [[MSM} and the colleges, and what we see at CP is happening everywhere. A woman has a Down's baby, rather than abort it, as the liberals demand she should have, and they must endure all the slime Hell has to offer, like Sarah Palin did. Here they wait day and night to sneak bad info into CP, so they can brag about it elsewhere. They edit comments, change user names or just their sigs to appear to be someone else, to start fights. Where in the world are there Christians and/or conservatives doing that? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:50, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::''To liberals, the end always justifies the means, sadly''. The irony of this comment being placed on this page in particular is truly remarkable. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:33, 24 November 2008 (EST)

==Mr.Schlafly, take heart!==

Mr. Schlafly,

I commend you on joining a long list of great minds who, despite all the superficial [[Liberal]] based evidence, managed to see the truth and purged his mind of all pernecious and evil [[Liberalism]]. It is undeniable that Obama is a Muslim, and thanks to you, millions of people around the world have embraced the truth of conservatism, and its spectacular ability to find the truth, even when the [[Liberal]] based evidence distorts and twists the truth. The only thing I can say to you Mr. Schlafly is to take heart! These [[Liberals]], who would take and twist our infallibable country and out impenatrable conservative hearts and minds will never allow their 'evidence' to supersede the truth! We shall win this culture war Mr. Schlafly, with great minds like yours! [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 22:23, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::Is it wrong that I find this amusing?--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::Liberals often are easily amused. Or at least they pretend to be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::Andy, you are quite quick to assume that anyone you either disagree with or simply do not understand is a liberal. You display a profound inability to read user pages (read mine), at the very least. What I find amusing is that this obvious parody has not been deleted, as parodies usually are. And are you claiming that I am pretending to be amused? Why would I pretend? I have no reason to lie, and I have no wish to assume that anyone else is, either. I would, instead, examine the evidence. I would advise you to do the same. I believe, as well, that I recently read something written by someone who apparently opposed you, in which he exhorted you to refrain from bearing false witness against others. Please do not disrespect the teachings of Jesus; I respect them very much and would like to see them respected by others. Lastly, I apologise for my long-winded reply, but I think it is necessary.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:46, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== Islam ==

You've gotta be kidding me. Obama is not a muslim, you tools. The thing about "his Muslim faith" was taken out of context, and you damn well know it. Also, someone who knows Arabic, and has heard the call to prayer and considers it to be pleasant-sounding does not a Muslim make. I was deployed to Iraq in 2005, and appreciated the musical quality of the morning call to prayer, and I am by no means a Muslim. I'm sure Malcolm X's fight for racial equality inspired plenty of non-Muslims too. And holy crap, someone read a book written by a Muslim, they too must be a dastardly terrorist. And yes, I'm sure Obama chose his SS code name based on the several hundred-year old etymology of "renegade".

But, I should have known that you hacks wouldn't actually write a legitimate article on Obama. None of you have even an inkling of what actual, scholarly research, and unbiased writing is all about. [[User:Ottotanaka|Ottotanaka]] 09:23, 22 November 2008 (EST)

:Oh, and unless the guy above me is trying to be sarcastic, he should probably be locked up for having the mental age of a 3 year old. [[User:Ottotanaka|Ottotanaka]] 09:25, 22 November 2008 (EST)

::I think he was being sarcastic, but I could be wrong. I've seen similar attitudes put forth in complete seriousness.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 12:11, 22 November 2008 (EST)

== Formatting? ==
I understand the reason why this page is locked, but could a sysop fix the formatting? Every other page on this site that has a table of contents has it right after the introduction. This should too. The first section should come after the table of contents. I know this is minor, but for some reason, it's really bugging me. Thanks [[User:JANorton|JANorton]] 14:16, 22 November 2008 (EST)

: Why is it bugging you? No, not "every other page on this site" has a table of contents up front, and even if every other one did, consistency is not something to be worshiped.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:19, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Clever, JANorton, clever. By moving the table of contents, you'd bury the information about Obama's muslim faith further down the page, reducing the number of people who would see it. Nice try. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 14:30, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::That wasn't actually my goal, but now that I understand why the table of contents is below the first section. I was really just going for consistency here, but I withdraw my request. [[User:JANorton|JANorton]] 14:36, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Consistency is the hallmark of excellence. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:12, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::''Truth'' is the hallmark of excellence. You've proven yourself to be a liberal through your edits to this wiki, and your attempt to [[Placement bias|hide this information]] under the name of 'consistency' will not do. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:16, 22 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Very well put, Rod. Truth matters far more than consistency does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:21, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I noted two years ago in studying American history that the college-level textbooks we used would present liberal presidents in a consistent fashion: general information, positives, then negatives (typically glossed over, especially in the cases of FDR, Carter, and Clinton), while the conservative presidents were presented in the ''opposite'' order. Reagan's description jumped right into Iran-Contra and accusing him of threatening nuclear war. I guess the only consistency is consistent bias. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Aschafly, who are you trying to kid saying lines like "truth matters more than consistency"? You care nothing whatsoever about truth, as evidenced by you erroneously calling Obama a Muslim and then devoting a paragraph to his CHRISTIAN pastor Wright. Pick a story and stick with it.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] 16:31, 23 November 2008

:::::: That's an excellent observation: "the only consistency is consistent bias." I recall Jesus had a parable about laborers in the vineyard that pointed out how wrong an insistence on a foolish consistency can be. In that parable, the owner pays inconsistently as he likes. From the other end of the spectrum, Emerson criticized worship of a foolish consistency.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:42, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Since you bring up Jesus, the 10 Commandments include "thou shalt not lie". Maybe if you actually knew more about Christianity, you would know this.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: I suspect it's the simple fact that a closed mind ''always'' needs to fit information into strict, predetermined categories. New and different knowledge scares such a person, as it breaks the boundaries they're so used to. But I digress. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:44, 22 November 2008 (EST)

(Unindent) Why is the TOC at the top of all the other biographical articles then? Is its purpose to be useful in getting at the truth or to be untruthful? As I see it the rest of the article is more accessible if the TOC is within the first page view, and that is an opinion informed by a number of books and articles I have read on the subject. As for me being liberal I'm just more centrist than you, I still lean right, my edits just lean towards the middle mark because I am more liberal than the average conservapedian. My edits typically do not land on a pov issue however, they are typically issues of format and factual issues, but this is not a blog so I'll stop there. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 21:02, 22 November 2008 (EST)

==Template==
Is it about time to put the president infobox up on this page? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 15:02, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:Maybe when he actually becomes the president. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 16:09, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Do you think that will not happen? Why not be proactive? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 20:52, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::I think there is a hysteria with acting like Obama is already president. Our president is still George W. Bush and it's and insult to him to downplay the remainder of his presidency by focusing everything on Obama. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 21:00, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::::That is why they call the president a lame duck during this period, if in four years a conservative takes it the format will be changed late Tuesday election night. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 21:04, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Has Barack Obama been sworn is as president? No. Has he at any time held the title of 'president'? No. Do we have a 44th president yet? No. These are simple facts. He's not the president. When he becomes the president, THEN give him an info box. Stop trying to make this a partisan issue...they're just facts.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 21:50, 22 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim/Rev. Wright==

Ashafly endlessly repeats the demonstrative falsehood that Obama is a Muslim, yet devotes a paragraph to the controversy surrounding Obama's CHRISTIAN Reverend Wright. Pick a version of the truth and stick with it. .[[User:ChristianBlade1|ChristianBlade1]] 21:50, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:This has already been discussed ''ad nauseam'', and a decision reached. Please see the archives for this page (links at the top).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:30, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::I'm not sure there's a point in even responding to these register-only-to-whine type liberals. If they're not going to contribute or ask meaningful questions, we should just ignore and move on to more important matters. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:55, 24 November 2008 (EST)

As per Aschafly's instruction, I recreated my account with the proper username. In response to being labeled a "register-only-to-whine type liberal", why is that anyone who points out blatant inaccuracies in articles is labeled a whining liberal? Shouldn't conservative Christians care about telling the truth in their articles? I am not saying this trying to pick fights, I am simply commenting that the most effective way for conservatives to oppose Obama is with his own proven record.
[[User:CBrown|- CBrown]] 11:55, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks for re-registering, and please don't take the 'whining' comment to heart. I'm sure you'll appreciate that the Obama article is controversial, so I'd suggest you check the archives before commenting as there is a good chance the points you made have been made and discussed before (as in this case). Really, an emotive subject like Obama isn't an ideal place for a new user to begin.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:11, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::90/10 applies, especially if you take it literally. A newbie would have to make 10 substantial edits before making an ideological comment. It's like the rule against loitering, though. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::::: No, Ed, and it's unfortunate that you, a senior administrator, don't appear to understand the rule. The rule ([[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment 7]]), if taken literally, would require a newbie making at least ''one'' quality edit for each ''nine'' talk-page comments. So unless that was a simply typo on your part, perhaps you should review blocks you have made on this faulty understanding and unblock all those who ''didn't'' break the rule? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:16, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::::You both have a point, but I'm a great believer in trying to be civil to new users if there's even a small chance they might be for real. Even liberals could contribute a great deal to politically-neutral pages, if they could only be persuaded to divert their efforts away from the endlessly repetitive discussions that take place here.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:00, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Absolutely. I'm all in favor of being civil (and against immediately blocking or otherwise belittling). It's just that, given the endless flow of them, we almost need copy-and-paste responses to the most common interruptions. Your above response would be almost perfect for that purpose. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)

The last two New Yorkers I spoke to about Obama's religion said that he is a Muslim. Even if they are wrong, the perception is there. I think the article should say "regarded as a Muslim".

I'd also like the article to address the dispute between those conservatives who assert Obama is not a Christian and other people who say Obama is a Christian. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:17, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Frankly, part of the reason for Obama being regarded as a Muslim is because of the erroneous and unsubstantiated reporting claiming him as one. [[User:CBrown|- CBrown]] 12:23, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:But why would the two Muslims I consulted believe this? One was a Democrat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:41, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== Talk page edits ==

I was just reading the Recent Changes page, and I noticed that RodWeathers deleted a talk page edit. Isn't this against the rules? I am as much against "liberal troublemaking" as you are, Rod, but I am also very much against censorship.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 17:58, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:There's an enormous difference between censorship and removing liberal vandalism and senseless attacks against the editors of this site. What I removed was a baseless accusation against the editors of wilfull deceit of the public. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:00, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::Rod, please define censorship.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 18:07, 24 November 2008 (EST)
The talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article. Comments that are not about ways to improve this article can be removed. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 18:20, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:This is not Wikipedia, and sysops may remove any information which is not related to the purpose of building a trustworthy encyclopedia. "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:46, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== Personal remarks ==

I dislike reading remarks like the following:
*I'm accusing you of only offering opinion
*Look at what your position is, and if the (liberal) shoe fits, wear it.
*unlike some you support here, I don't ban people
*way to do it is to retract and apologise
*you accused me
*you are calling him a liberal
*You say you're not a liberal

Those who recall writing any of the above phrases, please review [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. Thank you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:44, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Well "way to do it is to retract and apologise" is mine, and it was not a personal remark. In context (i.e. the rest of the sentence ''at least''), I was saying that if an editor wanted to back away from remarks made about and objected to by another editor, then the "way to do it is to retract and apologise" rather than retroactively qualify the remarks.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:16, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:And this is related to Barack Obama in what way? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:26, 25 November 2008 (EST)

: How about Andy calling me a liberal? Why don't you list ''that'' as a "personal remark"? Further, there is a difference between a "personal remark" (i.e. ''about'' the person) and a ''derogatory'' remark. Sometimes it is appropriate to say something ''personal'', especially when it's in defence of some criticism, as the first one on your list was.
: "''And this is related to Barack Obama in what way?''": Exactly, Ed. How is calling me a liberal relevant to Barack Obama? How is Andy bringing up my views on gun control relevant to Barack Obama?
: How is Andy ''speculating'' about my other political views relevant to Barack Obama?
: How about you apply those standards more consistently?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:00, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::Kindly avoid making personal remarks like the above on article talk pages. You are invited to contribute your thoughts on what our standards for interpersonal communication should be, but such contributions need to be made in the appropriate venue. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:54, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Can we add this to the list:
* you appear to have a closed mind
Or does it not count because of the source? Oh, and Philip, I know how you will respond, with claims that it is fair comment, justified by my stance, etc, etc, etc. But just for once, step back and reflect: are not those of us who call you Liberal making fair comment, justified by your stance on a host of issues, from Obama to protecting Liberal saboteurs? And can I add a further term - it hasn't been used yet, but I feel it hovering:
* whited sepulchre
[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:41, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Remarks like the following are out of place here. This talk page is only for discussing changes to the [[Barack Obama]] article.
*bringing up my views on gun control
*calling me a liberal
*I know how you will respond
*speculating about my other political views
*you apply those standards more consistently
*you appear to have a closed mind

If you have complaints about other users, do not bring them up on article talk pages. Persistent violators of this rule will be excluded from the project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:01, 27 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama as a Muslim ==

This is a kind of silly accusation here. The citation at the top (currently citation 4 to the Christian Science Monitor) is misleading - since a Muslim was allowed to swear in on the Koran does not suggest that someone else will. That note would be just as applicable to anyone else.

As for the evidence that he is a Muslim, is this what the article should be focusing on? It makes the article seem rhetorical - that the only concern is for his faith and not his political positions.

* Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[21][22]
This is false. His father was an atheist, his mother a Christian. And as the article goes on to say, he received Christian or at least secular education for most of his life. In any case, what does saying someone's "outlook" is Muslim mean?

: You're clueless about Islam, in which the father raises the sons in the religion. Also, Obama's mother was not a Christian in any meaningful sense. In fact, she disliked Christianity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Obama's middle name (Hussein) references Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad[23], which most Christians would not retain. [24]
Husssein means "beautiful" in Arabic, indeed a reference to the grandson of Muhammed, but again the citation that most Christians would not retain it is misleading - it's more of a footnote than a citation. I am a Christian and my middle name is a reference to a saint. I cannot imagine converting to another faith, but if I were to, I doubt that I would drop my middle name.

: A Christian convert would not likely retain the name of Muhammad's grandson as his own. Many Christian religions ''require'' adopting a Christian name at baptism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Obama recently mentioned his religion as "my Muslim faith."[25]
This was clearly Obama being sarcastic. I'm as hardened a Conservative as anyone, but listen to the interview. It's linked to from [[my Muslim faith]].

: "Sarcastic"??? Right after Obama said not to play games? I've heard wacky explanations for Obama's statement, but never heard yours before. It's far=fetched.

* On the campaign trail, Obama was reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,[30] which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.[31]
I've read books by Muslim authors (maybe), I've read books by Jewish authors, I've read books by atheist authors. I don't think that this says that I am not a devout Christian. Also, this seems to suggest that this Fareed Zakaria is not a Muslim, or at least not a devout one http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/ . (Also holy smokes, the guy has a B.A. from Yale and a Ph.D. from Harvard.) I have not read the book, so maybe the book is different.

:It's unusual for a Christian to pick out and earnestly read a book about the world from a Muslim point of view, except perhaps to criticize it. Possible, but unlikely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.
Again, this applies to anyone, and rings of McCarthyism. How do we know George Bush isn't a closet Muslim? This goes back to the Koran issue - just because it's possible doesn't mean that it's true. Occam's razor, guys.

: "McCarthyism"??? Wow, perhaps you're a liberal to reach for that card. Christians who think people what they say they do need to beware of this Islamic doctrine. Sounds like you weren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.[32]
I don't see the problem with this - if anything, it seems respectful.

: Try harder to "see the problem." Pronunciation has long been used to accurately identify one's beliefs or origins. I hope you don't object to other means of identification too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Obama has chosen the Secret Service code name "Renegade". "Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior, but its first usage was to describe someone who has turned from their religion. It is a word derived from the Spanish renegado, meaning "Christian turned Muslim."[35]
This is just false. Renegado simply means "to deny" in the past sense, and while I don't doubt it was used in the way given, that is not the meaning of the word. And in any case, do you think that if Obama were a closet Muslim he'd drop all sorts of tiny clues like this?

: You seem to really like the phrase "closet Muslim"!! Odd. As to "renegado", learn more about what the word really means.

Not that I should have to defend myself to make changes like this, but I am a devout Christian and a staunch Conservative. I take plenty of issue with Barack Obama, but spending time accusing him of being a Muslim rather than criticising his policies makes the authors of this article look childish. One other thing that the article does not address is why we care whether he's a Muslim. What are the implications of this?

--[[User:Conservativecarl|Conservativecarl]] 20:23, 25 November 2008 (EST)

: Oh right. You're such a staunch conservative that you accuse others of "McCarthyism" (which no conservative would do) and love the expression "closet ____". Your British spelling of "criticising" is hardly reassuring. Obama is smoother and more persuasive than you are!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

:: The spelling is from Linux's auto-correct. And no conservative would criticiZe McCarthyism? The man was a nut, regardless of his political affiliations. And I don't see the point of pointing out political affiliation, this is merely me demonstrating logical flaws in the article. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." [John 1:1] This is a very powerful statement on the value of literature (among other things, of course), so I think that your accusation of it not being Christian to read a book from someone with a different point of view for some purpose other than to criticize it is very wrong. --[[User:Conservativecarl|Conservativecarl]]

::: "Conservativecarl", you're obviously no conservative and you're not fooling anyone here. Maybe you'd like to spend your time trying to fool someone somewhere else. If you'd like to stay here, then provide your real first name and last initial so that your account can be changed, and your country of origin.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:10, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I am an American-Canadian dual citizen, currently residing in Canada for school (with plans to move back to the states and get a job after). First name is actually Paul, initials AC. This doesn't seem important though. In any case, here are the things that I'd like you to address.
:::: 1. Taqiyya, as stated in the article, says that a Muslim may deny their faith if it furthers the cause of Islam. Someone makes the claim that you are Muslim, and secretly furthering the cause of Islam in your spare time. Refute this.
:::: 2. The conversion rate statistic is a statistic fallacy. In many Islamic countries, apostasy is punishable by death, which would at least partially explain the low statistic. The conversion rate from Islam, given that the person has come to a free country such as America, is much higher. Also, Kenya is about 80% Christian, and only 10% Muslim, so Obama's father would be very familiar with other faiths.
:::: 3. Have you ever read The Catcher In The Rye, or Man's Search for Meaning? Both are by Jewish authors, although there is much to be gained from them by a Christian reader, and many Christians have found a lot of meaning in them. This seems to go against your statement that Christians would not read them. Explain.
::::--[[User:Conservativecarl|Conservativecarl]] 15:06, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, you said above that, "Many Christian religions require adopting a Christian name at baptism." That may be, but the denomination into which Obama was baptized (United Church of Christ) would ''not'' require him to make such a change.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 11:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Andy - you also said above that in "Islam... the father raises the sons in the religion". You are aware he never knew his father, and that he only met him once, when he was ten years old? Also, in passing, it would be good if his family background was earlier in the article, as is traditional for bio articles. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 20:25, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Why is Obama, if he is Muslim, such a bad thing? I know that there are many radical muslims in the world, but I also know many who are not. Please explain to me why Islamic President is a bad thing.
:I think it isnt because Muslim is bad, I think its because Obama is trying to cover it up and pretending to be something he is not. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] 17:58, 1 December 2008 (EST)
Well, I think that (again) if Obama is Muslim, he knows he will lose a lot of votes because people dislike muslims for very prejudiced reasons, and even if they say that they are fine, the act of actually voting for one is too hard for them. I think that a muslim president isn't a bad thing, I think a democrat is a lot worse, and that is what should be focused on.

== Fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity ==

The article states:
*''Obama's background, education, and outlook are [[Muslim]], and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.<ref>http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17736/barack-obama-2</ref><ref>http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm. During the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class, according to the LATimes. [http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.obama16mar16,0,1634059,print.story?coll=bal_news_nation_promo Campaign downplays his connection during boyhood in Indonesia, Baltimore Sun, March 16, 2007]</ref>''

While the first link confirms Obama's background, the second link fails to back-up the claim that fewer than 1% of Muslims convert: As I have shown [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Muslim_conversion_rate|earlier]], it gives a conversion rate of 4% for Muslims in non-Magreb Africa and claims that this rate is even higher for well-educated Africans.

Is there any source for the 1% number? And wouldn't be a conversion rate for Muslims exposed to Christianity be more relevant than a world-wide rate?

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 10:21, 26 November 2008 (EST)

: I welcome more data about this. But the rate is effectively 0% in most Islamic countries. The 1% figure is a good approximation worldwide based on the data available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:59, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::I've heard it is illegal (even a capital offense) in Islamic countries to stop being a Muslim. Perhaps that motivates people not to change their religion. Aside from Turkey and maybe Indonesia, I don't know of any Islamic countries with [[religious freedom]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:11, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:::Well Turkey isn't considered a theocracy, though 99% of its inhabitants are moslem. [http://www.enjoyturkey.com/info/facts/Religion.htm]. That's a really interesting tidbit, though, Ed because I'm sure in an Islamic theocracy, conversion to another religion is considered treason and punishable by death. I'm going to try and see if I can't find any stats on Moslems converting from Islam '''specifically''' in Turkey, though with a 99% majority, I have a feeling the 1% figure may be correct. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:15, 26 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Preliminary results (in other words, the first link I clicked). The study I found shows that 35,000 Turks converted from Islam to Christianity[http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/01/are_muslims_lea.php]. Moslems make up 99% of the population of Turkey, which is roughly 75 million. That's a rough conversion rate of 0.05%. However, around the world, over 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity every ''year'' (correction) [http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm]. The world population of Muslims is roughly 1.3 billion people. That leaves a conversion rate of 0.4%. Someone check my math, but that would make the 1% conversion rate pretty accurate. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: You're a bit wrong, mate - the ''rate'' per day is ~0.0046% - and is unreflective of the total number over time. For example, your stats could be used to incorrectly "prove" that within sixty years, all Muslims will have converted to Christianity. Those stats don't prove the point you're trying to make.[[User:Legion126|Legion126]] 21:17, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::: No, your reasoning doesn't follow, because many of the "converts" later return to their childhood religion, as is true in many religions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 26 November 2008 (EST)

(unindent)I wasn't attempting to make a point. Someone got on the topic of numbers so I went and found some, though I'm admitedly not very good with them. I made a correction to my wording; 6 million muslims convert to Christianity every ''year'', not every ''day''. And you're not moving your decimal. 6 million divided by 1.3 billion '''is''' .0046, which translates to ~ 0.5%. I don't think it's fair to say that throughout written history less than 1% of '''all''' Muslims have converted; I think that's inaccurate, and reading through my previous post I came to a conclusion too quickly from the given data. That is still a '''very''' small amount of converts, though I believe the wording in the article should be rearranged to meet the given data. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 00:06, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Jeffrey's math is obviously correct. 6 million/year divided by 1.3 billion < 1 percent. So what part of his argument are you disputing? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:10, 27 November 2008 (EST)

::Well, Ed, given that Jeffrey originally said per day, it was completely valid to dispute it. And regardless of this, a rate per year is not indicative of 1% of all Muslims solidly over time. It proves that less than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity ''per year'', but does not prove the original statement (Though I do apologise for my own incorrect maths).
::Furthermore, given the fact that if Obama converted, it would have been some years ago, probably when he was a fair bit younger. Given recent the recent trend towards a mass increase in population, contemporary figures are only indicative of so much.
::Finally, statistics for Turkey and the world are disanalogous to Obama's situation - the general Muslim population because many live in nations where apostasy is illegal, even a captial offence, and Turkey because it still has a Muslim majority - which America does not. Statistics about the conversion rate among Muslims (specifically, Muslims of East African or, given Obama's education, Indo-Chinese origin) ''in the US itself'' could prove far more enlightening.[[User:Legion126|Legion126]] 19:50, 27 November 2008 (EST)

==Inaccuracy==
Muslim debate aside, I noticed the page starts by listing Obama as a Senator. He resigned that position recently, as he is obliged to do before assuming office in January. Should the article not say he is "president-elect"? Whatever about the disagreements on other aspects of Obama's life, surely this is something everyone can agree on? [[User:AGrath|AGrath]] 14:09, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Thank you![[User:AGrath|AGrath]] 17:00, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== The whole Muslim thing ==

http://malalatete.typepad.com/mal_a_la_tete/images/2008/03/14/obama_swearing_in.jpg

He was sworn in on the Holy Bible. Why would he switch up to the Qur'an as president? Can't we put this behind us? This is a moot point.

: Judging by your edit pattern, I think you're the one obsessed with this.

: Often presidents act differently post-election, and "change" quite a bit from from they were president wannabees. Notice how Obama hasn't gone to church since the election? See our news item about that from a few days ago. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:09, 28 November 2008 (EST)

::Usually, presidents act differently in order to increase their popularity. I don't see how swearing in on the Qur'an would do that. Conclusively presenting himself to be a muslim would only hurt him in his position. He might inspire some people by being so forward, but I suspect it would be outweighed by xenophobia... --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 22:16, 28 November 2008 (EST)

:::So what? He hasn't gone to church. Where would he go to church? He's not a member of Trinity anymore. I don't see him going to a Mosque, either. Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all.

::::Yeah. I really don't think he's a muslim. I think it's unlikely to the point of impossibility. But I was just saying that even if he was a muslim, there would be no point in swearing in on the Qur'an, especially since he is on a pedestal before the world. Wait. There's a contradiction there. People on this site make two arguments: some muslims are allowed to conceal their faith (which they say Obama might be doing), and Obama might swear in on the Qur'an. Those are completely contradictory, because if Obama swears in on the Qur'an (which he won't), the secret's out. Just thinking out loud, I guess. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 23:27, 28 November 2008 (EST)

:::::It's amusing that you say there are no facts to support the idea that Barack Hussein Obama is or ever has been a muslim. Clearly you haven't read the page-long list of facts here. It is unlikely that the liberal Obama fanatics will ever concede the possibility, but that does not absolve us of our duty to try and inform. If only one person has their eyes opened, than I think we've done well. But unfortunately for many, it's true what they say: There is no deception quite like self-deception.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 15:55, 29 November 2008 (EST)

*Exactly, Patriot. Encyclopedia's have a duty to ask questions, and help people make ''informed'' judgments, as A. Schlafly stated (somewhere) above. The fact that __% of people might not agree on where those questions lead, is immaterial. Knowledge, and the questions that cause people to dig deeper, look at things differently, should never be subjected to polls or straw votes! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:03, 29 November 2008 (EST)
**Saying Obama is a Muslim made sense when he was like running for President and all and people wanted to keep him from getting the job.... but now that he's ''got'' the job, so saying Obama is a Muslim only hurts Christianity because it prevents Christians from using Obama as an example to convince Muslims worldwide to consider Christianity.... I mean, here's a guy with an Arab name but who claims to have ''chosen'' Christianity.... the Muslims of the world would jump at the chance to claim the President of the United States as one of their own -- why feed them ammunition to use against Christianity? [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 16:51, 29 November 2008 (EST)
:::But it would be a lie to ay Obama was a Christian if Obama were not, or the evidence were not sufficient to say conclusively that Obama was a Christian. And there is not sufficient evidence to show this beyond doubt, by a very long way. Here at Conservapedia, unlike at Liberal encyclopaedias and web sites, we believe in the truth, in finding it and sticking to it. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:20, 29 November 2008 (EST)

I don't know why you all got to make such a big deal about his religion. Let's talk about his race: did you know he's black? ;-) See also [[Essay:Towards a multi-racial society]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:19, 29 November 2008 (EST)

::::That's the root of the problem, Bugler. We don't know if Obama being a Muslim is the truth. You are absolutely right about one thing though. We do not know that he is a Christian beyond a doubt, either. However, I believe it is impossible to truly know what his (or anyone else's) true beliefs are. All of it is pure speculation.

::::But, every form of this speculation points to Obama being a Christian. So why is it that some are scraping for every last speck of null evidence (yes, it is null evidence) against this, especially when there are much better ways of discrediting him? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:30, 29 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim AND Communist? ==

I find this a bit hard to swallow. Islam and Communism conflict so much that it's impossible to be both. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 17:54, 30 November 2008 (EST)

: You need to open your mind more so you don't find facts so difficult to accept. There is overlap between Marxism and Islam, and we'll be developing entries on it. Search on the internet and you'll find quite a bit.

: Islamic countries are typically not bastions of freedom of religion or freedom of commerce. Those two freedoms often go hand-in-hand. Check out what Saddam Hussein did to Iraqi merchants who used the dollar as currency. It isn't pleasant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:57, 30 November 2008 (EST)

:: I think that incident can be more easily attributed to dictatorship than communism. The main conflict with Islam and communism is that Islam is a religion, while communism prohibits religion. Communism wants every influence of religion gone, while most Islamic countries want religion to be the only influence. Somebody 21 does have a point. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 18:36, 30 November 2008 (EST)

::*A person who stops by merely to ridicule and denigrate others scholarly efforts, without at least trying to make positive contributions to this project, cannot have a "point" other than to disrupt and waste the time of others.

* 15:54, 30 November 2008 (hist) (diff) '''Talk''':Barack Obama‎ (→Muslim AND Communist?)
* 15:53, 30 November 2008 (hist) (diff) '''Talk''':Barack Obama‎ (→Muslim AND Communist?: new section)
* 21:33, 17 November 2008 (hist) (diff) '''Talk''':Barack Obama‎ (→Reply)
* 09:08, 17 November 2008 (hist) (diff) '''Talk''':Barack Obama‎ (→Great comedy article)
* 09:08, 17 November 2008 (hist) (diff) '''Talk''':Barack Obama‎ (→Great comedy article: new section)
--[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:50, 30 November 2008 (EST)

::: So you are saying that if a person has not yet contributed to an article, their opinions should be dismissed as pointless? We should welcome new users, or else this project can never grow. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 18:34, 1 December 2008 (EST)

What [[Marx and Islam]] have in common, as political systems, is opposition to the Western ideals of [[Freedom of religion]] and [[free speech]]. Indeed, both have an anti-Christian bias. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:14, 1 December 2008 (EST)

: Thank you, Ed. But I think that there is a difference between what Islam dictates and what Islamic countries dictate. I am not familiar with the religion, but I don't believe Islam itself would be against free speech. You're definitely right about the anti-Christian bias, though. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:24, 1 December 2008 (EST)

::He's half right, communism doesn't have an anti-Christian bias, it has an anti-religion bias. So it's completely opposed to Islam, just as much as it is opposed to Christianity. It doesn't really work... --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 18:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::: Yes, I think that a bias against religion includes a bias against Christianity (as well as a bias against Islam), but that is beside the point, which is that there are some serious problems with calling Obama a communist and a Muslim at the same time (as pointed out by Bolly and myself), and these problems have still not been addressed. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 18:54, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::: Bolly and JArneal seem to be claiming that none of the over 1 billion Muslims in the world are communists, not one. Did I state that right? Now watch them backpedal off their position above ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:01, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I'm not looking for a confrontation over the article, but I think that if you found a Muslim who was also a communist then he would be considered a 'liberal' muslim, just like if you found a communist christian, I doubt you would find many paralells between your beliefs and their's. Having said that I would be surprised if you found a communist muslim. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:10, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::::Please do not confuse what we are trying to say, Mr. Schlafly. I think that there are just serious problems with calling Barack Obama both a Muslim and a communist. Considering that there are over 1 billion Muslims, I wouldn't be too surprised if a group of them exists somewhere, but that is not the point. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:28, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: Predictably, your two responses above make no sense and conflict with each other. There are Muslim communists. Millions of them. Admit it, or give it up and move on to another issue. I won't be responding to additional obfuscation in the responses.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: I have now triple checked, and found no contradictions with our statements, if you are talking about when he said ''I would be surprised if you found a communist muslim'' and I said ''I wouldn't be too surprised if a group of them'' (communist muslims) ''exists somewhere'', those are not conflicting statements. He said he would be surprised if you found one. I said that they might exist, but I also believe you wouldn't be able to find a single one. Again, please do not confuse what we are trying to say. How do our posts make no sense? I will not admit that there are millions of Muslim communists, because you have provided no evidence whatsoever. Both Bolly and I have been trying to be respectful to you, Mr. Schlafly. Please do not command us to admit things and then leave. I am sorry that you see no reason to continue this discussion. If anyone reading this supports Mr. Schlafly's position, I would like to hear them speak.--'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 21:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)
- ''I also believe you wouldn't be able to find a single one'' How about taking a close look at [[Raila Odinga]], Obama's cousin (and the PM of Kenya), the son of a communist, himself a socialist (and possibly a deep cover Communist), educated at the University of Magdeburg when that city was the hub of East Germany's military and security apperatus, and a man who has achieved power through fomenting a violent uprising with the assistance of radical Islam and has promised to implement Sharia law in Kenya, along with other Islamicising measure. And this the man for whom Obama - the President-elect of the United States of America - campaigned vigorously on a recent reip to Kenya. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:50, 16 December 2008 (EST)

== Insights section ==

While I appreciate some of the points made in this section, particularly the one about President-elect Obama and his campaign's proud participation in homosexual pride events, I fail to see why certain gaffes are mentioned. The '57 states' and forgetting to pluralize "bomb" in his line about Pearl Harbor -- what value does mentioning these minor gaffes bring to an encyclopedia article?

And if these oral lapses are in fact deemed worthy of mentioning, why aren't any of Senator McCain's gaffes included in his article? (The bombing song was in poor taste and various other instances of misspeaking were on par with Obama's state miscount) It was also surprising to note that Governor Palin's far more telling gaffes, especially in the Katie Couric interview, were not to be found on her page. It seems like of all the candidates, her rhetoric was most questionable of all.

Anyway, I do understand that ''is'' Conservapedia and as such, Republican ideals are presented more favorably. However, I really think that some consistency when describing the '08 candidates would serve this site well.

(I won't mention the OBAMA = MUSLIM slant because it's been beat to death)

Cheers. {{unsigned|SJames}}

:Obama's "gaffes" reveal an ignorance about America, from someone who is presented as a bright person. Neither McCain nor Palin had any revealing gaffes of the magnitude of Obama's. Stay tuned, I'm sure Obama will have more illustrations of his astounding lack of knowledge of basic facts about the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:My point is that they really don't reveal an ignorance about America. When we're dealing with historic events as basic as the attack on Pearl Harbor and the number of states in the US, I think it's more rational to conclude that these were slips of the tongue rather than a case of simply not knowing. As you say, he does appear to be an intelligent man and whether you believe that to be an act or not, it does take smarts to keep up that image in the intense public eye. A person capable of such, would know what happened in his birthplace in 1941.

Anyway, I just thought an exposed ignorance on national and world issues would be worth mentioning in the Sarah Palin article if the above have a place in the Obama article. But it's your website so that's fine. (I will attempt to sign this comment below...)--[[User:SJames|SJames]] 14:42, 2 December 2008 (EST)

==Is Obama Hispanic?==

I noticed that in this morning's press conference announcing Bill RIchardson as Commerce Secretary that Obama pronounced "Santiago" as a native Spanish speaker would. It's not a normal way for an English speaker to pronounce that city's name. I wonder what this says about Obama? [[User:BrotherJim|BrotherJim]] 14:23, 3 December 2008 (EST)

*Truthfully, it shows he is a politician and panders when and where he can, like 99% of all of them do. It also shows a liberals proclivity of trying to establish a "simpatico" with other cultures, pardon the pun! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:38, 3 December 2008 (EST)

The evidence that Obama is Hispanic is about as strong as the "evidence" that he is a Muslim, so given his pronunciation of Santiago, Aschlafy should add Obama apparent Hispanic background to the article.
[[User:CBrown|CBrown]] 7 December 2008

:Sadly seems to be the case - the "Pakistan" pronounciation thing is thrown into question by this revelation about "Santiago". If you want to accuse him of "pandering" by pronouncing things correctly, TK, that is entirely your prerogative, but using it as evidence of his faith/ethnicity is questionable.[[User:RadimK|RadimK]] 10:47, 7 December 2008 (EST)

==Category==

I see that there's a '''Category:Obama Administration'''. Shouldn't this be added to this article? [[User:BrotherJim|BrotherJim]] 14:27, 3 December 2008 (EST)

*At Noon, EST, 20 January 2009, that would be the appropriate thing to do. Until then, there isn't any "Obama Administration". --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:35, 3 December 2008 (EST)

::Then why is there a category for it? [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 19:39, 4 December 2008 (EST)

::*Perhaps others, like the editor above, jumping the gun? Is there some special reason this seems to bother you? Can you present some evidence that there is indeed some "''Obama Administration''" serving this country? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:14, 4 December 2008 (EST)

::::I was merely pointing out the irony in a jesting manner. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:16, 4 December 2008 (EST)

It wasn't lost on me. I am surprised they haven't removed the title from Bush's article yet, lol. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:20, 4 December 2008 (EST)

== Muslim? Really? ==

The evidence presented here that Barack Obama is a Muslim are weak, at best. I'm really having a hard time buying the argument that he's a Muslim, and, reading previous comments, that seems to be the general consensus. It would, I think, be much more of a credible argument if you put more emphasis on his views, his dirty political tactics, and his poor record as a Senator; explaining the depth to which he advocates killing babies is much more convincing than trying to denounce him as a Muslim, which you have little to no evidence to support. It makes the otherwise sound article seem badly researched and dependent on rumors and gossip; one of the very reasons I stopped using wikipedia was the quantity of empty claims there, and citing misfitting references here is not much better. We should be working together to keep conservapedia the trustworthy encyclopedia it once was, and not dilute our credibility by presenting guesswork and original research as factual information.

--[[User:Cjalman|Cjalman]] 21:32, 4 December 2008 (EST)

: I understand your concern. The Barack Obama article is one of the mostly hotly debated subjects right now. I am also in favor of changing the article as you said. However, such a change does not have the support of some of the most important administrators, among them Aschlafly. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 21:40, 4 December 2008 (EST)

:: I don't see what the debate is. Everyone knows deep down that Obama is a Muslim, he even admitted it. Just because some Liberals want to deny reality doesn't mean the rest of us have to. --[[User:RightWingAndProud|RightWingAndProud]] 18:51, 11 December 2008 (EST)

==Mind Control?==

The claim that Obama is using mind control seems a bit much. The link goes to brainwashing, which has slightly more subtle connotations (I believe). Perhaps someone could change the article to read brainwashing? [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 15:21, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:We're not about to bury the truth with liberal weasel-words. ''Medical experts'' have noticed that he's using mind-control, and they call it mind-control, not brainwashing. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:17, 5 December 2008 (EST)

The truth? This article is full of unsubstantiated innuendo, half-truths, speculation, and outright falsehoods, but not much truth. If nothing else, this article and its editors prove being a "liberal" and being a "weasel" are not mutually exclusive.
[[User:CBrown|- CBrown]] 7 December 2008

::It is certainly possible I missed the mention, but in the quote I read, it said hypnotism and neurolinguistic programming. The paper that the article quoted did mention mind control, but it used brainwashing more often (as did at least the titles of it's sources. If we think something important is lose by saying brainwashing instead of mind-controlling, I would suggest we keep it as is. I actually thought the reverse. Mind controlling has a blunt, direct mastery connotation, whereas I think brainwashing has more of a subtle, and incredibly insidious connotation for control and influence where the participant is unaware. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 18:33, 5 December 2008 (EST)

==Invalid source==
Just wanted to draw your attention to source 118: http://theinvigilator.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-front-of-disgust.html as it is obviously a joke. [indecent statement removed--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 8 December 2008 (EST)] [[User:420Time|420Time]] 08:08, 8 December 2008 (EST)

: Fine, I've deleted that particular reference. A better reference is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 8 December 2008 (EST)

::This is interestingly indicative of a broader issue with this article - it's built upside down. That is to say, facts are produced to lend weight to arguments already decided on, rather than the facts being synthesised into arguments. For example, in relation to Obama being a Muslim, many of the claims are backed up by spurious sources because those claims neccessitate that kind of scraping that results in errors like the one above. There are arguments to be made that he is a Muslim, sure, but would a more synthesised and less scattergun analysis of things not improve both the article's flow and the article's argument?[[User:RadimK|RadimK]] 17:50, 10 December 2008 (EST)

== Insights ==

The comment about Obama is wearing a flag lapel pin "for reasons that are likely political pandering" is completely speculative. The phrase I quoted here should be removed unless we can find a citation reporting his reasons for wearing the pin.[[User:Bishop|Bishop]] 18:14, 9 December 2008 (EST)
: You should learn quickly that we do not stand for liberal censorship of facts at CP. His pandering is an ongoing trend, not speculation. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:22, 9 December 2008 (EST)
::Rod Weathers, with posts like that you might as well get used to parody accusations. Your post was very clichéd - and the cliché was not applicable in any case – and did not actually respond to the objection. The phrase in question most definitely ''is'' speculative, as it posits a motive that has not been disclosed, and actually uses the modifier “likely”. Bishop quite rightly called for removing the speculation by either deleting the phrase or substantiating it. “It’s true, but don’t say it” is censorship. “If it’s true, back it up” is not.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:57, 9 December 2008 (EST)

::: Early on, Obama ran an anti-patriotic campaign that depended heavily on big donations from moveon.org anti-war types. During that stage, Obama did not wear the flag lapel pin. Later, Obama "changed" in what was obviously pandering to a broader electorate he was attempting to attract. No one seriously disputes this, and a citation to a liberal newspaper that endorsed Obama is not necessary to support it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:09, 9 December 2008 (EST)
::::(EC)::::Bishop disputed it. I disputed it. I was serious, but I won't speculate on Bishop's motives. To be precise, I dispute that the phrase necessarily reflects a fact. It is a speculative phrase. It may well be true, but it is still speculative, and it is certainly not undisputed. If that "insight" was re-cast with ''just'' the facts (i.e. he wore the pin, he had anti-war campaign contributors, he stopped wearing the pin, now he wears the pin again) it would actually make the point that I think it is making much more effectively. To be fair, though, pandering and politicians go hand in hand. They all do it (else they are not politicians for long). Are the "panderings" of other politicians listed in their articles? I don't know about the US but in Oz telling people what they ought to think is a pretty efficient way to stop them from thinking it. And as I said, asking for the statement be supported or removed is '''not''' censorship, liberal or otherwise. It is in fact upholding CP's commandments. I took issue with the fact that a reasonable challenge of an unsupported assertion was dismissed using a cliche trigger phrase. This is the kind of dismissal (equal and opposite, though) that CP rightly criticises in WP.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:55, 9 December 2008 (EST)

::::LowKey, you need to know we are used the the moniker of "parody" dished out by social liberals for anything they cannot even fathom. Like [[Faith]]. Andy Schlafly was right in saying Obama is a panderer, for beginning to wear the lapel pin, reversing his position on ''FISA'', ''No Child Left Behind'' and of course, who could forget his bald-faced lie about always supporting the right to buy firearms, after the SCOTUS ruled against the District of Columbia banning the possession and purchase? I suppose the liberals here will now demand I "prove" he changed his positions on those issues as well...--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 19:36, 9 December 2008 (EST)
:::::TK, firstly I was not accusing of parody. I was pointing out that that is exactly the kind of post that will garner such accusations, though. I guess liberals dish out "parody" the way some conservatives are dishing out "liberal" and "censorship". I explained ''why'' the post would look parodic. Also, see what I said above about pandering. See also what I said about the effectiveness of a "just the facts" approach. There was no demand for proof, only support. And I am not a liberal, although whether or not Bishop is I will not speculate.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:55, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:::::Aschlafly, up near the top of this page, you specifically said, "We provide the information and let the reader decide." Yet in this case, you're perfectly willing to draw the conclusions when they suit you. How is this not inconsistent? Speculative statements are unencyclopedic and belong in an opinion column, not a serious "Trustworthy Encyclopedia."[[User:ETuthill|ETuthill]] 19:23, 9 December 2008 (EST)

"ETuthill", the reader does decide. We're not going to censor the information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:Aschlafly, I reverted this comment by "Etuthill" because I understood it to be trolling. I'm sorry if I was overzealous in that action.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:33, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:*Alexander....generally we don't revert on discussion pages. Let editor's comments show them to be who they are. ;-) --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 19:38, 9 December 2008 (EST)
:::And you just now reverted on Andy's talk page![[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 20:47, 9 December 2008 (EST)
::*Thank you, TK, I'll remember that going forward. Can I still plead "new guy" :) ?-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:46, 9 December 2008 (EST)

::: I'm not a liberal, I was not trolling; I am just interested in seeing facts portrayed as facts, without opinions being added into the mix. It is not "censorship" to suggest that in an encyclopedia, the facts can and should speak for themselves without editorializing. I'm making a suggestion in good faith because I believe that including phrases such as the one I quoted make for a weaker article and less respectability for the project. [[User:ETuthill|ETuthill]] 20:43, 9 December 2008 (EST)

::I agree that the point is best made by ''showing'' the reader that Obama is pandering as opposed to simply stating it. It's a matter of encyclopedic style, but character statements in nonfiction pieces won't affect a reader in the slightest. It may be a ''fact'' that Obama panders by wearing the flag pin now, but the connotation of the word "pander" converts the statement into an assessment as opposed to an account. If you state that he changed his behaviors and list the ways, your reader will be perfectly capable of coming up with the word "pander" independently. If you absolutely ''must'' use the word, you should quote a reputable pundit or journalist (people who we wish to make assessments) .

::OH! Also in the "Obama and Elitism" section, after citation 44, the word "to" is missing in the phrase "in an attempt to counter". --[[User:JKoliner|JKoliner]] 09:46, 10 December 2008 (EST)

==Obama and Blagojevich==

I strongly suspect that this is going to wind up being a new section of the article as the story develops. After all, when Blagojevich says that he's not willing to support Obama's pick because "they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation," that rather strongly implies that he ASKED them what they were willing to give. If that's the case, the fact that they weren't willing to grease his palm is really irrelevant; they knew a serious crime was being committed and said nothing about it, which would make them party to said crime. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:45, 9 December 2008 (EST)

::So Obama's corrupt. We already knew this, as well as him being a socialist and a Muslim, and probably gay as well. --[[User:RightWingAndProud|RightWingAndProud]] 18:51, 11 December 2008 (EST)

::: The whole thing about that is, asking "What's in it for me?" is not, strictly speaking, illegal. It's so far unproven what, if anything, Obama knew about Blagojevich's dealings. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:56, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== Correct Please! ==

Obama is not a Muslim. Among other things, his father was often away on trips. You really need to correct this article and open it up for editing. Also, mind-control? Come on. Obama makes good speeches, but so did Martin Luther King. Why don't you accuse him of mind control?--[[User:DM333|DM333]] 12:35, 12 December 2008 (EST)
:We don't accuse him. ''Medical doctors'' do. And the evidence for his muslim faith are clear and strong. Stop a moment and read, rather than lapping up what the liberal media feeds you. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:40, 12 December 2008 (EST)
::That source was written by one person anonymously and has been decried since then. Look at the comments below it by other ''Medical doctors''. It's not to be taken seriously. --[[User:RonAbdul|RonAbdul]] 15:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Editing some of the crazy stuff. ==

I would do this myself, but it appears that the page is locked form editing, but I think you should take out all the ridiculous and unfounded sections, or ones based solely on oponion. Or, at least, relegate them to a "Conspiricy" or "Criticsms" (or whatever you want to call it) subsection. --[[User:PatF|PatF]] 08:05, 15 December 2008 (EST)
::Many users, myself included, share your view, while there are also a handful who don't. Believe me, you are not the first to raise these issues -- just read previous edits on this talk page! Recently, both sides were working (sort of) on a compromise. Check it out here: [[Conservapedia:Obama_straw_poll]]. Even more recently though, talks seem to have stopped. It could be taking place elsewhere, I don't know. --[[User:SJames|SJames]] 08:33, 15 December 2008 (EST)
::The use of terms such as 'crazy stuff' 'ridiculous and unfounded' and 'conspiracy' is offensive and unhelpful. User PatF is welcome to make substantive contributions to this encyclopaedia, but abusive language will not be tolerated. Nor do we embrace attempts to undo the essential form of the article, arrived at after a good deal of honest debate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:42, 15 December 2008 (EST)
:::I don't know how "arrived" the current form of the article is, though. There was further debate or rather, discussion to reach a compromise at the Obama Straw Poll page. There doesn't seem to have been any changes to the Obama article as a result of it and the discussion has since stopped. Has it been moved elsewhere? I know this may get tiring for some of you who have been debating this topic for a long time, but it's too important to neglect. It's not like those who are firmly against the "Obama is a Muslim" slant have been swayed by any new arguments. They have simply given up on even striving for that compromise they had settled for. That definitely doesn't mean the matter no longer needs addressing. The current state of the article remains as a discrediting force to CP's ''overall'' ideals which is the last thing it needs and deserves. I sincerely hope something can be done. [[User:SJames|SJames]] 09:05, 15 December 2008 (EST)

:::: In response to "PatF" above, you need to do some serious work to improve your spelling. In response to SJames, your quote is incorrect, and no one has identified any errors in the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 09:18, 15 December 2008 (EST)

::::: My apologies, ''likely a Muslim'' is the message that greets the reader before even the TOC. And I think we can all agree that a responsible article is not merely error-free with its facts and quotes -- manipulation and representation of those facts and quotes have a lot to do with it too. The issues with this article have been well-voiced so I won't repeat them. It doesn't seem like your opinion will change at this time. Later perhaps, but most likely not. I'll just try to ignore this article for now and hope for the best. [[User:SJames|SJames]] 09:57, 15 December 2008 (EST)
::::::SJames, there has been exhaustive debate over the Obama article, here and on other pages including the Straw Poll page. The competing views have been presented openly, and attempts at censorship have been discussed and rejected. Why should opinions change unless new facts come to light? Until that hypothetical point any further discussion will serve no purpose except to derail or delay this project, and and attempts to reopen the discussion will be viewed in that light and treated accordingly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:09, 15 December 2008 (EST)
:::::To Aschlafly, sorry about my spelling, I wrote this right before I went to bed and was occuped with other things at the time, but that is not the issue here, and I did not mean to be insulting. And I hardly believe that "No one has identified errors in the Entry", many parts are based off of assumptions about Obama, opinions, and questionable claims. I think, with regard to the muslim issue alone, you can go to any number of reputable factchecking sources which all debunk the Muslim claim. If you are going to make that claim that he is likely a muslim, at least note that there are many sources which disagree with the claim. The "Elitism" claim is an opinion, or, at best, an ad hominem attack. --[[User:PatF|PatF]] 14:07, 15 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: "PatF", your spelling is still atrocious ("occupied" with an "i", "muslim" with a capital "M", etc.). And, no, no one has disproved the statements in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 14:30, 15 December 2008 (EST)
::::::: I suspect that PatF has bought into the [[liberal propaganda]] of Barack Hussein Obama, per our analysis on [[Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?]]. Pat, I understand it's all very compelling, but please take the time to read unbiased news sources before coming to your political conclusions. Conservapedia would be a good start: challenge yourself to think outside of the liberal paradigm that's been built around you and you, too, could come to see the truth.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 14:46, 15 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::Regardless of my spelling (Does it matter? I sometimes miss a letter when typing), You didn't actually respond to the issue that I raised, and no, despite disagreeing with you Alexander, I have not bought into "Liberal Propaganda", fortunately, you see, people actually have different opinions, I have read unbiased sources (this is definitely not one of them), and formed my own opinion about politics. Unfortunately, you guys just seem to respond to my questions with Ad Hominem attacks about my Spelling and me buying into Liberal Propaganda. If YOU could read an unbiased source then respond to my questions then that would be great. Here are a few sites that I have found to be reasonable and, for the most part, unbiased: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp , http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/corsis_dull_hatchet.html , http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/238/ . --[[User:PatF|PatF]] 17:48, 15 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Pat, you're clearly in violation of the 90/10 rule against excessive talk, and an administrator would be justified in blocking you. Please contribute to Conservapedia before raising issues like this, and remember that this wiki has a policy against persistent liberal complaining. I advise you to contribute rapidly before an administrator exercises their right.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 17:49, 15 December 2008 (EST)

== Secrecy section ==

apparently this article is lockad and I can't edit it, but I think someone who can should change the secrecy section...those aren't 'questions that remain unanswered', perhaps 'information that remains hidden'...or similar should be used instead. --[[User:WoodS|WoodS]] 13:36, 16 December 2008 (EST)

: Be clear about what you think has been answered. The questions have been asked.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 13:45, 16 December 2008 (EST)--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 13:45, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:: Perhaps I wasn't clear, what I meant was that the list isn't a list of questions at all (answered or not), for example one of the bullet points is "Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mothers"...a question would be 'Where do all Obamas half-siblings and step-mothers live and what are they called'.

:: I am suggesting that the phrase "The following questions remain sealed from the public." be changed to something like "The following information remains sealed from the public."

:: As for what I think has been answered, I wasn't really talking about that, however I have heard something about the supreme court looking into his birth record, so I would assume when that happens it will sort that one out, but you probably are following that closer than me.

::On a related note the intro says "in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy to a burdensome level" should that 'the' before tax rates be there? I think it would be better without but perhaps there's a difference in American grammar I'm unfamiliar with. --[[User:WoodS|WoodS]] 13:54, 16 December 2008 (EST)

== Apparently no Koran for Inauguration... ==

Tried to edit this page, but it seems locked. Obama is having the Christian evangelist pastor Rick Warren swear him in during his upcoming inauguration. His identity as a possible hidden Muslim aside, it seems clear that he is not going to use the Koran. Please update the article.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081218/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_minister
::The key word here is 'apparently', and the page is locked for good reason. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:35, 18 December 2008 (EST)

:::Secret Muslims are just that, secret. Why spill the beans now when Allah's will has not yet been done.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 15:01, 18 December 2008 (EST)

::::Regardless, it seems obvious that whatever he may secretly believe, he will not under any circumstances be sworn in with a Koran. To suggest otherwise in light of such overwhelming evidence is either naive or blatantly malicious. Thanks. [[User:PL|PL]]

::::: Just because one Christian minister has been asked to do an invocation? Seems like you're putting a lot of emphasis on who does an invocation. But liberals seems to have the same obsession with it, judging by today's "outrage".--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 17:26, 18 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Look, I'm not here to debate his private beliefs. But are you seriously suggesting that you (and your site) still suggest there is a good chance Obama will be sworn in with the Koran? There are many previosly written reasons why this seems obvious to me, Rick Warren presiding over the event is just one additional (big) reason that tops it off.
:::::::Please sign your posts in future with four tildes; we are not interested in anonymous rants. Our position is perfectly fair as to the truth and the presentation of evidence, and we are not going to succumb to censorship proposals. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:51, 18 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: Mr. Anonymous, someone who gives an invocation, perhaps one of several, certainly is not "presiding over the event." You're apparently clueless about Obama's beliefs and your postings demonstrate that you're clueless about the swearing in process also.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 17:54, 18 December 2008 (EST)

: It's still quite likely that Obama could be sworn on the Koran. You don't see the book up close, and on the outside it could look just like a Bible. Even the person swearing in might not be aware. Given that the Bible is much bigger than the Koran, it's even possible they might take a Bible, hollow it out, and put the Koran inside. Then it will look like he is being sworn in on the Bible, but inside it will be a Koran. [[User:TGordon|TGordon]] 20:14, 18 December 2008 (EST)

:: You can't be serious. Even with CP's stance on Obama's super secret beliefs clear as day, I highly doubt they would take this stance when Obama is sworn in on the Bible. [[User:SJames|SJames]] 22:06, 18 December 2008 (EST)

::What sense would it make to be ''secretly'' sworn on the Koran? If he were a Muslim, wouldn't the oath be more binding for him? --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 21:59, 18 December 2008 (EST)

:::Appearances aside...the real question is what is in his heart while he's sworn in? One could swear anything on the Bible, but in their soul have their "fingers crossed" so to speak. He might say a muslim prayer to himself and there wouldn't be no way of knowing.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 12:46, 21 December 2008 (EST)
::::Quite - he 'appears' to be a Christian, just as his cousin, [[Raila Odinga]], claims to be an Anglican but has promised to introduce [[Sharia]] law to [[Kenya]]. Liberal literalism and credulity are finding their apogee here. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:58, 21 December 2008 (EST)

==An "evil Christian"==
I noticed that [[Saint Augustine]] in [[De fide rerum invisibilium]] warned of "evil Christians". Could Obama be such a thing? --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 17:38, 22 December 2008 (EST)
:Quite possibly. A wolf in sheep's clothing, claiming to be Christian but rejecting Christ's principles? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:06, 22 December 2008 (EST)
:No. It has already been proven he is a Muslim. --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 01:41, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

KimSell — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:44:10 GMT

KimSell:

{{Controversial}}
Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
[[/archive4|4]]
[[/archive5|5]]
[[/archive6|6]]

==New proof that Obama is not a Muslim==
Recently on his vacation in Hawaii, Obama ate Spam Musubi, also known as spam sushi http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/22/spam-musubi-obamas-hawaii_n_152854.html. It is against Muslim law to eat pork. This, with his smoking, drinking beer, and having Rick Warren praying at his inauguration, I think this should really be edited out.

: Spam can be prepared in many different varieties, and its use of pork is neither widely known nor guaranteed. Your comments about the other activities are way off base; smoking in Syria, for example, is nearly 50% among males [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iuatld/ijtld/2002/00000006/00000003/art00002?crawler=true] and I don't think beer is absolutely prohibited under Islam. Nor should you read so much significance into inviting a Christian speaker to give an invocation; such invitations are common at official events.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 17:44, 22 December 2008 (EST)

::SPAM® Classic is made of just a few simple ingredients. Ham, pork, sugar, salt, water, a little potato starch, and a mere
hint of sodium nitrite to help SPAM® keep its color. Sounds delicious, and it is.04:44, 23 December 2008 (EST)
==Thou shall not bear false witness==
I am a Conservative and proud of it, but there are many parts of this article which are unsavory in character, the falsies in just the introduction deeply sicken me, the thought that our next president was not born in this country is not something I wish to have posted on this website. Barack Obama is a perfectly good person and he will not destroy the country, please, I think this needs to be revised, because for a site that has a very long article about bias and deceit this seems to be teeming with those two things, whether from the left or the right,negative or positive, deceit is deceit. I would also like to say, the accusations of those who write this and those who enable the writing of this are no better than any liberals on wikipedia, come on, we have to set an example, we shouldn't stoop to their level. I am a Christian and we must remember "Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness" and that is what I see in this article, we must be Christians and set a Christian example.--[[user:Rpond|Rpond]]

== Jesusland at it's worst ==
Every source on here is either extremly questionable or completly false. The writer gets aroundfact checks by using MAY and MIGHT to desplay the fact there is a chance Obama can save his mortal soul before he dies and goes to hell for being a muslim. He is a good christian, and while that is not my religion, I respect him greatly. {{unsigned|RCEN}}--20:30, 30 November 2008

== Lenin Poster ==

The statement about the Lenin-like poster is informative. We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:Andy, did you happen to take a look at the reference? The article claims that "Obama also ''revealed'' his ''deep Marxist/Leninist roots''" and that "clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was ''obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint'' to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs" (emphasis mine). The citation, which was a blog, by the way, and not in any way a trustworthy source of informative information, gives no evidence to back up these statements. It shows a poster of Lenin and a poster of Obama, both of which show profiles of the figures. Assuming these pictures weren't entirely made up, do you really think that this slight similarity is Obama's way of confessing closet Marxism? Not to mention the fact that Obama likely didn't make the posters anyway -- maybe we should accuse his (very expensive!!) marketing designer of being a Marxist/Leninist. 15:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama and beer ==

There are several stories (with photos) of Obama drinking beer, which as an intoxicant is banned by Muslim sharia. <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/05/06/20/125-6web-Obama_Beer-minor.standalone.prod_affiliate.91.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/36055.html&h=325&w=485&sz=47&hl=en&start=28&um=1&usg=__ShpWdieNIwhr4Rp3jHtLe7U9MB8=&tbnid=Se90xFLBo6rNQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bdrinks%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN </ref> <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156_t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156.html&h=332&w=400&sz=16&hl=en&start=15&um=1&usg=__Yubc0nmus36Cf4Rrf7BL7-33-0g=&tbnid=xuWGKQ1Sl8_bQM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbeer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG</ref> No rational person can say that a practicing Muslim wouldn't violate the law in such a blatant, repeated manner. Another strike against the goofy Muslim charge. And remember, we don't censor here. Godspeed. [[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 12:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: I think many American Muslims drink beer. Nice try, though.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 11 November 2008 (EST)

::And how many "dangerous" American Muslims are there that have loose enough morals to blatantly disrespect their own religious law, but are still a threat to Americans? (Of course this is all granted that he IS a secret Muslim, which I have given up trying to discuss) So I see nothing wrong if Obama turns out to be a secret Muslim. Nice try, though. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:54, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::He also smokes cigarettes, to complete his subterfuge. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:42, 11 November 2008 (EST)

There are no rules against muslims smoking anyway. A muslim drinking beer is like a christian defacing a bible. If you're a muslim you don't drink alcohol... its simple

== Hussein reference ==

It's factual and it's informative. If there is reasoned basis for deleting it, let's see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: Again, no reason has been given for deleting the Hussein reference, and there is none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:: Andy, this is false. Reasons have been given on this talk page numerous times before. I just had a quick look, and found reasons being given in all archives except the first, as well as other places on this talk page. So you are wrong to say that no reason has been given, and wrong to say that there is no reason. And, as I have pointed out in the edit comments, five senior administrators have said that they disagree with it being there. Is your view on this somehow superior to those five put together? Do you want this to be a collaborative encyclopaedia or your blog? The former demands that you not impose your opinion regardless of who is disagreeing. Imposing your opinion regardless suggests that this is your blog. I know you don't consider it to be the latter, but that's the way it's looking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::Not a blog but an encylopedia. If it were a blog, your opinion would carry as much weight as anyone else's. Let's put this one in [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: If it were a blog, the blog owner's opinion would carry the most weight. Almost all blogs are the opinions of an ''individual'', not a group of people. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Philip, the truth is not dependent on consensus, and 5 out of several dozen is not a consensus anyway. Give your best reason for deleting this information here. Since the beginning we have had a policy not to delete factual, informative material, particularly when it is liberal ideology that motivates the demand for censorship of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I said five of the ''senior'' administrators, which numbers about eleven. So that's five out of eleven, not dozens. Further, that's five against and one (yourself) for, as the remainder have not offered an opinion that I'm aware of. (One perhaps did support you, but because they wanted to support you, not because they considered it a valid argument.)
:::: My reason is relevance, not (primarily) accuracy. I'm not disputing that his middle name is Hussein. The claim that "most Christians would not retain" their (former/Muslim/Arabic?; it's not clear) name is not supported by the references, and even if it is true, means little in individual cases. That is, even if 99% changed their name, Obama not changing his name might mean no more than him being in the other 1%.
:::: And this is just one of the points in that section. The entire argument that Obama is a Muslim is built on very circumstantial evidence, selective evidence, and logical fallacy, and is rejected by other conservatives.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Philip, it obviously is relevant, which you say is your primary objection. We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that. We provide the information and let the reader decide. If some readers want to conclude that someone with a Muslim name is actually a Christian, even though less than 1% of those raised as Muslims convert, so be it. We're not going to censor this factual information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: "''...it obviously is relevant...''": Because ''you'' say so? If it was so "obvious", then you wouldn't have five senior administrators disagreeing with you. No, it's not obviously relevant at all, and you've not demonstrated the relevance.
::::::: "''We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that.''": Given that I and the other senior administrators are not "liberals", and the rejection is based on relevance, not "dislike", why are you introducing red herrings like this? Has your argument got no more substance than irrelevancies like that?
::::::: "'' We provide the information and let the reader decide.''": Only if it's relevant. Otherwise we are just introducing padding for readers to wade through and discourage them getting to the relevant stuff.
::::::: "''We're not going to censor this factual information.''": It is not censorship to remove irrelevant information, and I'd appreciate you not implying that I'm trying to censor anything.
::::::: In summary, you have failed to produce any reasons substance as to why it should be retained.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Exactly. The point of Conservapedia is ''not'' to censor information, but to leave it to our readers to decide. The MSM has tried to push this under the rug, so the least we can do is offer these arguments to the intelligent public. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: The problem is that these points are fallacious and lead to a conclusion based on specious arguments. That is neither "trustworthy" nor encyclopedic. Obama may not be your brand of xian, but he's certianly no brand of muslim. Your inability to accept that this is incorrect despite repeated arguments wherein you have shown nothing but fallacious arguments drawing poor conclusions hurts the credibility of all Conservapedia. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 11:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Did anyone notice how ASchlafly posited the question at or near closing time Tuesday night and declared that he recieved no answer at or near opening time on Wednesday? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Keep the reference, but 2 examples of people having changed their names for religious reasons does not mean "most" people would change their names as stated in the article. A good reference on this topic would list a percentage (presumably greater than 50%) of people who have switched religions also changing their names.
::I am sure we could come up with a very long list, but this article would not be the place for it. A sample of a couple of names to illustrate the point being made is surely adequate for all except those who wish to undermine the accuracy of the piece. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Based on the idea that a "[[Muslim]]" is someone who is "[[submission|submissive]]" to the will of God, I would say that many Christians and Jews can therefore (loosely) be described as Muslim. Why do you make it sound like being Muslim is a bad thing?

Don't play on fears that all Muslims are terrorists; that is illogical, even if it is true that most recent anti-Western terrorists are part of the [[Islamic civilization]].

I object to anyone trying to impose a single view on matters of controversy. It would be wrong, Philip, to insist that "it is not true that Obama is a Muslim". I helped to champion Wikipedia's NPOV policy (until liberals decided to abandon it), and it would be a good idea to try it out here - instead of making bad-tempered personal attacks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:"''Why do you make it sound like being Muslim is a bad thing?'': It's nonsense to suggest that that is ''all'' "being a Muslim" entails.
:"''It would be wrong, Philip, to insist that "it is not true that Obama is a Muslim".''": Ignoring for the moment that I'm not actually making that claim, why would it be wrong to insist that, ''if it '''is''' wrong''?
: Now back to the point that I'm not actually making that claim. Has it escaped your attention that it is Andy, not me, that is making the absolutist claim? Until your last edit to the article, it said unequivocally that "Obama is a Muslim". It is ''me'' who has being trying to remove that claim, and ''Andy'' who has been insisting on it. So why are you directing your comments at ''me''? I am ''not'' claiming that "Obama is not a Muslim". Rather, I'm claiming that there's no good evidence that he is a Muslim, and a fair bit of evidence that he is not, so therefore the article should not claim that he is. You seem to agree, having (at least twice, I think) changed the article to remove that absolute statement, yet you are directing you criticisms at me, rather than the person insisting that a particular view ''is'' true. Why the double standard?
: "''...instead of making bad-tempered personal attacks.''": Along the same line, how about you direct your comments to the person/people calling me names ("liberal") and repeatedly side-stepping the argument with irrelevancies instead of (or even as well as, if you prefer) criticising me who is being repeatedly ignored, misrepresented, and called names?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::Philip, I never made an "absolutist" claim in the entry that "Obama is a Muslim." There is compelling factual evidence that Obama is a Muslim. But your deletions (censorship) were of factual evidence, not of an absolutist claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::: Andy, until Ed Poor edited it very recently, the article said "Obama is a Muslim", without any qualification. At least some of the "compelling factual evidence" listed in the article is false, not compelling, and/or logically invalid, particularly the ones that I have been removing. Andy why do you keep calling my deletions "censorship" when I have repeatedly denied that they are and explained why they are not, and you've not justified how they are? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, you've repeated your same claim again and again, yet I see no evidence of it. I don't think the entry ever said that "Obama is a Muslim" without qualification. If it did, then you could easily quote it. You haven't.

:::: Your insistence on deleting facts from the entry, such as Obama's non-American pronunciation of "Pakistan", can properly be described as censorship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:37, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Why don't we let each reader decide for himself how believable each source is? I'd hate to see a claim deleted simply because one party in a dispute doubts it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:58, 27 November 2008 (EST)

==Debate On Obama's Religion==

The debate is continuing at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?‎]] It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Reference ==

<references/>

Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action? Untrue. ==

I am no fan of Obama. I do plan on respectfully opposing him via various channels on the internet. However, I believe I should state my opposition to this sentence of the article: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action."

I have not read the rest of the article because I believed months ago and for good reasons that Obama was going to win this election. For example, the unpopular war and poor economy that was partly caused by a guns and lots of butter spending strategy (Bush should have learned from LBJ committing us to a war and the Great Society programs at the same time). I also thought that it would have been easy for the Republicans to win 12 years in a row given the low quality of the Democratic party. I think the Republicans snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. I also think Americans have too much debt (last time I heard the average American had lots of credit card debt). One of the reasons for the great depression is that American's had too much debt at the time. I think Bush's call for Americans to do to do more shopping mall spending was a joke. If anything, Americans need to increase their skills to be more productive (The libraries are open but you might have to watch less TV. Last time I checked the average American watches 3 hours of television a day) and work harder to pay off their debt. American's are going to get out of the hole by increasing their productivity. It seems as if Bush did not want to learn from economic history and was only looking out for short term fixes. Well sooner or later, common sense says you have to pay the piper.

Getting back to Obama, obviously, Obama's marital success in terms of not getting divorced compared to Ronald Reagan is not the result of affirmative action. I am sure I could come up with others. I have not read the article for the most part because this sentence turned me off to the whole article. Judging from the ""He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action." sentence, I believe a lot of time is probably being spent to defend an article rather than improve it where obvious improvements could be made. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)

: Staying married is laudable but in this context it would not be considered a "clear personal achievement." If you would like to add a footnote exception to the remark along the lines of, "he has been married for x years," I'm not opposed but I would expect that to caveat to seem off-topic, or even sarcastic, for most readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::One CP writer told me he equates divorce with adultery, and he accused Reagan of adultery on this basis. Is this the consensus view of Conservatives? Or just his own idea? Or what?

::We ought to be clear on the standards by which we judge public figures. And consistent, too. I mean, which is worse, committing actual adultery (JFK, Clinton) or getting divorced and then remarrying? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Biblically, divorce is not adultery. However, divorce is wrong unless the spouse has been unfaithful. Remarriage after a legitimate divorce is okay. The question is whether remarriage after a wrong divorce is okay. Many believe, I think that although the act of divorce may be wrong, that is a forgivable sin like any other sin, and remarriage is not a further sin. And I'd tend to agree that committing "actual" adultery is worse than divorce and remarriage. However, the point that Conservative was raising was not between those two cases, but between divorce and remarriage compared to marriage without divorce.
::: I'm not convinced that Obama's marriage does not constitute a "clear personal achievement". Given the divorce rate these days, especially among prominent people, I would think that it ''was'' a clear personal achievement. In fact I'd consider staying marriage a "clear personal achievement" for anybody these days, given all the pressures on marriage, including the peer pressure that divorce is okay.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::I rarely disagree with you, Philip, as I find your comments to be some of the more considered on this board, but here I would have to disagree. Jesus makes it quite clear that divorce *is* adultery, not *like* adultery. More then any other text, especially OT text, I take Jesus's words to heart. Mark 10
::::2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
::::3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
::::4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
::::5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
::::6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'
::::7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
::::8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
::::9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
::::10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
::::11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
::::12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 09:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I didn't say that divorce is "like" adultery. I said that it's ''not'' adultery. And the evidence you've offered to refute that doesn't refute that. The Bible says that someone who divorces ''and remarries'' commits adultery, not that someone who ''divorces'' commits adultery. You can't have adultery without sexual intercourse, which would be taken as given with someone remarrying, but not a given with someone just divorcing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama spiruality interview ==
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html a interview from a pretty religous website about Obama. Should it be mentioned? Or since it kinda contradicts abit of the article should it be ommitted? --[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:What one might say in an interview really means very little, Vmember, particularly if one is seeking to achieve a position by hiding one's essential nature or beliefs. So really what he says when seeking to impress is irrelevant. It is what he does and has done, and what he says in unguarded moments, that matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:16, 12 November 2008 (EST)
*um then shouldn't it atleast be mentioned somewhere in the article about this interview maybe as a response to questions about his faith section? And why is him maybe being a muslim all the way at the top of the article? Shouldn't be be somewhere towards the middle? I've never seen in all my time part of a article pushed into the intro section. Also the article contradicts itself by stating that Obama is most likely a muslim while at the same time pointing at that he was a member of a radical Christian church. That doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways.--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::You can if you're a sleeper for radical Islam. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)
**Wait you seriously think that? Hmm fringe ideas and theories on any subject is detrimental to a discussion let alone a encyclopedia. It's dangerous thinking like that is why us conservatives lost the election and alienated so many moderates and weak liberals. Would there be any objection if I were to move the muslim part to the middle and add a section with his response to questions of his faith?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)
***Does this look better? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Help:Practice_Page&oldid=555527 Hmm I kinda think instead of giving facts supporting the theory Obama is a muslim editors are trying to push it off as straight fact even though theres been evidence against it. Isn't that a tactic only liberals use and a form of deceit?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Poster ==

Don't delete the insight about the poster. I learned from the insight, and I'm sure others have also. We don't censor here. We let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:I already explained (above) why the "insight" is not actually an insight, is not supported by the source, and is likely false. Believe me, I would love it if Obama really did intentionally model his posters after those of Lenin in a subliminal message to Europeans, but there's simply no evidence of that.

:You reverted both of my edits. Do you have problems with both of them, or just the first one? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:42, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:: Sorry, I just have a problem with the deletion of the poster edit. Your other edit looked fine, but it came right after the controversial one and there was no easy way to separate the too.

:: The similarities between Obama's poster and the famous Lenin image is too obvious for words. We don't need a citation for observing, for example, that 2+2=4. If a reader wants to reject the obvious similarity between the images, then the reader is welcome to do so. Censorship is not a preferred approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::I'm not denying that they are similar, I'm denying that their similarity "[reveals] his deep Marxist/Leninist roots" and "was obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and belief". Can I change the text to reflect that, while the two posters are similar, there's no way to know that it's a confession? (I pointed out before that if anyone is imitating Lenin here, it's probably the over-priced poster designer). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I'm fine with rewording, as long as it doesn't inject liberal spin or make it look like Obama didn't approve it with the similarity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I'll try my best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Your revised wording is great. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Is anyone else put off by the fact that the Germans really hated Lennin? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Fun poster [http://img.skitch.com/20080723-pbt7dkk5ksgbystrri5px6s9fr.jpg] --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST) The imagery is more common that you might expect. Nothing new under the sun as they say --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted==

Mr Schlafly this page is absolutely disgusting. I am totally against Obama as you know, this is the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen. We should leave this page as information about him as a individual, not about why we hate him and you should too. 90% of the page is opinion, and is totally innapropriate. I suggest making it into two pages. One about Obama with just simple facts about him and his backround, and you can make another about everything we hate about him. Pages like this are why we are losing our trustworthyness.
Thanks, --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

:Here here. At times I find this article amusing as an ironic hate piece, but at best it degrades this site and conservatives in general. Liberal or conservative, poor logic is poor logic. Because Obama and Lenin each had monochromatic posters featuring a pose directed toward the right it is evidence of Marxist intentions. Because Obama said the words "my muslim faith", irregardless of any context, it used as evidence of being a muslim. I don't even know what to say about the mind control thing, it's really amazing to me because as a religious person it reminds of the feelings I had when I discovered the truth of Jesus Christ: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany" [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 19:31, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted Conservative too==

I did not vote for Senator Obama for political reasons, but I believe he is a good man; this article is simple character assassination; you do not go into his views and show how those are disagreeable (his views on abortion, and his want to make a hasty withdrawal from Iraq) and instead you simply accuse him of being a Muslim, and anti-American etc. also a blog is not a credible source; a blog is someone's opinion. Anyway the accusations levied upon him are for the most part completely inaccurate. He was born in The United States, he wrote his autobiography, he is not a Muslim, he is not anti-American. Please keep the disagreements political.--[[user:Rpond|Rpond]]

I don't know who wrote this, but it shouldn't have been deleted. --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

: The odds are less than 1% that "Rpond's" posting is genuine, in light of his misspelling of "conservative" and his other rants. It is appropriate to delete insincere or deceptive postings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:: It is an interesting experience living life each day getting verbally attacked for being a conservative then coming here and getting persecuted (justified edits to factual and encyclopedic wording) for being a liberal. You seem to be very fond of the less than 1% statistic, and have used it many times in many places, but I've never seen any solid reasoning or studies behind it (although in this case your gut instinct does seem to be credited implicitly) I think perhaps you live in a highly conservative eco chamber and aren't getting out enough to notice how little resonance this sort of thing has out in the real world. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::: Way to show your liberal stripes, BrendanW. Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated here, so please keep it civil. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 19:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Would that be an ad hominem attack like calling someone a liberal? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:24, 13 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Are you insulted by being described as a "liberal"? Or are you angry that you're not fooling anyone?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Either Way its still an Ad Hominem. However I am a little "l" libertarian, and strict constitutionalist (excluding the racist portions that is) which makes me pleanty conservative, I'm also an objectivist in the Ayn Rand model, highly capitalistic and against socialism. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 09:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Liberal is not an ad hominem, it's a statement of your political views (whether accurate or not), which is completely valid to make in a political arena such as this. Calling someone sarcastic, or making sarcastic remarks about how they live is certainly ad hominem. My two cents--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:27, 19 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: "Liberal" ''is'' an ''ad hominem'', for two reasons:
::::::::* "''ad hominem''" refers to an argument about the ''person'' rather than about the ''issue''. So even if it is accurate and descriptive, it's still about the ''person'' rather than the ''issue''.
::::::::* An '''''abusive''' ad hominem'' is when you say something ''nasty'' about the person. If "liberal" is an accurate description, or even if it's not but it's said in the reasonable belief that it is, then it's not an '''''abusive''' ad hominem''. But when it's said without any grounds other than disagreeing with a single point of view, then I'd classify as abusive.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==Cool it==

I've protected this page; only admins can edit it for the moment. Many of us have strong feelings, and we have used this page to express them.

But I would hope that we all confine our comments here to specific suggestions on how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:45, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Did you read that reference? ==

The claim is that OBama might be a Muslim and that he might swear in on a koran. The reference -ref- Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]-/ref- is about how Obamma is not a Muslim and did not use the Koran to be sworn in as a senator. I simply do not see how it belongs. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Welcome to Conservapedia. Truth is relative to Andy. -[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

It might be more accurate to say the truth is nothing to Andy if it gets in the way of political attacks. If Andy actually knew anything whatsoever about being a Christian, he would know not to bear false witness.-[[User:CBrown|CBrown]] December 6 2008 (EST)

== Code name ==

The article plainly says that Obama did have a role in picking it. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:My article clearly says that the White House Communications Agency chose the name for him. Hence the original edit.
:I tried to find a source directly fromt he Secret Service or the White House Communications Agency, but neither of their search functions were working. I'll keep looking. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:06, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::"President-Elect Barack Obama – 'Renegade' – had a say in choosing the code name that his guards use when they are whispering into their microphones." From the article cited on our Main Page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:::''These not-so-secret names are chosen by officials at the White House Communications Agency, which was not inclined to comment on the selection process. In a previous news report, an agency spokesman said the names are assigned by "sheer whim."'' -- From my (stateside) source. You can see why I was confused.
:::I did further research (hence my half-hour long absence) According to [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/11/13/pssst_renegade_and_renaissance_are_in_the_house/ this] source, the WHCA chooses a list of names, and the President decides which one he likes best. So we were both right! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:40, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::::Everybody wins! Yay! -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)

A "renegade" is a ''deserter'' of a cause, so '''if''' Obama was actually raised as a muslim, and '''if''' the codename has any non-arbitrary significance, it would be evidence that he is '''not''' a muslim, rather than the other way around.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:27, 26 November 2008 (EST)

== For the love of God!! ==
HE IS NOT A MUSLIM. I donated 500$ to support McCain and voted for him but this beyond retarded. Please remove that info, because right now nobody in their right mind can take this seriously. Also take out the Koran thing he used the bible in the senate. [[User:Nig89|Nig89]] 20:17, 15 November 2008 (EST)

: Your comment is long on your dubious assertion of a credential, but short on substance. Give us your reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Why does Obama's religion matter so much? 18:57, 15 November 2008 {{unsigned|JamesZ}}

: Good question. I hope your fellow liberals will answer it for you. They are the ones having unexplained hysteria about a simple observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::The word you are looking for is "accusation" not "observation". An observation would be stating that he has some traits similar to Muslims. An accusation is claiming that he is a Muslim, regardless of his own protests. On the accusation note, great job assuming anyone who doesn't believe you is a liberal Aschfly. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 00:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)

You don't have to be a liberal to object to blatant lies perpetuated on an ostensibly educational website by a man who claims to be both an educator and a Christian.
-[[User:CBrown|CBrown]] 15:04, December 6 2008 (EST)

== Was Barack Obama truly raised a Muslim or is he a Muslim? ==

Previously I wrote the following: Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST) Mr. Schlafly wrote the following: " I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)"

Here is my response to Mr. Schlafly's reply to my previous post on the Obama/Muslim issue:

I am not a fan of "Liberal Christianity" as I believe it often fails to fall into the realm of biblical/orthodox Christianity and when it does so it is not Christianity at all. With that being said, the article does give compelling evidence that Obama is a member of the camp of "liberal Christianity" and not biblical Christianity. If Obama is a "liberal Christian" he is not a Muslim. There are two logical fallacies called the [http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page2.htm#sloth slothful inductive fallacy] and [http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] whereby "Relevant evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence"."[http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm] '''Andy, I believe you are committing these two logical fallacies as can be seen by the material in the above cited work by the National Clergy Council. I would strongly suggest not skimming the material as it gives compelling evidence that Obama is a "liberal Christian" and therefore not a Muslim.'''

'''Next, was Obama truly raised a Muslim and therefore does the less than 1% of people raised Muslim ever leave the religion statistic apply. I don't think a compelling case can be made for the 1% argument being applied to Obama. I cite the following:
'''

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm]

'''I will end this post by respectfully asking Mr. Schlafly a few reasonable questions''':

1. How many Muslim men are you aware of that go to a "liberal Christian church" for 20 years, get married in a "liberal Christian' church, and have their children baptized in a "liberal Christian" church, and call a Reverend of "liberal Christianity "my pastor" while living in a relatively free and democratic country like the United States? I ask this question because it appears as if all these apply to Obama.[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58954][http://volokh.com/posts/1209531850.shtml] Accordingly, '''How many similar historical examples can you give of Muslim men who did these type of things when they lived in a relatively free and democratic society like the United States?
'''

2. According to the press, Obama has visited churches and synagogues but has not visited a mosque while running for president.[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/opinion/edcohen.php] Can you show me a single instance of Obama ever visiting a mosque while he has been an adult?

3. '''Is the case for Obama being a "liberal Christian" stronger or is the case of Obama being a Muslim stronger when the principle of total evidence being weighed is applied?''' If you state the case is stronger for Obama being a Muslim, please defend your position by truly negating the strong evidence that he is a member of "liberal Christianity" and giving compelling evidence that he is a Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:I thought the two of you might enjoy reading [http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html this 2004 interview with Obama], where he discusses his faith, his baptism, and so forth. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:04, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Both of you miss the point. It's not what Obama '''says''' - that has no relevance whatsoever. It's what he '''is''' and what he '''will do'''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::: If what he ''says'' has no relevance, why is one of the supposed evidences for him being a Muslim something he ''said'' (the bit about "my Muslim faith")? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::::Bugler, I know I mentioned what Obama did and said which certainly has bearing on what Obama "is". Therefore, you did not in any way provide a counter argument. I also suggest you answer the reasonable questions I posed to Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservative, the roots of Al Quaeda lie in the 1940s and 50s, if not before; radical terroristic Islamic fundamentalism is not a recent phenomenon. Much of its mindset and organisational apperatus was borrowed from Leninist Communism: the notion of cell, of enrtyism, of deep penetration. Now, how difficult is it to imagine that an intelligent child, of American parentage, schooled in the Islamic environment of 1960s Indonesia and vulnerable to the influences swirling around in that environment, might be schooled and indoctrinated as the sleeper to end all sleepers, given extreme dispensations to protect his cover, allowed to eat pork, drink alcohol, marry out, attend and indeed profess to be a Christian, even to publicly renounce (on the face of it) the Islamic faith? Surely the prize would merit the game. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:24, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::So you're honestly speculating that Obama might be a member of Al Qaeda, and we're expected to believe that you're ''not'' a parodist? Riiiiiiight. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Oh, that old tune yet again. Can't you Liberals find a less boring stick to beat me with? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Oh, don't get me wrong, I think you're doing a great job. Keep it up. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Bugler, in light of the evidence I gave above concerning Obama's supposedly being raised a Muslim '''and the lack of evidence to support it''' plus the evidence I gave above to support Obama being a member of "liberal Christianity" , your post is at best a Hail Mary pass. Secondly, I noticed you did not answer my questions or give any solid historical parallels for your far fetched speculation. If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades I would certainly be indebted to you if you could give it. But I would add, since you never gave any compelling evidence he was raised a Muslim, this Leninist parallel speculation is a non starter anyways. Thirdly, you refer to "the prize". What prize? If you going to embrace conjecture that is contra evidence certainly you should tell your audience what the supposed prize is supposedly going to be. Should I fear I am imminently going to be put under Sharia law? Lastly, I am not stating your a parodist, but I certainly believe it is more likely that you are a parodist than it is likely that Obama is a Muslim. Your somewhat eloquent but empty defense of the indefensible proposition that Obama is likely a Muslim, certainly provides a reasonable reader to suspect you are a parodist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:41, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::I've not heard the term 'hail Mary pass' before, despite being a good Catholic boy: please enlighten! ''If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades'' Not a president, but the private secretary of the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt was a Communist plant: how many were undetected? Certainly therer remain suspicions about the 1960s/70s UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson. ''What prize?'' Surely that is obvious. As to the objections you raise, I think it unlikely that he will use the ceremony on January 20 to declare a United states Caliphate. However, the prospect of an Islamic radical sleeper in the Oval Office raises any number of possibilities. And finally: your open suggestion that I am a parodist is welcome: a refreshing change from others here who smear me by innuendo without your honesty and openness. I assure you in all sincerity that I act with the best interests of God, Conservapedia, Freedom and Democracy always at heart. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Bugler, [http://www.wisegeek.com/in-football-what-is-a-hail-mary.htm Hail Mary pass]. Secondly, your Willy Brandt attempted historical parallel falls flat. I did a quick search on the internet and this is what CNN states about Brandt: "As a teen-ager Brandt first joined the Socialist Party of Germany (SPD) in 1930, but one year later switched to a more radical spin-off, the SAP."[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/brandt/] Brandt apparently was a socialist early on (teenager to be precise), but you have not give a compelling argument that Obama was raised as a Muslim and given the information I gave above regarding there being a lack of evidence for this proposition and evidence against it, your Leninism supposed historical parallel is still a non starter. You are certainly not applying the principle of using the total evidence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Henry Wallace, FDR's Vice President, was a "sleeper" communist and replaced by FDR for that reason. Alger Hiss, a top aide to presidents, was a proven "sleeper" communist. A big lie is often easier to pull off than a little lie.

What's remarkable is how strenuously people deny that Obama is a Muslim. His fathers (real and stepfather) were Muslims. There's no denying that Obama was raised a Muslim, and his conduct as an adult underscores that he, like 99% of others raises as Muslims, did not leave that religion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: What's remarkable is how strenuously you claim that Obama is a Muslim without any evidence of substance, and in opposition to other conservatives, including five of your own senior administrators, who disagree with you, despite being opposed to Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:An interesting question is ''why'' people try so hard to deny it to ''themselves'' when the evidence is so clearly there. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, Wallace appears to have had been a one time Republican who later had openly leftist views. [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Wallace cannot be counted as a long time "sleeper agent" who was a very high ranking public official through infiltration. Secondly, Alger Hiss never achieved a high ranking government official status like a president, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc.[http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/who.html] I do think that when someone goes for a very important government position, such as a President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, a higher degree of scrutiny often occurs. For this reason, I believe you are having trouble coming up with a historical instance of a very high ranked official in the Western World being a sleeper agent. Furthermore, by the time Hiss was charged who had been two years out of government and was working for the Carnegie Foundation. I believe it is invalid to use Hiss as an example of an ambitious sleeper agent who had gotten to the top of government when he had resigned from government 2 years before he was charged. Next, I do think my questions in my previous post were quite reasonable that you left unanswered. Also, and this is really at the heart of the issue, you never really countered this information which makes the idea of Obama being a sleeper agent a non-starter because it appears as if he was never truly raised a Muslim:

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for '''secular humanism''', a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In response to your indented general comment above, there's nothing magical or divine about presidential politics that ensures honesty. Woodrow Wilson was paralyzed by a stroke for more than a year while president, and the public did not know. Your argument that it is impossible to keep such things from the public is simply wrong. Wallace was not widely known to be a communist or else Roosevelt would never have been elected with Wallace on the ticket. Roosevelt finally figured it out (or was tipped off), and without explanation replaced Wallace. The leftists were dumbfounded by this move, as they were on the verge of making Wallace president when Roosevelt died. Oh, and the sickness of Roosevelt was also kept from the public. He died from his illness within a mere weeks of becoming president for the fourth time. The public didn't expect that either.

: In response to your specific questions, you're quoting self-serving and implausible statements. Obama was raised by a Muslim stepfather. He learned to view the Muslim call to prayer as the most beautiful thing in the word. There is no real indication any change by Obama, and his keeping of the name "Hussein" illustrates that he did not have a rare adult conversion from Muslim to Christianity. All indications are that such conversion was politically motivated to persuade the public, and one might say that was obviously successful with some! But I doubt Obama will continue his charade indefinitely. Watch for aid to impose Islam on more foreign countries, and watch for inclusion of the Koran at official ceremonies, if not on Jan. 20th itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is "quoting self-serving and implausible statements". Even five of your own senior administrators disagree with you, but, like Wikipedia, you persist with imposing your own view on this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, I don't think you can give me a single piece of evidence of Obama's mother being a Muslim and given there is evidence against this matter that is not surprising. It also appears as if Obama has a great influence in his life which is not surprising since she was his biological mother. In addition, Obama appeared to have received some Catholic education when he was young. Therefore, your supposed case that Obama was raised a Muslim is certainly not built on a bedrock of solid evidence. Accordingly, the Obama article should not state that Obama is likely a Muslim. Next, I never stated that it is impossible for someone to get to a top political office as a sleeper agent but merely improbable and historical determinations should be reached probabilistically. Also, while it may have not been known that Wallace was a communist (if indeed he was a communist which is a matter I have not investigated but which could certainly be true), there does appear to be indications that he had openly strong leftist views for even the Democrats.[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Therefore, you historical precedent argument in this case is certainly not a stronger one in terms of Wallace being a "sleeper agent". It does not sound plausible to me that a Communist sleeper agent would have openly strong leftist views that even the Democrats found distasteful. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In Muslim families, like the one Obama was raised in, the father dictates the religious upbringing of the boys. Please learn more about the Muslim traditions. With so little awareness of it by Christians, it's no wonder Islam is trouncing Christianity around the world.

: Alger Hiss was later proved to be a communist and read up on how he was the TOP adviser to FDR at the key WWII conference carving up Europe. Not only was he a sleeper communist agent, but the liberals denied it for decades even after Hiss was convicted in court. Only in the last few years did one of his co-agents admit the truth. Please learn about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Islam is "trouncing" Christianity? In what way? Greater population growth, perhaps, but that's not relevant here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::Andy, have you made the case that Obama's stepfather was a staunch Muslim? I know you have not because it appears as if Obama attended a Catholic school when he was young. Therefore, you still not have made the case that Obama was raised a Muslim. Next, Hiss may have been a top advisor at one point in his life, however, an advisor is not a very top government official (President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.) who certainly often faces much more scrutiny. Andy, given historical precedence and the greater scrutiny that is often given to people ascending to the very peaks of government power, I do think the case for a sleeper agent rising to the pinnacle of power in a government institution is very tenuous to say the least. I think this principle of sleeper agents not ascending to the pinnacles of large organizations is true of institutions outside of government as well. For example, people when being sarcastic in replying to a yes or no question, will sometimes say, "Is the Pope Jewish?" meaning that the pope is not likely an adherent of Judaism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, it appears as if there is strong evidence that Obama attended a Catholic school but there may not be evidence that he attended a school that truly could be called a Muslim school. Please read [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp this article.]

Regardless of whether or not CNN or the AP did their work with diligence, there appears to be no controversy regarding that Obama did in fact attend a Catholic school. Therefore, I still maintain that the claim he was raised a Muslim does not have strong support. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: Catholic schools welcome Muslim students. They still do. The Muslim students virtually never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Catholic schools may very welcome Muslim students but what staunchly Muslim father sends his son to a Catholic school? Andy, you still have not jumped over the evidential bar that Osama was raised a Muslim. The so called Muslim school was apparently not strongly Islamic or possibly not even Islamic at all ( [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp read this article.] ) and the stepfather appears to not have had a strong Muslim faith as evidenced by the fact that he sent Obama to a Catholic school. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

In the Unification Church, it is not unusual for parents to send their children to a Catholic grade school. So what if they come home, crossing themselves when they pray? Overall, the education is better there than in public schools, so if they can afford it the practice makes senses. I daresay mainstream Christians likewise don't mind the sectarian differences. Any way out of secular humanism is often fine with them.

It appears likely that as president, Obama will be more sympathetic to Islamic countries in his foreign policy. Maybe he'll even be able to get them to lighten up on their "destruction of Israel" goals, or allow [[religious freedom]] for Christians and Jews. Are [[Turkey]] and [[Indonesia]] good examples of this?

I see good in all religions, and I don't see Islam as irredeemably evil. So what if Obama is or was Muslim? There is [[no religious test for office]], and he can't be impeached for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Another case for Obama being Muslim==
During a campaign rally, two Muslim women in Muslim garb, were removed from prominent camera view. The reason is A) Obama doesn't want his image assoc. with Muslims B) or doesn't like Muslims (we know the opposite is true). Now, he doesn't want images of Muslim assoc with him because he is A) secret Muslim or B) the American people will think he is a Muslim. (Which 27% already do). Did Obama try to hide his Muslim background and is that plan still in progress?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Are A and B the only choices on why Obama does not want himself associated with Islam? Is a false dilemma being proposed? For example, setting aside whether it was right or wrong which is a whole other discussion, did 9/11 drive up the American public's negative beliefs and/or attitudes regarding Islam? Would the American public look less favorably upon a candidate who received some Muslim religious education (Obama also received Catholic training in his youth. And there is certainly reason to believe that a certain degree of philosophical skepticism was imparted to Obama via his mother). In short, I think the above post fails to use the principle of using the total evidence (see my posts above) plus contains a false dilemma. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Why does him being a muslim actually matter? If he is a good man and a good president then how does his religeon matter, some of the greatest leaders in the world have been Jewish or Muslim, not Christian

== “Less than 1% Muslims convert” – Prosecutor error? ==

OK, time for something new and I direct this particularly to Aschlafly. There is a logical fallacy called the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is very subtle but real enough to send innocent people to the execution chamber. In fact, many lawyers and judges don’t understand it. It works like this. Please concentrate: this isn't all that easy.

Let us suppose that it is true that Barack Obama was at one time a Muslim, even if this was at an immature age when he really had no say in his faith. And let us grant that only 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity. The argument which Aschflafly uses time and again is to deduce that that this means that, notionally at least, that there is a 99% chance that Obama is a Muslim.

The fallacy of the argument is that it does not recognize that the IF Obama was in that 99% of Muslims who did not convert, there would be no practicable way he could have run for President. Therefore the chances that he is one of those who DID convert are raised far beyond the mathematically obvious one of 1%.

Let me give you a real-life example. A woman had three children and each expired early in infancy of “cot death”. The prosecutor did his math and advised the court that there was a “one in 70 million” chance of this happening by accident. Therefore, the jury was heavily disposed to assume that she was guilty of the serial murder of her children. But the fallacy of the case is that she was ONLY arrested because of the rareness of the 3 children dying of cot death in the one family. But even if this only happens one in 70 million families, in a large country such as the U.K or U.S.A, and over a period of decades, it is BOUND to occur, purely by accident. If we then tell a courtroom that there is only a 1 in 70 million chance that she is innocent, we are guilty of the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is tantamount to arresting a man who comes into a lot of money suddenly and is arrested under suspicion of larceny. He explains that he won it on a lottery, but the Prosecutor says he has looked into the “Lottery” business, and there is only a 1 in 20 million chance of winning it, therefore there is only a 1 in 20 million chance the indicted man is telling the truth.

In Obama’s case, once again, EVEN if it is true that only 1% of Muslims convert, AND ALSO true that he was born into the Muslim faith, the fact that his circumstances allowed him to run for the Presidency argues that he was one of those Muslims who DID convert, and thus makes his chances of being a non-Muslim substantially greater that 1%. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:I understand your math, but your reasoning does not convince me. The lottery example was the most unfortunate attempt.

:Although in any given lottery, the chances may be 1 in 20 million for one person to win - the fact is that '''every''' lottery has a winner.

:The problem with Obama's religion is not so much ''Which is it?'' but, "How shall the electorate now regard its new president elect?" Will Obama be pro-Muslim (because he's Muslim or was raised Muslim)?

:A related question is, "Will Obama be pro-Black because he is black?"

:I get along equally well with black Christians as with white Christians, so this is not an issue for me. I've also found Muslims personally just as honest, reliable and hard-working as Christians. What's all the fuss about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: The lottery example was valid. Apart from the fact that not every lottery ''does'' have a winner (the prize then jackpots to the following draw), the point is that the 100% certainty (every lottery has a winner) applies to the lottery as a whole, whereas the 1 in 20 million odds applies to any ''given'' individual. The issue here is about a ''given'' individual, Barack Obama.
:: I hope that you are asking that last question ("What's all the fuss about") to Andy, as he is the one insisting on the claim against almost everybody else other than a few acolytes.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::I like maths and logic, so good section. This isn't arguing for the prosecution error, but just about statistical sampling. I suppose you could ask how many muslims convert, but it might be more accurate to ask how many American born muslims convert, or how many muslims that have had a Christian baptism have genuinely converted (I hope there's a special place in hell for those that were faking their baptism)--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:45, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::::In [[Dante's Inferno]], I don't think there is. Any kind of liar goes to the bottom of the eighth circle though. I wonder whether covert apostacy was known in Dante's time.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::::MylesP, have you been reading [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/0007240198/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227138689&sr=8-1 Bad Science?]

== Awesome article ==
Just wanted to say, finally a good resource about obama. Fantastic research about the muslim piece, it really shows him as the closet muslim like he is. Shame the libs just don't get it !! [[happymoon|happymoon]]

== Great comedy article ==

It's a shame people don't get the jokes. Just wanted to pop in and say keep up the good work! Was referred here by a friend who also got a kick out of this article. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 11:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:Read the article properly before you start calling it a joke. You've been looking at Obama from a left wing viewpoint; try looking at him from a right wing viewpoint. It'll do you good.--[[User:WHurst|WHurst]]

The article is full of fiction. Stuff like this is part of the reason why Conservapedia is a joke to everyone who isn't a member here.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

==This will be a hit on stormfront==

America reaches a milestone in his history and all you guys can do is peddle false lies which have been repudiated by just about everyone in the political business. The comment about 'possibly been sworn in by the koran' is not only false, but a terrifying example of what racism and ignorance is capable of. You may not be white nationalists, but your inability to reasonably discuss this man's faith without resorting to the most despicable acts of scaremongering is typical of the tripe we see on racist websites.

Keep this crap up and you'll make sure to keep the black vote away from your party for the forseeable future. [[User:JCharlton|JCharlton]] 17:50, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::Race and religion are two different things. Why do liberals always resort to racism? Maybe its becaus you don't have any real arguments against the issues raised here? This isn't wikipedia, we deal in facts here. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 20:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"Facts" as in already repeatedly proven falsehoods such as Obama being a Muslim? This page is filled with outright lies. [[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Reply ==

Don't know where to start. Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim. What's it to someone who (1) is an atheist, (2) is an Australian, (3) is a Christian, or (4) would support him regardless? Frankly, the opposition by some is puzzling.

Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here. Perhaps we can all agree that it's worth learning more about what many say has quickly become the world's largest religion, and the strongest religion in Europe today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)

If you are going to repeat a proven lie, you shouldn't be surprised when people call you on it-[[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

:It really shouldn't be that puzzling Andy. They are calling out what they believe to be falsehood. When people made spurious, questionable claims about Bush, how did Conservapedia respond? Did you include the information or remove it? Its the exact same thing. You tried to keep the spurious information out of it. The name "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" implies intellectual honesty, and on this particular aspect most people here (myself included) find this pile of circumstantial evidence to be based on poor conclusions, false arguments, and illogical reasoning to be an absurdity without any solid claims that say he is a Muslim. The burden of proof is on you to -prove- that he is, not provide a loaded mountain of evidence that is obviously taylored to imply that he is with no proof whatsoever other than bad logic. I can't believe this topic is still going. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 22:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:: There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood. Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim. Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%.

:: Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%. Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::When you promote someone over yourself here, the beef can be over censorship. Until then, it's just people saying they think you're wrong. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:16, 17 November 2008 (EST) ''<-like me, for example...''

Don't fall for the devil's tricks. These "conservatives" are not true Christians. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 23:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"''Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim.''": Yes, I would like you to explain that. Because ''you'' are the one enraged at that. I, on the other hand, am "enraged" that he is being accused of being a Muslim on the basis of logical fallacy, lousy arguments, and false claims.

"''What's it to someone who ... is a Christian''": As a Christian, my concern is for the ''truth''. Why do you continually try and misrepresent this as censorship, liberal lies, or whatever?

"''... some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here...''": That is not the issue I'm arguing. You are again raising red herrings. The issue is the claim that he is a Muslim, which claim is not supported by the evidence.

"''There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood.''": No, Andy, it '''is''' spurious, and ''you'' lose credibility with ''your'' baseless claims that he is a Muslim.

"''Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim.''": On what grounds? Certainly not those in this article.

"''Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%.''": "That" is not given. Rather, it's bizarre how ''you'' adamantly insist that he ''is'' a Muslim given the lack of evidence.

"''Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.''": I'm going to shout because you obviously didn't hear me before: "IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP TO REMOVE IRRELEVANT INFORMATION, AND I'D APPRECIATE YOU NOT IMPLYING THAT I'M TRYING TO CENSOR ANYTHING."

I've pointed out a number of problems, and your response has been to slander the criticism as censorship and liberal, to introduce red herrings, and to assert your opinion as fact. What you have ''not'' done is actually address the issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:How dare you accuse Andy of slander. And what hypocricy. The only slanderer, Philip, is you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 03:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: Yet you make no attempt to refute that it was slanderous, nor to substantiate your accusation against me. In other words, a substanceless response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, regarding "''(Islam being) the strongest religion in Europe today''": you never cease to amaze us with your wealth of knowledge of the world outside the USA, be it UK, the whole of Europe or Australia. Kudos to you! --[[User:Europeo|Europeo]] 07:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::''Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here.'' I think that's a statement with which anyone would agree. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate==
{{QuoteBox|1=It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at TexasDarlin and many other blogs to conduct the solid, investigative research that the media, the democratic national committee, agencies of the federal government, Barack Obama himself, and Congress should have done on the eligibility and qualifications of Barack Obama. The first serious look at Barack Obama ’s Constitutional eligibility began on this blog, with the exposure of the birth certificate mystery, Obama-Soetoro’s Indonesian citizenship, and analysis of the constitutional problems with Obama’s multiple citizenship status irrespective of birthplace.
 
Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to change the outcome of the Democratic nomination and the election—especially in light of the MSM bias, the Obama campaign’s tactics, and DNC shenanigans– for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his lack of experience, stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda ([http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/] ) and the startling depth of his secrecy.
 
Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth, explosiveness, or unpredictability of this phenomenon we have witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama ! We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge of possible dissolution of our country, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water, or running away to avoid the explosion….either scenario leads to serious burns!
 
While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosive change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America. We can use the 2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.
 
The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.
 
'''Four Questions'''
 
I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country. By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.
 
These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and the existing lower court dismissal) before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond by December 1, 2008. It is also disturbing that these questions are before the U.S. Supreme Court when the candidate himself or the DNC could easily have dispelled any speculation by providing simple documentation.
 
While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter required Obama to respond to Berg’s writ of certiorari. Even if, as some have said, Souter ’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution, and will determine if the full Supreme Court decides to hear the case. In responding, Obama will be essentially arguing why the writ of certiorari should not be granted.
 
In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg in the lower Court should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”. But some Judges do actually realize the question may be beyond their jurisdiction and ‘ask for help’ by clearly making appealable and reversible errors that a higher court can rule on. The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.
 
The questions presented for review are:
 
*1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
*2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?
 
The “questions presented for review” in the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate, but instead to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.
 
Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on his past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed respond that the writ should not be granted because (1) a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified. Notice he is in a position of arguing technicalities here, and completely misses his own obligation to prove himself.
 
Although doubtful, it is also possible Obama would try to argue that the 14th Amendment says that “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” are “American citizens”, thereby satisfying the requirements of Article II. I really can’t imagine he would bring this up, unless asked in a hearing, as the question of the 14th Amendment’s modification of Article II is a constitutional matter that only the Supreme Court can decide. Recall that on Obama’s own website he claims that he is a U.S. Citizen under the 14th amendment.
 
I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not to release his COLB, citizenship records, passport files, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.” He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution, including, as above, that the 14th Amendment applies to Article II. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond?
 
If Obama responds in any other way, he could be forced to disclose and/or identify when, how, and what steps citizens can take, or what steps are taken, to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. Using the process he acknowledges—for example, the “DNC vetting process”–he may then be forced to prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II by showing the documentation he provided to the DNC, if he provided anything to the DNC. Alternatively he could concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS, and that “America has to take his word for it”. Would the Supreme Court then order him to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?
 
One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. “Checks and balances” can mean procedures, legislative processes, acts, bills, agencies, or resolutions. Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution promoted by Senators Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies. In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill). The Senate resolution was developed in April, 2008 to “validate” John McCain ’s natural born citizen status when it was unnecessary, and in some ways the resolution’s language can be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS. Looking at the text of the resolution and supporting statements, Senator Leahy has the following curious exchange with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (emphasis mine):
 
Chairman Leahy. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President….You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
 
Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
 
As Berg’s case has evolved, he refined the scope of defendants who now must also respond to the writ, including the DNC, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and its Chair, Senator Dianne Feinstein , the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and several Pennsylvania government officials.
 
With the exception of the DNC, who also joined in Obama’s initial motion to dismiss the lower case on lack of standing, I think the other defendants’ responses might be decidedly different. The FEC could claim that it actually has no jurisdiction in the matter by way of its charter and organizing documents, and that even if it did, it is far too understaffed to perform investigatory functions, as cited by Senator Feinstein in testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on May 28, 2008 (link to http://rules.senate..gov/hearings/2008/052108feinsteinopen.pdf). And will Senator Feinstein blame the Bush administration, or will she admit that she too just assumed the DNC vetted Obama and that he was eligible?
 
After reviewing Obama’s legal argument against granting the writ of certiorari and the other defendants’ responses, Justice Souter will then review Berg’s response before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will hear the case. Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter required Obama to respond to the writ of certiorari. In my opinion, Justice Souter would not have granted this appeal from Berg if he thought the issues were irrelevant and not worthy of the Court’s attention.
 
How does the Supreme Court react? Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the lower Courts to resolve the matter expeditiously, requiring the release of documents? Will it order the FEC, Electoral College, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures? Will they agree with Obama, if he mentions it, that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?
 
Although the Supreme Court will not want to be seen as determining the outcome of another election—even for the perception of “fairness”– the questions presented in the writ are completely different than presented in Bush v. Gore. Under Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court clearly has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Legal scholars will point to Marbury v. Madison ( link to http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19) as precedent if the full Supreme Court accepts the writ, orders the lower Court in error, directs it to secure Obama’s documentation, and chastises the DNC, FEC, the PA state agencies, the Senate, and Senator Obama for not doing their job, and not forcing the production of documents itself, while still retaining jurisdiction.
 
If this is the outcome, a motion could be made by Berg to stay the vote of the Electoral College pending the outcome of the case. If the Justices are concerned about the matter and integrity of the 2008 election, that motion could be granted. The expedited discovery of documents would proceed. Yes, I understand this is a long-shot and speculation on my part.
 
And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama ? Is it up to your employer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation? Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America? I believe that the burden of proof on eligibility rests solely and unconditionally on Barack Obama’s shoulders. I am not alone in this belief (link http://americamustknow.com/Documents/OBAMA%20LAWSUIT,%20Class%20Action.doc).
 
Alinsky Returns?
 
As I sit in disbelief and alarm even writing this article—that something as basic as citizenship status of the potential POTUS is in front of the Supreme Court at this late date—I am reminded of a framework set forth in an earlier article, The Trojan Candidate (link to http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/), and the use of Alinsky-style community organizing techniques to advance an agenda of revolutionary change. In this article I posited that Barack Obama has a hidden agenda and part of implementing his agenda involves the use of techniques developed by Saul Alinsky and discussed in such books as Rules for Radicals (http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm).
 
'''From the Trojan Candidate:'''
 
Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers [community organizers] and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’ The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict ’and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.
 
What could be the reason for withholding his citizenship papers and birth status, especially if he has nothing to hide? Does he plan to use this in some way to “rub raw the resentments of the people” [and] “fan the latent hostilities to the point of over expression”? The concerns about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility will be met with accusations of “racism”; that the “system” wouldn’t do this to a white man, and that the republicans or others are trying to ‘take Obama out’ on a “technicality”. And worse.
 
If Obama is ineligible, he could rightly be called a ‘dangerous enemy’ and forced to stand down. It is at this point that “the word ‘enemy’ is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people…” and the maneuvering and baiting of the establishment forces it to back down, with Obama prevailing whether having shown his documentation or not. As you contemplate this, think of all the money, the inevitability narrative, the shutting down of dissent, the timing of events, the threat of violence and insurrection, the establishment of the office of the president elect, and the simply overwhelming of America with all things Obama. This certainly pulls the light from shining on the real Barack Obama ’s Trojan candidacy.
 
If Obama is proven ineligible, does not stand down or even if he does stand down, it is not unreasonable to expect some “in-your-face” hostile reactions and calls for immediate changes that permit Obama to stay. How ironic: in defense of liberty and the Constitution, we will be called ‘racists’.
 
'''Implications for the Future'''
 
The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s qualifications and intentions in the next four years.. Currently there are 17 different legal actions in various state and federal courts, which now challenge the validity of the electoral process across the country, regardless of outcome (see http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf) .
 
Just my suspicion, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework. I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures” as discussed in this 2001 radio interview. (link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VctiYQplw8)
 
As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, that the DNC did not do its job, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions. The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility. I personally doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the Constitution.
 
Up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications. We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution. Looks like our age of innocence is over.
 
It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.. If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, which ¾ of the states have to ratify. None of this can happen before the January 20th inauguration.
 
The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong. Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy nor do they provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates. Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud, and the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”. I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”. We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.
 
What is next for our country? Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, and we’re not going to run away, then we’d better start creating an alternative vision. A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:
 
“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…” [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/four-questions-for-the-trojan-candidate/]}}
{{unsigned|TK}}

==Andy, if it can perhaps be quibbled that there is merely a 20% chance of Obama being a Muslim, then why is the Obama article stating that he is likely a Muslim? ==

Dear Andy,

You wrote above regarding the probability of Obama being a Muslim the following:

"Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%."

Andy, if it can be perhaps be quibbled that the likelihood of Obama being a Muslim is merely 20%, then why is the article still stating that Obama is likely a Muslim? Second, Andy do you think that a reference work should use scholarly caution and that scholarly caution helps make a reference work authoritative? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:In this case, what you describe as 'scholarly caution' means knuckling under to Liberal suppression of facts and discussion. The scholarly option is to seek out the truth, no matter how disturbing that truth or the process of uncovering it might be to those on the left. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy I also fear we are not doing our site any favors in this area. If Obama is a Muslim, he is certainly keeping that under wraps. There is no indication that he would suddenly take the oath of office on a Koran. Such a turnabout that he lied about his Christianity would destroy his ability to govern. It is more likely, if he is a Muslim, that he would support Muslim causes without making a profession of his own faith. We should also realize, based upon his policies, that if he does have Islamic ties that they would be akin to the type of ties that John Kerry has to Catholicism, very poor. His views on abortion alone would be considered extreme Western decadence within the greater Islamic world view. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Bugler, I purposely chose Andy's words that "perhaps one can quibble that the probability is 20%". Therefore, if Andy is correct about the 20% issue then the statement that Obama is likely a Muslim should be removed from the article. I am just following Andy's statement where the logic leads if his statement is true and no knuckling under is necessary. I do think it is fair to say that people come to an encyclopedia to read facts and not speculation. Speculation weighs down an encyclopedia by eroding its credibility. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Saying "One could argue that X is 20%" doesn't in any way mean accepting that that X '''is''' 20%. It merely allows the existence of theoretically possible grounds of debate. If I said there were grounds for arguing that the planet Jupiter was made of cheese, likewise it doesn't mean that I think it is reasonably possible that such is the case. Andy is (in my interpretation of his words) admitting grounds for debate; it does not mean that he (or anyone else who takes a rational view of the issue) accepts only a 20% likelihood. The whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he '''can't possibly''' be a Moslem." Liberals cling to dogma like an unweaned child to its blanket; we conservatives prefer debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, not from wish-fulfillment fantasies. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.
::::::: And no, the whole point is ''not'' to support liberal views. That's a false claim. And if you as a conservative prefers debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, why are you reversing my edits without offering any rebuttal to my points?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
''Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.'' You haven't read it, have you? Read it again, nice and slowly, take your time, and especially consider the Jupiter analogy. As for the vulgar abuse in your edit summary, I will let that speak for itself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
: Bugler, I will concede that point. Instead I'll say that Andy's point that this was a response to was rather unclear as to its aim, and I was reading his comments differently.
: However, I will add another response to your previous post. You say that "the whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he can't possibly be a Moslem." The problem with this claim of yours is that it's ''not'' the way the argument is being used. That is, the arguments are not being used to ''oppose'' the claim that he couldn't possibly be a Muslim; the arguments are being used to ''support'' the claim that he ''is'' a Muslim. If they were being used the way that you say, then at least some of them would have some legitimacy. But being used the way they are is invalid.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

It might be good to create a subarticle, with [[Barack Obama]] as the main article. We have templates for this; Philip is our template custodian and can place whatever we need.

I protected the article, because edit wars don't serve our readers; and they don't help us contributors much either.

I didn't look at Andy's last version. I just guessed it might make a good starting point.

Let's discuss, rather than trying to "get our way". Wiki collaboration should result in stability. Let none of us rock the boat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: The problem, Ed, is that these things have already been discussed at length. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks, Ed. I agree that edit wars are undesirable. I don't consider that I was edit warring. I was trying to protect this article, which has been arrived at in its current form after much debate, from unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism. In the course of doing so I have yet again been accused of mendacity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:51, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: They are ''not'' "unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism". When you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: Thanks, Ed, for bringing stability. As Bugler points out, there is nothing in my observation that "perhaps one" can quibble whether the likelihood Obama is a Muslim is 20%, 60% or 90% that justifies censoring the evidence and statement that he is likely a Muslim. Juries make such determinations based on the evidence all the time; so do encyclopedias. The evidence is compelling and will not be censored or downplayed here, despite some (for unknown reasons) disliking it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::: Andy, I have repeatedly pointed out that it is ''not'' censorship. Why do you keep repeating that false claim? Also, I have explained ''why'' the claims are "disliked", why do you falsely say that the reasons are unknown? As I said to Bugler above, when you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. And the evidence is not only not compelling, some of it is false and some is logically fallacious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, of course there is evidence. And being a Muslim is not a punishable in the US, so the jury need not use the standard of "[[beyond any reasonable doubt]]". It's more like a lawsuit, I guess, where you need only be 51% sure to vote one way or the other.

::Personally, I'd like CP to make some indication that some conservatives are still in doubt about [[my Muslim faith|"his Muslim faith"]], but that desire does not outweigh the need for editorial harmony.

::It is liberals - rather than conservatives - who insist on censoring all views contrary to theirs, in the US. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: Ed, when the issue is the president of the United States, then even less than a 51% chance is often sufficient to be influential, just as less than 51% chance is enough to deny someone an important job.

::: Someone is missing the the point about [[my Muslim faith]], which omits the telling phrase: "Muslim faith." No Christian would use that specific phrase so casually in reference to himself. How about someone saying "Allah the Creator"?! Christians don't use the phrase.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::Actually, Andrew, Arab Christians do refer to [[God]] as [[Allah|Al'''lah''']], and never use other names such as the English/Germanic "God".-[[User:Zan|Zan]] 16:18, 10 December 2008 (EST)

== Falsifiability & "My Muslim Faith" ==

Aschlafly, Ed Poor, etc. -

Is there any piece of evidence that, assuming it existed, would convince you that Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim? You've now admitted there's a chance he's not a Muslim, so what piece of evidence would convince you that he's not? As it stands, your argument seems unfalsifiable, and ridiculously conspiratorial: everytime someone offers evidence that Obama's not a Muslim, you just reply with, "oooh, he's a tricky one! He must have worked to cover that up!" That's not a respectable, logical argument: it's an inability to recognize fact when it's put before your eyes. What piece of evidence could convince you of that, if any?

Further, if I go through the George W. Bush talk page I bet I'll find a million examples of you apologizing for Bush's rhetorical missteps, and arguing that when he says something incorrectly, it doesn't mean he's stupid. Why, then, are you not willing to take Obama's slip of the tongue as the same thing - unconscious error, not indicative of any deeper meaning?

The fact is, you have no principled basis for the distinction. Nor are you going to accept any evidence that Obama's a Christian. You're just clinging to a pet theory when even your own administrative staff tells you you're wrong.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 10:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Towards stability via discussion ==

:''unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism''

Vandalism is replacing the page with "Stinky loves Myrtle". Unilateral editing is doing your own thing, even when you know someone else will just want to revert (see [[Editing etiquette]]).

Let's come closer together, rather than battle it out on the page itself. Talk pages are for talking. Let's hear some more talk! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:The problem with that, is that if people talk about it, and say almost anything to disagree with the current state of the article, they are likely to get blocked for the "90/10 Rule against talk talk talk" or "liberal namecalling" or some other excuse. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Tim, that's simply not true. The [[90/10 rule]] guards against nothing but talk. It's easy to make substantive contributions to comply with the rule, and it's easy to refrain from namecalling in discussions. In fact, both are essential to keep the level of discourse and learning here at a high level.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::The [[90/10 rule]] might guard against nothing but talk, but it sure seems to guard against some kinds of talk a lot more than others. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 10:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::If so, there's nothing wrong with that. Jaywalking is not prosecuted as much as petty shoplifting either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, you can tell yourself that all you want, but this much is clear; the 90/10 rule is a content-neutral rule applied in a manner that amounts to viewpoint discrimination. You only apply it against liberals. You've long since abandoned the stance that you "don't block ideologically."
:::::This site has survived for two years ''only'' by ruthlessly persecuting anyone who disagrees with your worldview. Tim is right, but I'll take it one step farther: I think the reason you censor people who disagree with you is because you know you'll lose in a fair fight. The Barack Obama article is just one more example of that. Except now, even your own sysops disagree with you, so you devolve into insulting Philip and dodging the question.
:::::Of course you can block me, and prove Tim right.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 11:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::@Aschlafly: I don't get your analogy. Jaywalking and petty shoplifting are different crimes. Excessive talk by a liberal and excessive talk by a conservative is the same "crime". So the "prosecution" ought to be applied equally against both, right? Otherwise it isn't a ''rule'', it's just an ''excuse'' to make people you don't agree with go away. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Rob, within the same crimes prosecutorial patterns are different. It's called "prosecutorial discretion." It is used every day by law enforcement and it is obvious why it is needed. I'm not going to waste my morning spelling this out for you. Take a basic course on criminal justice, or simply follow the news.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Andy, you're misunderstanding "prosecutorial discretion." You're right that policemen have the right to decide which crimes to prosecute, but if they differentially allow white criminals to get away with murder, and seek the death penalty for black shoplifters, it would give rise to a disparate impact lawsuit and be illegitimate, racist, and wrong. We're arguing that your actions here are closer to abuse of prosecutorial discretion to kick out your enemies, than to the case of using prosecutorial discretion to preserve resources.
::::::It strikes me that what you're missing is the difference between "content neutral" and "viewpoint discrimination." Take a course in the First Amendment, or read a book on it; it might help your understanding of the word "censorship," too.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I would say you are partially correct, RobNewberry. Sometimes people need to be "invited" to leave, much like a dinner guest who overstays their welcome. If a person comes to Conservapedia knowing full well it is a conservative/Christian friendly wiki-encyclopedia, and is a liberal, the question is why? If the answer is they support Andy Schlafly's idea of an conservative alternative to the decidedly left-of-center editor dominated Wikipedia, that's great! All voices should be represented on the Net. But if their intentions are merely to argue and dispute conservative or Christian points of view, that becomes a subtle form of vandalism, inasmuch as it is a great time waster for those who genuinely want to contribute their conservative/Christian POV, and build this encyclopedia. My own opinion is that those who obsessively create new user names, only to argue against conservative values, and disrupt/time waste, are actually terrorists of the Internet kind. What other reason would they have to stick around? Any board or wiki does and should have the absolute right of association.

This would hold true for a conservative joining a known liberal board or wiki, and spend all their time disputing the members, arguing without end, and seeking to put their conservative point of view into their discussions or articles. I am not for truncating free speech automatically, but after weeks and weeks of disputing everything, knowing you are not going to change CP into Wikipedia's more liberal world-view, or have CP adopt all of Wikipedia's member conventions, a person's efforts then cross over into something more, what I have taken to calling Internet Terrorism. CP has an owner, it is his right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. If people agree, with even a part, they stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, other than being obstinate or having malicious intent, could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and the ability of like-minded individuals to associate with those they agree with, without constant disagreement begin? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Please don't refer to anything that isn't terrorism as terrorism. It might be censorship or vandalism or disruption. But terrorism is something else entirely. There is no terror involved in what you describe above and associating the term with it helps to undermine fear of the real kind. Terrorism should not be taken lightly. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TK, I agree with you completely that people probably need to be "invited" to leave. My only problem is that this is done under the guise of 90/10 rule. I think this is done so that Andy can still claim something like "We don't ask editors to leave because they have a certain viewpoint, only Wikipedia does that." Make too many liberal edits, though, and you'll find that you have somehow violated the 90/10 rule. I say drop the deceit and just ban people with the comment "We don't like your viewpoint. Goodbye." It's about being honest about what kind of place this wiki really is. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Ajkgordon, one definition of "terrorism" is "intimidating gang activity". Regardless of your rather parochial idea of its meaning, kindly refrain from saying something I clearly labeled as my own opinion, invention, is wrong usage. Organized activity, like from ''certain groups'', to disrupt other boards or wiki's, no matter how loosely organized, if it is at all coordinated, is intimidation, ergo, "terrorism".

:::RobNewberry, I know that when I was an administrator, I often followed Andy's lead in doing just that, block with the comment "Bye". As Schlafly often says, it isn't very hard to copy edit, add a source a few times a day, especially if one is spending hours and hours debating on talk pages. A person doing that, and not being obnoxious, they shouldn't be blocked. But I mostly see people with absolutely no contributions to CP, and looking at their history see only talk page posts, being blocked. Someone constantly reverting an article because of idealogical disagreement, and making no other contributions, should be blocked, or have the good grace to leave. There is more than one way to run a wiki. That's why they come with settings. Some wiki's require review of submissions before going live. Some require registration in order to edit, others do not. You sound fairly reasonable, obviously an informed person. Surely you can understand how people would grow tired of debating a topic without end. If you don't go to Wikipedia and try to insert something favorable about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter. Then when you are reverted, change it back. I don't think your experience will be a pleasant one. ;-) ----[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::RobNewberry, your own comments are misleading and illustrate the problem, because now I have to waste my time correcting them. The [[90/10 rule]] applies to people who talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributions. Nothing could be simpler. Talk is a time-waster. Different viewpoints, if logical, are welcome here. Incessant talk as can be seen on countless other sites, is not. The talkers can rant elsewhere. We're here to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Andy, you're being very dishonest about the application of the rule. Your explanation of it includes several value judgments - "different viewpoints, if logical" - all we're arguing is that your definition of "logical" is "that which agrees with you." That's where the discrimination we're talking about comes from.
:::::Interestingly, while you spend some time characterizing anyone disagreeing with you as "liberal censorship," in a somewhat dishonest definition of "censorship," you seem unable to recognize that what you're doing is REAL censorship, the use of power (rather than argument & debate) to squelch uncomfortable beliefs. Open your mind.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 12:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::TK, if your definition is from Mirriam-Webster's, then it's '''''violent and''' intimidating gang activity''.
::::My request was but a courteous plea for proper usage of the term for a current and dangerous phenomenon. Scattering the term around and using it to define childish, irreverent and irritating vandalism degrades the purity of the term and lessens its impact when correctly using it. If that's parochial, so be it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::TK and Andy, let me ask you a question. If you visited Wikipedia, and saw that, say, the Dick Cheney article contained an unreferenced assertion or an unfounded attack, you would initially try to edit and fix that problem, correct? Then, if another WP editor reverted your edit (which you believed was completely correct), you might either undo the reversion, or you might make a comment on the Talk Page, right? Now, here on CP, those of us who see something that ''we'' believe is incorrect or unfounded usually face a few problems. (Do not assume that all of us have evil intent against you - I'm entirely happy for you to have a conservative-leaning encyclopedia, and simply wish the information be factually correct and credibly referenced). First, the article may be locked, as this article is. In which case, there's nowhere to make the complaint except on the Talk Page. Second, if we can make them, our edits are often reverted, often with no supporting data provided (cf the Muslim debate here), so we usually have to make a comment on the Talk Page about that fact. It only takes one back and forth comment as we debate our position before a 90/10 block is usually enacted. Finally, those of us who frequent CP in an attempt to monitor the extreme forms of distortion that crop up now and again (as per any online community) may be shy of actually editing the articles, since bans are so often administered, so we instead first make our comments on the Talk Page. Frequently, a new user's single comment on a Talk Page is enough for a 90/10 ban. So it's pretty hard to believe that 90/10 is really about 90/10 when there are often no other options but Talk. And it's pretty hard to believe you're interested in establishing 'trustworthyness' if you aren't prepared to listen to evidence from other perspectives. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 12:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: FredX, users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time. It's easy to contribute substance. It's the reason we're here. No project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk. Try it at work sometime if you don't believe me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Andy, consider this: "talk talk talk" is useful if it's being done to convince you, the only person with control over the article, that you're wrong. Talk towards the truth is not useless talk: it's incredibly substantive. As it stands now, it's you, Bugler, and TK versus everyone else on the site. It might be time to recognize that all this talk has the "substance" of proving your error.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:08, 18 November 2008 (EST)

FredX, having a Conservative/Christian - friendly encyclopedia does not obligate CP to prostitute those beliefs by allowing people who are not Christians, who are not Conservatives, to alter articles or their tone, to fit their outlook. The truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no? You and I could argue 24/7, over the existence of God, to use an example. No matter how many "facts" you presented me with, it would not alter my ''knowing'' he exists. Political and religious thought is highly subjective. One mans "distortion" is another mans valid "truth". To repeatedly try to alter someone's beliefs is a form of bullying. Read what you are saying. No one has the obligation to appoint himself "Internet Monitor of Truth". Your conventions of how a wiki-encyclopedia come from where? It is totally lacking in logic to think the conventions of one place should be used at another. If I go to the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, and appoint myself the "truth" monitor there, what would happen?

If you have a complaint, you can always avail yourself the email links to other users. Or post your objection on the author's talk page. We aren't talking here about people objecting. We are talking about people who will not take "no" for an answer, and demand that their truth is better than another's. Once your point is made, posted, doing it again and again, without end, accomplishes what, other than you being able to vent? I don't spend time arguing with liberals at the Kos or HuffPo, because I know they do not agree with me, never will. I am not a YEC, yet I am here. What would be accomplished for me to argue, without end, with Philip Rayment (to use a known example of a YEC member here) over the age of the Earth? His "facts" as to Earth's age, are his. Mine are mine. In building an encyclopedia, or in any project, the trick is to focus on the areas we can agree on, and not let those we don't bog us down. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Actually, TK, I couldn't disagree with any of your comments, but for this one - "the truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no?". That's certainly true when it comes to matters of dogma or belief - it's true, we might never agree on what is "true". But there is much here on Conservapedia that is ''not'' dogma-related, and is simply factually untrue. To take this particular article as an example, might I ask if you believe the Muslim-related material might not be better presented if gathered into one section, entitled "Speculation on Obama's Muslim beliefs", instead of being scattershot throughout the article, unreferenced, misquoted, and asserted with no validity. That would actually HELP this debate, yet is certain to be disallowed under a threat of "we don't hide the truth here", yet who's truth is that? And my mere suggestion of disagreement with this thesis likely marks me as a candidate for a ban. Certainly it's likely that if I answer one more time in this reasonable debate with you, I will likely be blocked by ASchalfly, Bugler or others - simply for debating. But how else would I debate my suggestion - the article is locked? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 14:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Perhaps worth pointing out here that FredX did indeed, as he had predicted, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AFredX&year=&month=-1 receive a 90/10 ban] while trying to debate the content of this article. I imagine he rests his case. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 16:25, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Talking with enemies ==

In the section '''"statements"''' Obama is criticised for claiming Roosevelt spoke to our enemies. Now it is true that Roosevelt did not talk to Hitler, but he certainly ''did'' talk to Stalin, who most Americans consider (and hesitantly considered back then) an enemy, and it is Stalin that Obama is presumably referring to. Rather than letting Hitler conquer Russia while the United States kept to its own war effort, or letting Patton continue on to Warsaw and Moscow after victory against Germany, Roosevelt was willing to talk to the Communist Enemy to co-ordinate action and to ultimately permit the Bolshevik conquest of eastern Europe. Naturally there are divergent opinions over whether in this particular case compromise was the best course of action, but what Obama is obviously expressing when he refers to Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, all of whom negotiated with the Soviet enemy, is that it's better to come to talk with and possibly compromise with an opponent we may feel ideologically at polar opposites with instead of just blindly fighting whenever the oppurtunity presents itself.

For that reason it is advisable that the section is removed as it relies on the assumption that Obama was referring exclusively to Truman and Roosevelt's relationship with Hitler rather than with Stalin. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 12:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Your reasoning is confused, and your conclusion makes no sense at all.

:Compromising with an enemy is often the wrong thing to do. Your [[all or nothing]] analysis doesn't support it: it's rarely a case of "give in or fight blindly". Perhaps you have assumed that America only '''felt''' it was ideologically at a polar opposite from atheism and totalitarianism. This is [[liberal dogma]], not CP editorial policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::You misunderstand completely. ''I'' didn't say anything about whether or not America should compromise - Obama did. Whether or not it should has absolutely nothing to do with the issue I was raising.

::What I was saying was that the section is trying to make it seem that Obama has no grasp of history, that he was claiming that Roosevelt and Truman talked to our enemies (assumed to be Hitler, Mussolini and Hideki) when those Presidents didn't. However, Roosevelt and Truman did talk to our enemies, namely Stalin. Obama was referring to the talks Roosevelt and Truman had with ''Stalin'', not Hitler, and thus he was right to claim that Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy talked to our enemies. Therefore the section is false, not because we should compromise with our enemies, but because Obama did not make a mistake as the section apparently claims.

::Hopefully I have made myself more clear. But I will repeat to make sure: I am not saying anything about whether or not it is right to compromise with enemies. I am not saying that the communists were only apparently our enemies - in fact by suggesting that Roosevelt did not talk with enemies when he clearly talked with Stalin the section in the ''article'' implies that Stalin was not really an enemy. What I am saying is that Obama was perfectly justified in saying that Roosevelt and Truman talked and compromised with our enemies. This means exactly what it says, ''not'' that compromising with our enemies was perfectly justified. I apologise if I was not clear the first time, that's why I've rephrased the same point a second and third time.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Well? Am I understood now? Is the section going to be removed? [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 18:56, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== compared to wikipedia article ==

It is interesting that the wikipedia articles on Obama does not mention Pakistan. In fact, his three week trip to Pakistan was documented in a New York Times article, but metion of it was removed at wikipedia with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama&diff=252397639&oldid=252397137 this edit]. It looks like some wiki contributors are running interferance at wikipedia. The conservapedia article is a nice balance to that article, though the part that he "may be sworn into office at his inauguration ... using the Koran" is dodgy, and sounds almost National Enquirer-ish. I think the wording could be improved, though I haven't looked into it. It would not surprise me if Barack Obama were a Muslim, and it would not surprise me if he were a liberal Christian with weakly held beliefs and a fondness for his early teachings. At wikipedia, I also didn't see any mention of Bill Ayers on Obama pages. That is very strange. The sad part is, if President Obama appointed Bill Ayers to be the head of the Department of Education, I don't think we would see much difference in the American education system--at least in the public schools--as people that think like him are already in control. Anyway, keep up the good work. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 12:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good points, BigMike! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Thanks. Here is a quote "If there is an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process of law, that threatens my civil liberties."--Barack Obama, 2004 DNC speech. (Yes, it is what some would call a quote mine, but it is a direct quote of a complete sentence.) That being said, I agree with others that the article would be better if it were to document the fact that many people are speculating about whehter or not Barack Obama is a Muslim, including adding their reasoning. But trying to make a case that he is a Muslim in this article isn't turning out too well in my opinion. It's good to see some changes have been made. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 22:50, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Suggestion for compromise ==

Since it's clear that none of the editors involved are going to be able to agree, why don't we take Mr. Schlafly's advice [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=554261&oldid=554228 earlier on this talk page] where he says "We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide." How about, instead of going back and forth, back and forth, we instead allow the inclusion of evidence ''against'' Obama being a Muslim. The reader can read the evidence on both sides, and decide for themselves. Good idea? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Practically, I think that's a workable compromise. Theoretically, of course, it's problematic: neutrality towards an incorrect idea is not objectivity. The idea that Obama is a Muslim is objectively wrong, and should be excised. But, practically, I'm willing to go with that compromise. Great idea from a helpful sysop!-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Not a sysop, but every now and then I have a good idea ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::I think this is a very sensible idea. I don't agree with any of the arguments that Obama is a Muslim, but obviously a few people here are determined to cling to them, so including the counterarguments as well would be a good way to balance this part of the article & end the conflicts over this. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Also, if the argument would take up a great deal of the article, it could be moved to a separate page. What's the policy on linking to debates from regular pages? I know there are two Obama/Muslim debates going, and I think linking to them from the article might not be a bad idea. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 13:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::(/signed) Totally agree, if all the arguments are presented then anyone who is open minded can make up their own mind. Those with closed minds won't be convinced either way, no matter what arguments are presented..--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:''"Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)"''[http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7882247&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.11.1 as required]. This was one source found in 5 minutes work and if anyone doubts the quality of the source [http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/InsideFox/AboutUs?pageId=5.1 please look here]. This is just a single source found at 00:25am after being out all night doing charity work. As I find others I will post. I will also point out that I do not consider this, or subsequent evidence put forth, as 'talk' as I am responding to a direct request for information by the creator of this site--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Another, same conditions, contributor makes clear that he thinks that Obama is at best [http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/02/barack-obama-is-not-a-christian/ a deist], at worst an atheist, but at no point offers an argument for Obama being of an Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:31, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:As above, [http://www.jewsonfirst.org/08a/obama_religion_attacked.html 'Minnery, who served as Dobson's interlocutor on the program yesterday said during the broadcast that Obama was "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology."'] Again, at best the argument says that Obama is a deist, at worst is trying to set up his own sect of 'christianity', but no evidence to show that Obama is of Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:And again, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317031,00.html "....to baseless e-mailed rumors that he is a Muslim and poses a threat to the security of the United States."]--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Logic argument: I believe it has been mentioned that Obama may be a Muslim because of his lack of dancing or dancing skills. If that belief is true then every man lives in the UK and is either i) not out of his head on 'e' or ii) over the age of 25 is muslim, as no man in the UK that does not fit the two previous definitions ''ever'' dances seriously with full use of his arms, at least, not outside of ballroom dancing. I admitted that is observational evidence, not just of myself but numerous others, but observational evidence is still evidence, and considerably better than suppostition and hearsay, two lower classes of 'evidence' ('that is which is seen').--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:More. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201322.html Washington Post, but hey, ''I'm'' not going to be the person who raises objections as to their factual accuracies], I'll leave that to the lawyers, my knowledge of libel laws just ain't that good. Of course, there are always those that will argue on the point of "Classes in Islam are offered to the predominantly Muslim students at the school....", but then that requires proving that Obama was a Muslim with a level of evidence above supposition and hearsay.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:And now it is 01:00 and I need my sleep. Page 2 of Google tomorrow.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:00, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Since CP is the Conservative/Christian-friendly encyclopedia it is, while other points of view should be included, it is wrong to bully it into providing the equivalent of "equal time" to those who are not Christian and/or Conservative. Those who disagree should stop wasting time with this and move on to places that are more accommodating of [[liberal deceit]], Atheist [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:56, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:You are absolutely right. This is the Christian encyclopedia, at least one of the online ones. That means the Word is God, and God is truth. Let no argument be hidden, for that is the path of the Fallen, the jealous and the wicked. For those with God are armoured with Faith and armed with the Truth and are truly capable of determining the gleanings of Truth from argument and do not need protection, for the Word that is Truth guides their path--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:05, 18 November 2008 (EST)

This article is filled with unsubstantiated rumor and speculation, stated as fact. If Conservapedia is going to claim to be "the Christian encyclopedia", and its editors are going to claim to be Christians, then they should stop filling their articles with the same deceit they hypocritically accuse liberals and atheists of. And it does not make me a "deceitful liberal vandalizer" to protest outright blatant lies perpetuated by those pretending to be Christians.
[[User:CBrown|CBrown]] 7 December 2008

== Accusations of Homosexuality ==

The story is starting to spread that Obama is a homosexual or bisexual and may have been involved in the deaths of some of his past lovers<ref>http://chgocutie.blogspot.com/2007/12/nathaniel-nate-spencer-tucc-sanctuary.html</ref>. In shades of a Vince Foster type scandal I'm wondering if any mention of this development should go into the main page. Larry Sinclair<ref>http://larrysinclair0926.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/chicago-packet.pdf</ref> was the initial source, but evidence seems to be mounting<ref>http://redinktexas.blogspot.com/2008/07/larry-sinclair-obamas-bad-penny.html</ref> that Obama has a gay past he's been hiding.
::I really wish someone with authority to edit the article would add some mention of Obama's homosexual leanings. There's evidence of murder, harassment and extensive political corruption and the article makes no mention of it. Isn't it the responsibility of a reliable source to present all the facts, negative and positive, about the soon to be President?--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:46, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== A better approach to highlighting Obama's negatives - Highlight More Best Arguments against Obama vs. the throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall approach ==

Instead of the article focusing more on claims that are certainly not undisputable (Obama being a Muslim) I think the article could do a better job of pointing out the negative things about Obama that have a much higher degree of certainty.

Examples of things which could be highlighted more:

1. Other than a footnote which few people will read, does the article highlight sufficiently '''his extremely liberal voting record''' as a Senator?[http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/] Perhaps, some of his more extreme votes could be highlighted.

2. There is the '''Obama/infantcide''' issue which might be highlighted more if it is mentioned or mentioned if it is not currently mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRpIf2F9NA and http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

===Consequences of the current state of the article===

It seems like the article takes a throw a lot of negative spaghetti against the wall and hopefully some sticks approach. That is not how you create a compelling article in terms of when it highlights some of the negative aspects about Obama. Dubious claims in the article make the valid claims less prominent. Also, it is not surprising that the Obama article is not ranked high by the search engines like the Conservapedia [[Bill Clinton]] article is (I have not read the Bill Clinton article but I suspect it is better than the Obama article. I do know that Conservapedia's Bill Clinton article is ranked #6 by Google). I think that is because it is difficult to get conservatives to link to the article and the article is easily dismissed by liberals and they do not see it as a threat. If you want the article to be informative and influential any dubious claims have to be weeded out and the legitimate matters have to be highlighted more. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== First Black President? ==

Should we have an article on the [[First Black President]]? I had created one, but [[User_talk:Ed_Poor#First_Black_president|Ed said we should talk about it here first]].

The citations I found that indicated Obama is not the first were [http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1461.cfm], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&curid=65751&diff=561761&oldid=561751], and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=534592&oldid=534582]. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:11, 18 November 2008 (EST)

*I would suggest "Bi-Racial" as the most accurate term. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:13, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Please do create an entry. Thanks for the insight. Of course, the other reason for omitting the liberal claim that Obama is the first black president (aside from its likely inaccuracy) is the dubious significance of the assertion. By now our society is long past judging people by their race, and Obama's election illustrates how exaggerated the liberal claims about continued racism really are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Gee, your right, I mean how do we know he is the first black president. I mean they didn't have photgraphs back then, so maybe John Adams was really a brother! For that matter, how do we know he is the first muslim president? Maybe Iran-contra was Reagan's way of helping his fellow Islamists!
:Seriously though, is it really a liberal claim that he is the first black president? Other than you, who is claiming he isn't? [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 18:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TTerm, perhaps you don't know how to click on a link yet. BHarlan provided several of them above for you. Also, TTerm, this isn't a blog. Contribute substantively, or rant elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Two of those links just link back to conservapedia. The third references "research" by a man named Leroy Vaughn. The claims and evidence seem dubious to say the least. Whatever the veracity of these claims, it is wrong to call this a "liberal" claim since most conservatives believe him to be the first black president as well. [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 20:59, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Great. Would you mind undeleting [[First Black president]], if the software allows it? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Done, without yet reading it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I for one find it hard to believe that you would have agreed with that research two years ago Schlafly. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 23:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==How to collaborate==

If you'll notice, me last few edits to this article were sweepingly changed back by [[User:Aschlafly]]. However, neither my initial round of edits, nor his response, has resulted in animosity. On my part, at least, I have nothing but unbounded respect for my co-editor here.

We are not against each other, although our approach is different. We are finding a synthesis which is (probably) better than each of us could do alone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::The Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States are collabrative efforts that him withstood the test of time, among others! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good for you, Ed (seriously - I wouldn't have been nearly as sanguine about it). The facts, however, remain that:
:#'''DanH''' - a strong editor and respected sysop - '''quit this project in disgust''' at what he saw as an attempt to "smear" Obama as a Muslim.
:#'''PJR''' - the most patient and eloquent defender of YEC I have ever encountered - '''categorically refutes''' the idea that there is any credible evidence that Obama is a Muslim.
:#'''Conservative''' - principal author of several of Conservapedia's defining articles - remains '''wholly unconvinced''' of the strength of the Obama/Muslim case, and is concerned that its inclusion in the article could '''damage Conservapedia's credibility'''.
:#'''Tim/CPAdmin1''' - one of the original members of this project - has '''repeatedly objected''' to its inclusion.
:#And finally, '''ChrisS''' - again, one of the original Conservapedians - even felt moved to describe this article as '''the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen'''. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=556523]
:What kind of synthesis do you hope to achieve in the face of such ''demonstrably principled'' opposition? These are not lone, liberal voices. These are long-standing contributors who collectively insist that '''this is plain wrong and must be removed'''.

:Good night (and good luck). --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 17:39, 18 November
::: And that's not all of it. At least two other administrators have also made known their opposition, via e-mail (which Andy got copies of at the time). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::We respect the views of a minority among us (and note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education). Regardless, obviously logic prevails over even the opinion of a majority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::: Andy, it is ''your'' view that is in the minority; JohnZ was citing the ''majority''. It seems that Ed (inadvertently) recognised that by his comment below. Hopefully logic would prevail, but unfortunately you are trying to make ''your'' minority and illogical view prevail.
::: And this yet again highlights a major problem here. You are throwing around these personal opinions as though they are factual, denigrating the opposing view and the people that put them, but not actually engaging the arguments and providing a logical response.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

The late Michael Crichton said, "The Nazis got 200 German scientists to say that Einstein was wrong, and then somebody asked Einstein, 'How does it feel to have 200 scientists against you?' And he said, 'It takes only one to prove me wrong.' " [http://www.perc.org/articles/article894.php] We don't go by majority vote around here, because the majority are (as our [[Founding Fathers]] indicated) simply not trustworthy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: So are you saying that the administrators who are in the majority on this issue are not trustworthy? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Hi Ed,

:I'm not usually known for my poor reading comprehension, but I can't tell which side of this thing your statement above is supporting. Is Andy vs. the 5 listed sysops the minority, or are the five listed sysops the minority as described by Andy ("[w]e respect the views of a minority among us)...")? Merci, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:02, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<-honh honh...''

:: Ed's comment seems clear enough to me. Logic is not the result of majority vote, and even less so the product of a consensus among the minority. Ed is opposing relying on the view of a minority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Good grief, man, must I spell it out? I'm on the side of finding out what is true! As J.M. Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" It is to the principle of truth-seeking which I express my devotion here, as well as to the collaborative process of its discovery. Stop trying to cover this story like a sportswriter trying to figure out which horse won the race. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:And what do ''you'' see as being the facts here, Ed? How do you hope to achieve your synthesis? --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, Ed, I'm sorry but I need it spelled out for me. This isn't a vague question for late night dorm hall meanderings. It's pretty concrete: the Obama-is-Muslim material, as Andy wants it presented, belongs in the article, or it doesn't. I can paint those two statements on horses and run them around a track if an over-extended metaphor will help here - only one of those horses can win. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:31, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<- will, however, need to learn to play the bugle (if not the bugler)...''

:Wow, Ed, that's extremely well put!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:21, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:ASchalfly - you said, "We...note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education". Might I ask what your own qualifications are in this regard, since you are clearly 'over-ruling' their opinions? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 18:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I'm going to write an article about [[the real horse whisperer]]. I have no more time to entertain you here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Amazing. A simple question, with only two possible answers, that could be answered in fewer characters than you just used to beg off. And if you think I'm entertained you probably do think those horses are talking to you. ''Anybody'' who sticks with the "this conversation is a dragged-out waste of time" is missing the point that the time is being wasted by the continued and false defenses presented. It's only a continuing waste of time because the people in the wrong unfortunately wield all the clout, so they are in fact allowed to say "nuh unh" and ''have it stick''. If SteveRandomperson had inserted this stuff, other regular users could remove it, and when Steve got into an edit war over it any of the five sysops listed above could simply end this thing. It's only dragging on because none of them can pull rank on the proponent of this material.

:''That'' is the source of wasted time here. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Aziraphale, your long-winded comment is incoherent, and your list of contributions is a remarkable violation of the [[90/10 rule]] against talk, talk, talk.[[Special:Contributions/Aziraphale]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: I'm afraid he can't respond Andy. He's been blocked. --[[User:WOwen|WOwen]] 19:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: I had no problem understanding Aziraphale's comment, so it is quite coherent, and he makes a very good point. It would make more sense to take notice of the problem than to brush it aside and silence him with a block. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==You're All Missing the Point==

Ok I've said this once before, but nobody seems to understand so I'll try to make it clearer.

'''YOU ARE ALL MISSNIG THE POINT'''

Sitting around debating whether or not Obama is a Muslim is doing nothing to discredit him, instead it just reflects badly on conservatives. If you stopped using circumstantial evidence to "prove" that he may have told one lie on the campaign trail (which inevitably does not affect his politics) then you would realise there are plenty of valid fronts you can criticise him on:

*Abortion
*Stem cell research
*War on Terror
*Criminal rights
*Lack of substance in policy
*Economic regulation

and so on... If you examined these in detail and explained why they would be bad for America, rather than dedicating copious amounts of the article to a farfetched claim that he's a Muslim in disguise, then you would not only convince conservatives that he is the wrong candidate, but also show politically neutral parties why they should not have voted for him. Instead, the article at the moment reads like a cross between a parody and a far right-wing blog entry, and will do nothing to convince anyone other than the most conservative voter. One of your own sources in the article clearly demonstrates that these attacks actually made people vote FOR Obama, and I can definitely say that if I saw this as the ideology of McCain I would have changed sides for the election.

In debating there is a argument known as an ad homenin attack, where you attack the debator and not his/her arguments. This is weak, because it demonstrates an inability to critically analyse the opposition's position. This is exactly what is happening here, you are ''trying'' to attack Obama's character rather than his politics. If you tried more of the latter, you'll find that you will convince many more people that Obama is not an appropriate president for the United States, and win much more credibility in the process. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 20:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== obama, Muslim or "liberal Christian" with a skeptical streak - The duck test ==

Andy, you claim that you are better educated regarding Islam than the oppposing sysops and that gives you deeper understanding of the issue. In response, I will first say that you have not shown that Lolo Soetoro was a staunch Muslim and given that Obama was sent to a Catholic school at some point I don't think you can show that his father had a great influence in his life. Furthermore, it appears as if Obama's mother was not married to the stepfather Lolo Soetoro long. In addition, his skeptical mother appears to have had the most influence in his life. Given that I have spent sometime studying Islam and had a Muslim housemate when I was younger and lived in a area highly concentrated with Muslims in the past, I don't think it is fair to say that I have great ignorance about Islam. I am well aware that patriarchy is present in Islamic families, but I am also aware that Obama's fathers did not appear to have great influence in his life.

I really think at this point that Obama's behavior is key in terms of the likelihood of him being a Muslim.

Most American Muslims are not rabidly pro-abortion, have great antipathy to the homosexual agenda, and abstain from alcohol. On the other hand, most "liberal Christians" who have a philosophical skepticism streak favor the "pro-choice" position and most do not have great antipathy toward the homosexual lifestyle. In addition, most "liberal Christians" have no problem drinking alcohol. Also, there is the fact that Obama's daughters were baptised.

Given the above, if Obama walks like a duck and talks like a duck, he is probably a duck. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)'

Obama's nominally Muslim father was not religious in the first place.[[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Reversion ==

All three items of evidence that Philip deleted are fully supported and hardly deniable. I don't know why Philip wants to delete them. The entries are educational also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:I'm afraid not one of them is "supported" in any way and all are deniable. None of them are educational, and all are merely unfounded assertion and speculation. The first accusation (for that is what they are) about him not changing his name is dependent on him being Muslim to begin with. If he is not Muslim, then he has no need to change his name, and you haven't provided any evidence he's Muslim. The second accusation, about taqiyya, depends upon him being a Muslim, and you have not provided any evidence to that. The third, about the pronunciation of Pakistan, is irrelevant, as that is the correct pronunciation of that country's name. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 23:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: As FredX says, they are ''not'' supported, and they are most definitely deniable. Simply making those assertions is not a supporting argument. And how can you continue to claim that you don't know why I want to delete them when I've told you several times? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:18, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:: Philip, you have to do better than that before deleting factual and informative material. All three points are enlightening and undeniable, and I doubt you knew any of them before reading them here. We let the readers decide here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::: Okay Andy, I'll try and lay it out as simply as I can for you.
::: For something to be included in this (or any) article, it needs to be both ''factual'' and ''relevant''. We could put in the article that Obama eats breakfast every morning, and that would (presumably) be quite ''factual'', but it would not be ''relevant''. Agreed?
::: So when you say that I should not delete ''factual'' information, as long as it is ''relevant'', I agree.
::: The problem is, however, that the claim about Obama using a Muslim pronunciation of "Pakistan", for example is '''not factual'''. This is because there is no such thing as a Muslim pronunciation of "Pakistan". We thrashed this out ages ago on the Main Talk page, so it's not as though this is new information to you.
::: So when you keep repeating ad nauseam that "we don't delete factual information", '''you are avoiding the point that it is ''not factual'''''. That's why I keep deleting it—because it is ''not'' factual—and you repeatedly claiming that it is factual '''is not a valid argument''', because it is merely an assertion, not evidence or reason. If you want the claim kept, you have to show that it is ''factual''. That is the very thing that you avoid doing.
::: I don't know how this can be explained any more simply. It is beyond my comprehension that you cannot understand this, which leaves outright deceit on your part as the only other explanation. But then I can't comprehend that you would be outright deceitful either, so I'm at a loss to understand what's going through your mind.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

"Letting the readers decide" would ring more true if you simply laid out the facts about Obama instead of riddling the article with unsubstantiated, repeatedly disproven falsehoods to skewer it toward your personal political viewpoint. Do you not realize that simply highlighting the positions he supports that conservatives are opposed to (his support of gay rights and abortion rights as just two examples) would do a better job turning conservatives against Obama than telling easily proven lies about him? The fact that you feel you have to resort to lies makes you look like you are guilty of the very thing you accuse liberals of: not having any actual factual argument to make. [[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Unbelievable ==

It's understandable that conservatives disapprove of Obama and much of this article reflects that. Smearing is nothing new to politics, but the poor logic shamelessly employed here is an embarrassment to American conservatives. As this site becomes a "de facto" conservative reference, more and more people will begin believing this is how conservatives reason and come up with their ideas. With great power comes great responsibility, and Conservapedia and Aschlafly fail disastrously as representatives of the conservative movement.

Under the pretense of "not censoring" and "letting the readers decide" the article is allowed to introduce deceptive evidence toward building weak and ultimately unproven hypotheses. Simultaneously, the exact opposite policy is used when contradictory evidence is presented.

This stunning hypocrisy can be best illustrated by how the "Obama is likely a Muslim" section is moderated. Several times myself and others have attempted to delete the statement "Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith." Yes he said the words "My Muslim Faith" but this is utterly meaningless as no context for the statement is provided. I could say "I approve of the killing of babies coming to an end" and using the logic here I could be quoted as saying "I approve of the killing of babies"

However, we cannot escape the fact he said the words "My Muslim Faith" and since Conservapedia doesn't censor information, it must remain in the article. Furthermore, it must remain in a section attempting to show secret Muslim faith, however misleading it may be.

Where the hypocrisy comes in is that there is an overwhelming body of information that suggests Obama is not a Muslim and in fact a Christian. For example, he was sworn into the Senate using a bible in 2005, he attended a (albeit controversial) christian church for decades, no one has ever observed him performing Muslim rituals (ie, praying 5 times a day). Even the "My Muslim Faith" comment is evidence of him being a christian when viewed in full context, as it's more than clear he meant to say "My Christan Faith". Attempting to mention any of this in the article will result in an almost immediate undo and block.

The intentions of this section are transparent: to pander to modern American distrust of Muslims to build distrust of Obama. The irony of this and the article as a whole is obvious and almost comedic, as even a semi-informed reader can see through the deception and will likely end up with a reduced opinion of Conservatives.

I expect to immediately be labeled a liberal for posting this. I need to say for the record, I voted for McCain. I attend Church. I have an American flag outside my house. However I cannot stomach this article and quite frankly am ashamed that such cheap hate tactics are being used by people calling themselves conservative.

[[User:Conservamike|Conservamike]] 23:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Your best arguments against Obama being Muslim amount to unsourced opinion on your part. You gave no evidence just expressed opinions. Personally, I would hope this encyclopedia would hold itself to a higher standard and demand sources. There is ample evidence that Obama is Muslim pretending to be a Christian. Arguing that he can't be Muslim because no one has seen him bowing to Mecca is an appeal to ignorance. The Koran permits Muslims to lie about being Muslim if it advances the Muslim faith.--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:42, 20 November 2008 (EST)

==Counter Evidence==

If we are letting the readers decide (as written above) then in order to keep this article fair and balanced we should add a section detailing the evidence that Obama is not a Muslim (such as his positions on abortion and stem cell research, his religious history, his Catholic schooling etc). If the evidence is truly overwhelming that Obama is a Muslim then there should be no problem with adding such a section, as readers will quickly be able to see that it is insufficient to counter the claim. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 08:57, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: Fine, post your best stuff here first. But claiming that Obama went to Catholic school is counter evidence is, of course, absurd. Stop by your local Catholic school and you'll see Muslims students who never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:: And Jewish students. In many areas the public schools are pathetic. In the absence of a good Protestant school, many parents are forced to choose between overly liberal public schools with poor curriculum, home schooling or a Catholic school. Many choose Catholic schools. The Jesuits tend to be in charge of the Catholic schools and they're actually pretty even handed in their treatment of non-Christian students. Saying someone attended a Catholic school or sent their children to one as "evidence" of their being Christian is absurd and betrays a deep ignorance of how the schools are actually run.--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:54, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Dunno if this is counter evidence, but my two cents about the misguided motivations of Obama's Lenin poster.

Most Europeans, East and West, would be severely alienated by any hidden or subliminal message that Obama was Leninist. Eastern Europe suffered under the communist iron heel for 45 years after WW2, including East Berlin. And Western Europe feared invasion. West Berlin was nearly starved by the communist blockade of the late 40s. Eastern Europe's rush to join NATO and the EU to ensure their free economies and societies is testament to this hatred of Soviet Leninist domination. Of course none of this goes to whether the poster was Leninist, only that if it was it was a serious mistake on Obama's part.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:54, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== My innocuous talk page contribution removed? ==

The Lenin poster one. Just wondered why.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Oh figured it out now, sorry --[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== About the Muslim allegations ==

Allow me to play devil's advocate. I am lost. As a conservative, bordering on a paleo-conservative, with a streak of classical liberal in the John Locke/Jeffersonian sense, who also fears the coming administration greatly (I keep thinking Jimmy Carter, stagflation, FDR, Civilian Conservation Corps, prolongation of the depression, and a world war), a man's religion is his own business.

This is the United States. Our forefathers fought and died for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In those rights are the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion.

The freedom of speech does give Conservapedia the right to impune the president elect for his supposed Muslim faith (backed by what looks to me to be evidence that is neither conclusive nor wholly circumstantial). But that doesn't mean Conservapedia should squander that right in an attempt to prove what is ultimately between him and God.

The first amendment also gives every man in this country the right to hold whatever spiritual beliefs he wants, and to share, or not share, those beliefs with others.

While I do think it is appropriate to mention speculation that President elect Barack Obama may be a Muslim, to the extent that such allegations exist and are notable, as I think they are, I do not think it is proper for this encyclopedia to attempt to make the case that he is a closet Muslim. The Muslim speculation should be relegated to later parts of the article, and reworked.

Juxtaposing a reference early on in the article, which, if you scroll to the references, indicates that Keith Ellison used a Koran in his swearing in ceremony, with the statement that Obama is an "apparent Muslim" is tawdry at best, and beneath a serious conservative encyclopedia.

Certainly, President elect Obama's political views deserve much more scrutiny from a conservative perspective, than whether or not he is a closet Muslim.

Senator Barack Obama was rated the most liberal senator, left of a self-declared socialist. I think we should focus on that.

President elect Barack Obama seems to hold political views that go against our Constitution. This raises the question about whether or not he can honestly affirm to protect and defend the Constitution.

President elect Barack Obama may institute nationalized health care, requiring children to be vaccinated in order to receive benefits, while bankrupting the private health care system for middle and lower class Americans. Where will this leave such children?

Barack Obama may very likely work to reduce or control home schooling and private schools.

Barack Obama may work to erode or eviscerate the second amendment.

There is plenty of political evidence for these other fears, and it is more appropriate to focus on these, and not his supposed secret Muslim belief system.

I recommend focusing on his easily provable liberal and possibly anti-American political views, and not waste too much time trying to prove he has some religious belief system. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 10:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:BigMike, I take it you're not an historian. People's beliefs matter greatly, and you can bet a real historian would not tolerate censorship of inquiry into someone's beliefs. Our other entries likewise provide information about the beliefs of other presidents, great scientists, and others. The insistence on censoring a similar inquiry about Obama's beliefs is misplaced and inappropriate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::I didn't mean to censor it, I just suggested a shift in focus. I meant to focus on extreme liberal political views first, as they are, to me, the most important. Change the prominence within the article, and change the tone. But you're right, I am not a historian. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 11:12, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::OK, your point is well-taken then. But the reality is that many of Obama's positions to date were posturing to win the presidency, and not necessarily indicative of his priorities as president. His beliefs matter more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::::No problem. I know this site takes a lot of pointless flack, and it is hard to seperate the wheat from the chaf. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 11:20, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Perhaps a template would help ==

The discussion on this page keeps covering the same ground over and over again. Aside from the wasted time and effort, a major problem is that new users often edit the page and become instantly embroiled in the controversy, sometimes leading to bad feeling and thus driving away potentially valuable contributors.

As a solution, I suggest a template is created and added to the top of the page and any others in this situation. The wording could be something like:

:''This article deals with a controversial topic and has already been the subject of lengthy discussion. Your input is welcome, but '''please check the talk page carefully''' to make sure that the issues you raise have not been dealt with already. New users in particular are advised to start by editing less controversial pages to get a feel for the site.''

Thoughts and suggestions very welcome.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 15:48, 19 November 2008 (EST)

*We do have such. Template "Controversial". But it has problems, and needs some fixing. use the {{ and type in Controversial, and see what I mean. I have read it noted several places it is broken. If you or anyone else knows what is needed, fix the template, and if it is locked, contact Philip Rayment or Ed Poor and let them know. Thanks, good suggestion. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Thanks - I've asked Mr Rayment. If that template's ever going to be used, I think this article could do with it, though the wording could be more diplomatic in my opinion.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 16:36, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::Perhaps it would be better slapped here, on this page? If anyone is going to change the article, hopefully they will look here first? Assuming this page is ever partially archived! :D --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I've fixed the bug, although I don't think putting the template on the article page is going to solve much. And by the way, it's designed for article pages, not talk pages; the link in it to the talk page won't work if placed on a talk page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:56, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== "Captured the White House" ==

Is it just me, or does this memorable line conjure up images of Barry and Joe, the special forces operatives, sneaking across the White House lawn under cover of darkness before launching a daring assault, creating a beach head in the kitchen before ensnaring their ultimate goal: the Oval Office.

Would the phrase "won the presidential election" be more encyclopedic?

[[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 16:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: Your phrase would be an improvement. Go ahead, and thanks--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::It would indeed be an improvement, but he cannot make it, as the article is locked. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 16:41, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Religious Affiliation ==

OK, I do not want to get involved in the whole debate about whether Obama is a covert (or even overt) Muslim. (Although the statistically savvy amongst you can probably predict with 99.9999% certainty what my view is on that matter.)

However, the article currently has two sections dealing with religion. The first ("Obama will likely become the first Muslim President") comes as part of the introduction. It provides a list of evidence supporting the author's view that Obama is a Muslim. The second ("Religious Affiliation") describes various issues to do with Obama's connections in the Christian church, and provides some quotes about his history relating to the Islamic faith. Nobody reading just the second section would come away beleiving the author thinks Obama is a Muslim.

The two seem a little contradictory - either the article does take the view that he is a Muslim, in which case the second piece needs re-writing, or the article takes the view that he is not a Muslim, in which case the first piece needs re-writing, or the article presents the issue as unresolved, in which case both pieces need re-writing.

Given that the subject is so controversial, I do not want to volunteer to do the writing. It would appear that Ed Poor is Appeaser-in-Chief - maybe someone should ask him to have a go?

[[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 17:01, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: So are you now saying both sides should not be presented??? The liberal opposition to the observation that Obama is likely a Muslim is as self-contradictory as it is unjustified.

: By the way, I don't think Obama has had any Christian affiliation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, there is plenty of conservative opposition to the notion that Obama is a secret Muslim as evidenced by this talk page. Andy, what conservative news organizations are still wedded to the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim? I have not checked but I am guessing that [[Cybercast News Service]] which runs plenty of hard hitting and reasonable conservative pieces does not currently promote the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:36, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I think all I'm saying is the two bits are inconsistent, in that the first leaves no room for the possibility of the second being true and vice versa. I think it's fine to present both views if that's what the authors want to do - but it has to be done consistently. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 06:37, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== Another shocked conservative here ==

I came to Conservapedia hoping to find a valuable resource on the internet for people like me but to tell the truth I have been shocked and disappointed by some of the content, and this article seems absurd to me. How can we be taken seriously if some of us are peddling nonsense like this? Any right thinking person knows Obama isn't a Muslim. I can't stand the guy but it's clear he's a family man and a Christian. This is just gutter politics, nothing more or less, and it reflects incredibly badly on us.

Most of the stuff in this article has been easily refuted on Snopes at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp. For instance, this shows pictures of Obama with his hand on his heart at the national anthem: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp which makes that picture featured on this page, without his hand on his heart, just another smear.

This is the kind of reason folks didn't vote for McCain - because it's just ugly smear tactics. I despair. [[User:MrCoulter|MrCoulter]]

:The thing that scares me is that the tactics continue even after the election. I dislike them, but during an election, I can at least understand them; that's politics. But now, with the "Muslim" and the "not born in the US" charges (most likely among others I can't think right now), it's like people are trying to de-legitimize the election, declaring him a false president before he's even sworn in. In the eyes of people who believe those allegations, Barack Obama's election was no more legal than a military coup.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 10:08, 20 November 2008 (EST)

:*The election officially lost its validity for many, with the ''fraud'' committed by the Obama campaign in the caucuses [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/caucus-fraud-proof/] which stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton. That was months before this article appeared. There are many pictures, all real, that show Obama with his hand on his heart, and without, so this photo was not altered. I suggest you at least open your mind, do some proper research, and perhaps you will learn of some valid questions, and the total lack of vetting by the media of their favorite candidate. The media has special rights granted in the Constitution. The real question is if they should continue to have those special rights or not, given their continued[[deceit]] in helping with Obama's leftist agenda. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:31, 20 November 2008 (EST)

::Rather off topic, but what are these special rights constitutionally granted to the media? [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 15:27, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Those rights are included within the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:

<blockquote>
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of '''speech''', or of '''the press'''; or the right of the people '''peaceably to assemble''', and to '''petition the Government''' for a redress of grievances."
</blockquote>

You can read more about this [http://www.consource.org/index.asp?sid=28&taxlist=180 here.] --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:36, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== The Truth is not always popular ==

In response to all the "dismayed conservatives" upset about the muslim section. One of the stated goals of CP is to highlight facts and stories that are suppressed by the liberal media. Obama's muslim heritage is one of the best examples of this right now. The mainstream liberal media refuses to even broach the topic! I commend Mr. Schlafly and Conservapedia for not censoring these facts for the sake of political correctness (in the eyes of liberals). Try to have a more open mind. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 13:55, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:Here here. It saddens me to see how incredibly effective the deceit of the liberal media has been. Many upstanding, conservative contributors to this site have been thoroughly insulated from the facts of Obama's muslim heritage. As Aschlafly has repeatedly pointed out, the evidence for it is extremely strong and, even if you don't agree that he ''is'' a muslim, the evidence is strong enough and so thoroughly censored that it should be presented on Conservapedia. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 15:26, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:I don't suppose it's occured to you that a person could have an open mind, evaluate the evidence, and still come to a different conclusion than you?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 15:30, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::Draw whatever conclusions you want, but don't expect the article to be changed or have facts removed to support the conclusion that you come to. The facts are the facts, they exist independant of popular opinion.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 16:39, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::: It ispossible that Obama is a Muslim, what is not possible is that this evidence that we have here on this page is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. It is not good enough. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:06, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Correct. Andy and a few others here have repeatedly ''claimed'' that the evidence is strong. The problem is that they have yet to produce ''any'' strong evidence, and some of the evidence produced is actually either wrong or logically fallacious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:28, 20 November 2008 (EST)

::::: No, Philip, the evidence speaks for itself and should not be censored. Conservapedia exists precisely because of such censorship on liberal sites and the media. I'm restoring the facts yet again.

::::: At bottom, liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship. We're seeing an illustration of that here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: '''ANDY, I AM NOT A LIBERAL. STOP CALLING ME ONE AND APOLOGISE FOR DOING SO.'''
:::::: '''Deleting false and irrelevant information is not "censorship". The "facts" are not facts, and you declaring them to be so does not make them so. You have ''not'' shown them to be facts.''' [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:06, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Philip. your post demonstrates how not to communicate properly on a project of this nature. Aggressive posts like that undermine collaborative efforts, quite apart from th want of courtesy. Your demand for an apology - even were it justifiable, and even were it not directed at the Founder and Leader of Conservapedia, who deserves your respect - is couched in unacceptable terms. And that is just the style. Turning to the 'substance' of your post, you are attempting to impose your subjective views on Conservapedia. The information deleted is not 'false' and 'irrelevant' except in your personal opinion. This is not Raymentapedia. The information has been deemed sufficiently relevant and raises sufficient questions to have a place here. That argument is incontrovertable. As for ''You have ''not'' shown them to be facts'', well, let us apply a little test here. You are so sure of your case. Can you ''prove'' them to be false? And please, ''manners makyth man''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:29, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Bugler, I wonder if there's any point in responding to you, as you appear to have a closed mind on this issue. But I'll assume for the moment that you are open to civil discussion.
:::::::: You accuse me of various faults, but totally ignore the faults on the other side. You say that posts like mine "undermine collaborative efforts", but totally igore that Andy imposing his will on the article ''in direct opposition to many other reputable editors'' is doing exactly that—undermining collaborative efforts.
:::::::: You question whether my demand for an apology is justifiable, but offer not the slightest reason to think that it's not. And somehow seem to think that a person name-calling someone else is above having to apologise for that simply because they are a site owner. Are you saying that Andy doesn't have to observe common courtesy?
:::::::: You say that "The information deleted is not 'false' and 'irrelevant' except in your personal opinion. This is not Raymentapedia.", but offer nothing but your personal opinion as support. And wilfully ignore that it's not just my opinion, but the opinion of a large number of the senior administrators. And also ignore that my claims are ''not'' opinion, but testable.
:::::::: "''The information has been deemed sufficiently relevant...''": By whom? Most senior administrators disagree. And that's the point—it's been ''deemed'' sufficiently relevant, it hasn't been ''demonstrated'' to be relevant. You accuse me of basing it on my personal opinion, but ignore that its relevance is nothing more than the ''personal opinion'' of Andy. Although Andy started this encyclopaedia, he called it ''Conservapedia'', not "Aschlaflypedia". Contrary to your unfounded implication, I'm not expecting it to conform to my personal opinion, but to ''logic and evidence'' and beyond that to the opinions of a majority of the reputable editors. You, on the other hand, are expecting it to conform to the personal opinion of Andy, who as site founder has the right to decide the commandments and who can have what privileges, but can't ''decide'' (as distinct from ''determine'') the truth of such things as whether Obama is a Muslim.
:::::::: "''The information ... raises sufficient questions to have a place here.'': The questions are only relevant if the information is correct, so that objection begs the question.
:::::::: The onus is on those making the claims in the first place to demonstrate them to be correct, not on me to demonstrate their falsity. In any case, the three points are slightly different. One (regarding his name) involves a correct fact making a point that is of little relevance and what relevance it has is based on another claim that hasn't been demonstrated. The second (taqiyya) is a logical fallacy, as it's not actually an argument that Obama is a Muslim. Do you, Bugler, deny that you are a Muslim? Then you must be according to this point, because Muslims deny that they are if it suits their purpose! The third (pronunciation) has been argued at length previously on the main talk page, not only without the claim being supported, but with good counter evidence.
:::::::: In summary, the arguments ''have'' been refuted, but Andy keeps reinserting them anyway, and when he does justify it, it's on the basis of "the evidence speaks for itself" or similar (if it did, then we wouldn't have so many disagreeing), that it's undeniable (if so, we wouldn't have so many denying it), that removal is liberal censorship (it's being removed by a conservative, and removal of incorrect or irrelevant information is not censorship), and so on. The one line of argument glaringly absent is any argument actually ''showing'' (as distinct from asserting) that the information ''is'' both accurate and relevant. This is true both from Andy and from the others such as you supporting him. If the information is so obviously correct and relevant, why is it so hard to actually show that?
:::::::: But I do thank you for one small point, Bugler. Unlike Andy, you did actually raise the point of testing the claims. Now can you demonstrate that they ''are'' correct and relevant? Please support your implied claim that if I speak nicely I will get proper answers, by giving me proper answers.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:06, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::''I wonder if there's any point in responding to you, as you appear to have a closed mind on this issue'' Ah, the old 'when did you stop beating your wife?' tactic, an old Liberal trick. Yagain, Philip, you fail to get the point. You claim that all your assertions are 'proved' and that no-one else's ideas are. This is both arrogant and wrong. You are the only one making assertions that 'X is fact',a nd you fail to provide any satisfactory evidence. Your further claims of legitimacy through supported from a shadowy clique of 'senior administrators' (unnamed) is an attempt to muddy the waters. Those who disagree with you, including Andy, also have support, from senior people here. And we are not saying 'X is fact'; we are saying 'here is a case to answer'. You have not answered it, and you actions in constantly reverting these passages amounts to an attempt to censor opinions with which you disagree. Saying that we 'have not proved our point' is disingenuous, and you know that. We cannot 'prove' our beliefs; proof will only come should our fears bbe realised. Is that a reason to remain silent? Had I believed that the Japanese might attack Pearl Harbor, based on an educated reading of the situation in November 1941, should I have remained silent because a proto-Rayment demanded written proof in triplicate? We are not dogmatic. We are raising fears based on a prime facie assessment of Obama's record and behaviour; we are not claiming that these are facts carbved in granite slabs. But you, Philip, are displaying liberal dogmatism. You say that your beliefs are not beliefs, but facts. And such an attitude is insupportable; especially insupportable as arrogance of belief is leading you into arrogance of behaviour. Throw slurs at me, by all means. But do not insult Andy, who is the founder of this project and our respected leader in this great endeavour. Learn discipline, as you should have learned it in your youth. The question has been debated ''ad nauseam''. Andy has quite correctly made a decision, to stop the ceaseless argument. And it would be seemly for you to accept and comply with this decision; and if you cannot bring yourself to back it openly, then to leave this topic and work on other matters in which you are interested. Display loyalty and work hard. Do not display defiance, do not keep attacking and undermining the leadership. Remember the objectives of Conservapedia, read the Commandments, and do your best to support Conservapedia and support Andy Schlafly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:03, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: "''Ah, the old 'when did you stop beating your wife?' tactic''": No, it's not, actually. That is a question with no correct answer. I didn't ask a question.
::::::::::::: "''You claim that all your assertions are 'proved' and that no-one else's ideas are. ''": Incorrect. I said that my 'assertions' have been backed by logic and evidence, whereas the opposing ideas haven't been. That's not to say that there is no evidicence that can be used to support them; it's saying that such evidence has not been offered.
::::::::::::: "''This is both arrogant and wrong.''": It's not arrogant if it's true, and you've not shown it to be wrong.
::::::::::::: "''You are the only one making assertions that 'X is fact',a nd you fail to provide any satisfactory evidence.''": On the contrary, as I've just posted to Ed above, it is Andy and people such as you who are claiming that 'x is a fact' (Obama is a Muslim), whereas I'm saying that 'there's little or no evidence that x is a fact'.
::::::::::::: "''Your further claims of legitimacy through supported from a shadowy clique of 'senior administrators' (unnamed)...''": You asked for their names, and I pointed out to you that many of them had been named on this page, so you have no good excuse for this false statement.
::::::::::::: "''Those who disagree with you, including Andy, also have support, from senior people here.''": I guess it depends on how you define "senior", but apart from editors with block rights, I haven't seen one.
::::::::::::: "''And we are not saying 'X is fact'; we are saying 'here is a case to answer'.''": Blatantly wrong. As I just said to Ed above, until his last edit, the article said "Obama is a Muslim". That ''is'' saying 'x is a fact'.
::::::::::::: "''You have not answered it...''": I have, a number of times.
::::::::::::: "''...you actions in constantly reverting these passages amounts to an attempt to censor opinions with which you disagree.''": I have pointed out numerous times that it is incorrect to call it censorship (and nobody has refuted that), and I've also pointed out that we are talking about truth claims, not ''opinions''. This is the sort of reason that you appear to have a closed mind. These sorts of things have been explained before, without being refuted, yet you keep repeating these discredited claims.
::::::::::::: "''Saying that we 'have not proved our point' is disingenuous, and you know that.''": Incorrect.
::::::::::::: "''We cannot 'prove' our beliefs;...''": These are ''truth claims'', not just "beliefs". And if they were just "beliefs", then they should be presented as such, not as truth claims.
::::::::::::: "''Had I believed that the Japanese might attack Pearl Harbor, based on an educated reading of the situation in November 1941, should I have remained silent because a proto-Rayment demanded written proof in triplicate?''": False analogy, because that's nothing like what I'm claiming, nor is the comparison the same.
::::::::::::: "''We are not dogmatic.''": Saying that "Obama is a Muslim", and resisting all attempts to remove bad evidence ''is'' being dogmatic.
::::::::::::: "''...we are not claiming that these are facts carbved in granite slabs.''": Essentially you are.
::::::::::::: "''But you, Philip, are displaying liberal dogmatism.''": Oh, so the dogmatism (that ''you'' are displaying) is "liberal", is it?
::::::::::::: "'' You say that your beliefs are not beliefs, but facts.''": Where exactly did I say that?
::::::::::::: "''But do not insult Andy, who is the founder of this project and our respected leader in this great endeavour.''": Even though he is insulting me, calling me names? Are you suggesting that I should not follow his example?
::::::::::::: "''The question has been debated ''ad nauseam''.''": Yes, with the only substantial evidence being ''against'' Obama being a Muslim.
::::::::::::: "'' And it would be seemly for you to accept and comply with this decision...''": Ignoring Commandment 1?
::::::::::::: In summary, yet again another long claim that your side is supported, yet with no actual support offered at all, despite you raising the point of testing the claims. You've mostly avoided answering the points I raised with you, instead launching into another lengthy criticism. Yes, that "closed mind" comment seems to have been justified.
::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:22, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Philip, I'd like to ask you a question (without wading into your arguments with Bugler). Are you accusing ASchlafly of bias or deceit? You seem to be inferring so and, if that isn't your intention, perhaps you should reconsider your phrasing. If it ''is'' your intention, perhaps you should be explicit. On a side note, a number of editors, myself included, have backed the inclusion of this information. Naturally, our opinions seem to be valued less, not being senior administrators, but they're still worth consideration. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 21:11, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: RodWeathers, I assume that you are not asking about accusations such as of Andy calling me a "liberal", but about the disputed content of the article. That being so, see my post on this page with a timestamp of "20:42, 19 November". And despite someone in the Sock Drawer suggesting that I wasn't being totally honest in those comments, they were totally honest.
:::::::::: Yes, I realise that a number of editors such as you have backed the inclusion; I referred to that in my reply to Bugler. But as I said, none of you have produced any ''argument'' for their inclusion; merely repeating Andy's unsupported ''claim'' that they are correct. So no, unsupported ''opinions'' are ''not'' worth consideration when logic and the evidence say otherwise.
:::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:31, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: Philip, I must respond in no uncertain terms, even if it means risking getting banned for saying my piece to an admin. I find your comments highly offensive, and indeed reprehensible. When you accuse my opinions of being illogical and unevidenced, you attack my character and attack my intelligence. You do '''not''' have a monopoly on logic, and what conclusions you consider logical are '''not''' universal. You can dance around it all you like, but what you are accusing ASchlafly, myself, and others of is no less than stupidity (inability to reach ''your'' conclusions through reasoning) or malice (intent to deceive through including this information). Many users on this site have reached different conclusions than you on this matter. We may not be administrators, but our reasoning is no less solid. Obama's religious past is suspect, and riddled with episodes that cast serious doubt on his alleged "christianity." We conclude from this, and his "gaffes" (to quote Picasso, "there are no accidents") that he is quite possibly a Muslim. There is no certainty of this, but the evidence is enough to necessitate the evidence's inclusion (along with its associated conclusions) on this website, further as the liberal media is adamant in its hiding of this evidence. You may disagree, but that does not give you the right to treat us with condescension. Obama's potential muslim heritage is '''not conjecture''' and it is '''not POV.''' It represents a broadly, if not universally held conservative view. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:37, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: RodWeathers, unlike some you support here, I don't ban people for "saying [your] piece to an admin", as long as that is done civilly.
:::::::::::: I did not, however, say what you accused me of. That is, I did not accuse your opinions of being illogical. Rather, I said that you'd only offered opinions, not logical argument nor evidence. That is not an attack on your character nor intelligence; merely stating facts that all you have offered is opinion. I never claimed to have a monopoly on logic, but logic is not whatever we want it to be; logic is a reasoned way of arguing, and simply offering the opinion that something is correct is ''not'' logic. And no, I'm not accusing you or anyone else of stupidity. I'm accusing you of only offering opinion, not logic nor evidence. I will qualify that a little by saying that I haven't analysed ''your'' comments in particular, but I have read them (any that have been posted in reply to discussions I've had), and I've noted that nobody has actually offered logical argument nor evidence supporting the claims that I've repeatedly removed from the article. And neither have you in this response.
:::::::::::: You accuse me of accusing Andy (and others) of deception, yet I ''specifically'' said in the earlier post that I directed you to that I don't believe Andy would deliberately deceive!
:::::::::::: As for casting doubt on his Christianity, if you were following this debate you would realise that I've never disputed that there is some doubt about his Christianity. What I'm disputing is that he is a Muslim. You also say that "we" conclude that he is "quite possibly" a Muslim, yet the article states that he ''is'' a Muslim; no "quite possibly" about it.
:::::::::::: At the end of your post you repeat the claims that the claims about Obama being a Muslim are "not conjecture and it is not POV", yet ''still'' do nothing to substantiate that!
:::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:05, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: Philip, you're welcome to "disput[e] that [Obama] is a Muslim." But we're not going to censor evidence that you and other Obama defenders are wrong about that. [[Liberal]]s inevitably demand censorship of ideas that challenge their views. You say you're not a liberal, but you do support gun control and you have insisted that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, an atheistic view. I'd be hard-pressed to think of a single politically conservative position that you've taken in nearly two years here, but perhaps there are some. Regardless, we're not going to censor here evidence about the beliefs of a president.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:18, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::: "''But we're not going to censor evidence that you and other Obama defenders are wrong about that''": First, I'm not an "Obama defender". I have a number of objections to him. Second, in what way are we wrong?
:::::::::::::: "''[[Liberal]]s inevitably demand censorship of ideas that challenge their views.''": Maybe so, but that doesn't mean that everyone who demands censorship is a liberal, and I've already rejected that removing false and irrelevant information is censorship.
:::::::::::::: "''You say you're not a liberal...''": Yes, I do, but more importantly, how is that relevant? Talking about ''my beliefs'' rather than ''the issue at hand'' is an ''ad hominem'' argument—a ''logically invalid'' argument. An argument typically used by people who have no valid argument. Why don't you stick to the issue?
:::::::::::::: So let's get back to the real question: In what way are we wrong?
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::Philip, I said that "liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship." That is not calling you "a liberal" as you claim (with inappropriate bolding). Perhaps you still maintain that supporting gun control is not a "liberal belief"; perhaps you also think that insisting that "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" is not atheistic. The evidence is otherwise. Regardless, information about the actual beliefs of the president will not be censored here to appease someone's dislike of it.

:::::::::::Historians and encyclopedias do examine the beliefs of presidents, and do not simply fall for self-serving comments by presidents. An independent inquiry is appropriate and will continue to provide the evidence for readers to decide, demands for censorship notwithstanding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: As LowKey correctly points out below, by saying "We're seeing an illustration of that here...", then you ''are'' calling me a liberal, which is a lot more inappropriate than some bolding to grab your attention. Further, if you didn't mean it, you could have simply said "I didn't mean to call you a liberal; I don't think you are", but no, instead you try and justify the name-calling that you also attempt to deny! So I still expect an apology. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: Philip, see point 55 in [[liberal style]] about demands for apologies, which was written long ago.

::::::::::::: You're more than welcome to your views and we welcome many liberals to this site. But you've advocated for [[gun control]] here and insisted that beauty is in the eye of the beholder (which is an atheistic viewpoint). So I don't doubt that you hold some liberal beliefs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:53, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::: As BRichtigen says below, the page refers to ''silly'' demands for apologies, which mine isn't. So I still expect an apology for calling me a liberal. (Incidentally, that point 55 is referenced to an article which doesn't mention apologies!)
::::::::::::::: Contrary to the way that BRichtigen read your comment, I think that "here" referred to ''on Conservapedia'', not ''in the U.S.''. But I'm not sure that I've even done that. I've said that I ''support'' gun control, and argued against many of the arguments put against gun control, but I don't think I've ever "advocated for" it. Neither did I "insist" that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But again, you are discussing ''me'' rather than the ''issue'', and worse, ''speculating'' about my beliefs, rather than being prepared to say, "Philip, I accept that you are a conservative". You seem to be implying that I'm a conservative who holds a few liberal beliefs, but you keep emphasising the speculated liberal beliefs and never acknowledge that I'm a conservative, which makes me wonder if you really do consider me a liberal.
::::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:56, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::::: Philip, you support gun control, and admit it. That is clearly a fundamental liberal belief, from which other liberal beliefs inevitably flow. You also repeatedly deleted a point in another entry based on your view that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is a view espoused by atheists. I don't think I ever called you a liberal but I am convinced you hold some liberal beliefs. I'm not going to lie and say otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 27 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::*point 55 in [[liberal style]] refers to ''silly demands for apologies.'' I can't see anything silly on Philip J. Rayment's demand.
::::::::::::::*AFAIK, Philip J. Rayment never advocated [[gun control]] '''in the U.S.'''. However, as an Australian conservative, he's for gun control '''in Australia'''.
::::::::::::::*I don't know how aesthetics come into play here, but for the record: yes, there may be absolute beauty, but for the sake of the fashion industry, our view of the beauty of a lot of things changes
::::::::::::::*And for the record: I'm not a liberal, neither, though I'm for gun control in my home country - but I don't want to export this model to the U.S. Have a look on the stance of the Catholic Church against capital punishment. Does this make the pope a liberal? --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 07:24, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, you are veering quite far off-topic here, a very liberal trait. You also are resorting to personal attacks, another liberal trait. You are also denying that PJR's evidence is intrinsically valuable, which is apparently an atheistic viewpoint. Are you a closet liberal?--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:02, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:JZim was blocked for this comment. Does anyone else see a problem? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:12, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::No, and anyone who does should have the personal integrity to resign. Talk, talk, talk, without contributing isn't allowed, never has been. That user signed up this month, and constantly engaged in argument and time wasting. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:31, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::: Personal attacks and accusations, troublemaking, mimicry, and absurd suggestions of atheism. I gave him 3 days to cool off. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:24, 25 November 2008 (EST)
:::But do you plan to give Schlafly a three day block also? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::::When he starts mimicing other users, making trouble while contributing nothing to discussion, and I'm capable of doing so, I'll consider it. Can we please leave it at that?[[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:29, 25 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Maybe only 2 days as there was no mimicry from Andy, and "troublemaking" would be stretch. The rest applies, though.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]]
::::::Hmm. Mimicing others is really not a valid block reason per se. You also said he was blocked for personal attacks, accusations and absurd suggestions of atheism. Can you just unblock JZim? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:34, 25 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Done. I'll leave it to the discretion of highers-up, but if you have a problem with Aschlafly, bring it up with ''him'', not me. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:42, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, why disclaim calling Phillip a liberal, and only provide half of the statement (only the latest) you made which did exaclty that. You said "At bottom, liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship. We're seeing an illustration of that here," in response to Phillip's post. You are directly ascribing liberal beliefs - which you had already made clear means political liberal beliefs - to Phillip. So yes you are calling him a liberal. If you wish to back away from that, the way to do it is to retract and apologise, not qualify and dilute.

Also, when you claim that pronouncing Pakistan the '''correct''' way is evidence that one is muslim, objections based on truth and relevance are not calls for censorship. They are merely calls for truth and relevance. (Really, such "evidence" is absurd) I notice a late addition to the "evidence" deals with Obama's popularity with muslim voters. If we saw a similar pattern amongst female voters, that would not be evidence that Obama is a woman. None of this is evidence that leads to a conclusion; these factoids (i.e. they are shaped kind like of facts) read as little more than exhibits for the prosecution.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:37, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:Many would say that the only way we can arrive at a true and complete picture of any politician is to take a look at their life before gaining elected office. Once running for office, or on that merry-go-round of always running for re-election, how is anyone to gain a glimpse of the real person? Every bit of information, once elected (especially as President) is so managed, so structured, a true picture can never be painted. With President-elect Obama, there are more unanswered questions than anyone I can think of elected President in modern times. Life isn't fair, and no matter if Obama's supporters dislike the continued inquiry, they should blame Obama and his people, not those seeking answers. If they had categorically answered answered, or permitted the release of his personal information, this all might have been put to rest. But they have continued to stone-wall. Isn't it odd, and indicative of [[liberal deceit]] that personal [[privacy]] is very important to liberals in their own personal lives, but they cherish that of the citizens much less! The reliance upon birth announcements in newspapers, and generic record of live birth, instead of releasing the actual, unaltered birth certificate to prove citizenship, differs from the records available on other modern presidents. The fact that Barack Obama didn't ask the Department of State to make public the travel records of his mom and dad is also cause for concern. Unless and until all information is made available by Mr. Obama, the inquiries Andy speaks of will continue, as that is the responsible course for encyclopedias and scholars who always take the long view, rather than focus on the passions of the here and now. This whole tempest is about those who don't want to hear or think about the possibilities, people willing to sell the truth short because of their political or world view bias. Scholars, and scholarly encyclopedias ask questions, and don't state as factual anything that lacks full disclosure, like Obama's religious instruction and training, his place of true birth, and his questionable associations. Conservatives fight for the truth, [[liberals]] seek to obsfucate and dismiss intellectual curiosity, always demanding "facts" that cannot be readily produced because the subject of the questions refuses to own up. Look at what your position is, and if the (liberal) shoe fits, wear it. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:46, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::Sweeping assertions do not make themselves true. "Inquiry" is seeming less and less appropriate for this. "Inquisition" would be more accurate, for one knowing the Spanish Inquisition's main objective (finding closet infidels). I have looked at my position (truth and relevance) and the conservative shoe is rather a nice fit, thank you. Presenting pronunciation, birth name, parental beliefs and voting patterns as evidence of any person's current belief is not presenting information in any useful way at all. It is demonstrating a conclusion that is looking for support. If the facts are not readily available, do not present irrelevant factoids in their place. I ''believe'' Obama's stated Christianity to be "liberal" and largely nominal, and probably politically motivated. But none of the "evidence" presented here has led (or would led) me to that conclusion, it is too weak and strident. There is much more concrete evidence to question Rudd's (PM of Australia) Christianity, but I do not see any of that on his CP article. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:10, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::[http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_logic|"Claiming that their viewpoints are being censored, while actually they are the ones censoring their opponents."] is #3 on the list of [[Liberal logic]] When it was about Sarah Palin or John McCain, where were the calls to end inquiry, being less and less "appropriate"? By United States standards, even self-proclaimed conservatives wouldn't be regarded as conservatives here. Asking questions, raising questions, is what an encyclopedia does, or as Andy stated: ''"Historians and encyclopedias do examine the beliefs of presidents, and do not simply fall for self-serving comments by presidents. An independent inquiry is appropriate and will continue to provide the evidence for readers to decide, demands for censorship notwithstanding."'' This isn't a debating society, it is a project to build an encyclopedia. The fact that supposedly "trusted editors" won't end this revert war, nor step back from this issue, is yet another sign (for most of us) of [[Liberal Deceit]]. Being a conservative also means respecting the authority of the powers that be. In being Christians, we are taught to submit to authority on earthly matters. I consider Andy Schlafly a trusted friend. Do we ever disagree? Anyone who has been around CP knows we have! But I have never repeatedly (or otherwise) reverted his work, instructed him on how my opinion made his wrong, how my thinking was logical, and his was not. The fact that so much of this time-wasting by an Administrator is allowed is more than proof as to how open-minded and indulgent Andy is, and the continued opposition, in repeated public displays of disrespect is unseemly, and certainly not reflective of American conservative values. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:16, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Your first sentence just confuses me, as the claims of "censorship" here are claims of "liberal censorship". So apart from being a hand-waving sweeping generalisation, it also seems to be a malapropism. Also, you seem to have misunderstood my "inquiry" comment. I am not saying that inquiry is inappropriate (intelligent inquiry, at any rate). I am saying that "inquiry" is an inappropriate term for what is going on here. I suggest "inquisition" as the correct term, referring to the fact the the Spanish Inquisition was undertaken to identify and prosecute secret infidels claiming to be Christian. Are you accusing Andy or PJR of liberal deceit? They are the two editors reverting, that I can see, so it must be one of them. Given that PJR gives reasons for removal and ''asks for'' reasons for inclusions, but Andy generally keeps claiming "liberal censorship" (but insists that he is ''not'' calling PJR a liberal), and your earlier observation about liberal logic one could conclude that you are refering to Andy. Now I don't think that that is the correct conclusion, but it ''is'' the conclusion that most closely matches the facts (i.e. every other conclusion makes '''less''' sense). Let's build an encyclopedia; let the inquiry be ''intelligent'' and factual; let real, relevant facts speak for themselves; avoid prosecutorial exhibits, avoid insisting on the most condemnatory interpretations when other interpretations are far more likely. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:51, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::: "''Being a conservative also means respecting the authority of the powers that be. In being Christians, we are taught to submit to authority on earthly matters.''": Whose authority does Andy submit to? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:48, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::*Philip, Andy Schlafly is the owner of this site. ''Here, he submits to no one''. And that is how it should be. If you are meaning generally, in his life, as a Christian, he submits, offers up to Jesus Christ and his Father In Heaven, who has the final "say" on everything. While one can appeal to Andy, one has absolutely no right to continue to question (or dispute) his will as to CP, especially as an Administrator, and publicly. Contrary to your false and misleading assertion on your talk page, ''"As administrators, we enforce the rules, we don't decide the truth. That is exceeding our authority."'' you have constantly done so, and continue to do so on this page. Please don't tempt me to present evidence of such, okay? I think Andy has been more than a good sport on this issue, but it is long past the time you should walk away from this, because your [[liberal]] opinion is not going to prevail. Perhaps you could concentrate on presenting scientific, or even good & irrefutable empirical evidence for the age of Earth? You have been using (trading on) your position as an Administrator of Conservapedia to continue to argue beyond the point any "normal" editor would be allowed to without being blocked by you or one of the other administrators. Your lack of humility, which is a Christian trait, has become an embarrassment. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:21, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: TK, you say that ''as a Christian'', he submits to Jesus, which is true, but your point was that as Christians we should "submit to authority ''on earthly matters''". Yet now you sidestep that by saying that Andy doesn't have to. Further, I (and others) would suggest that Andy sees Conservapedia as something that God has called him to do, in which case it is wrong to say that he "submits to no one" regarding Conservapedia.
::::::: To clarify my admittedly-ambiguous comments on my talk page, as editors (which hat I also wear), we need to try and ''determine'' truth, but we can't, as editors ''or administrators'', ''decide'' truth, in the sense of ''decreeing'' something to be so. As editors ''or administrators'', we can only attempt to ''determine'' the truth by the use of logic and evidence (as Andy agrees). But Andy is effectively here ''decreeing'' truth, because he's not been using logic and evidence to ''determine'' truth, but simply ''asserting'' that certain things are true. If you have evidence of me doing ''that'', then please present it.
::::::: My opinion is not a "liberal" one, and I'd thank you to not malign me that way.
::::::: Yes, I have been trading on my position as administrator to argue this point, because Andy is trading on ''his'' position as site owner to insert his POV into the article, contrary to the evidence ''and the views of other administrators''.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:03, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::::::And what happened to Matthew 7:1, which certainly can be applied hear in the same way that you yourself have applied it? [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:33, 26 November 2008 (EST)

:::::And the accusations continue. How is objecting to repeated condescending false accusations a lack of humility? Phillip attempted to keep this about the content of the article, but Andy's responses have either been to repeat assertions without support (or even argument) or (even worse) to use ad hominem dismissals to avoid addressing the objections. And you call that being a good sport? As to your comment about humility: speck, meet plank.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:00, 26 November 2008 (EST)

*Philip seems to have retired from his stubborn insistence to revert the owner of this encyclopedia, and my suggestion to you, LowKey is that you should now become just that: low key. CP's toleration of argument-without-end is becoming lower and lower because of non-discussions like this one. If you want to continue as you have been, why not go to Wikipedia and endeavor to engage Mr. Wells as you have Mr. Schlafly here? I very much doubt you would still be an editor there after so doing! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:08, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:*I ''am'' an editor on WP and my evangelical Christian (and hence conservative) standards - including my insistence on truth and relevance - get me labelled a fringe lunatic. It's interesting that '''the same''' standards get one labelled a liberal on CP. The difference is that on WP my Christian views are at least dismissed because they are Christian views, while on CP it seems that disagreement need only be labelled "liberal" do be dismissed regardless of the facts. I have seen almost as much prejudice and bigotry here as on WP, and considering the comparative sizes of the two sites, that's a serious indictment of the general enviromnent on CP. It's depressing that in this confessedly Christian environment fellow Christians are treated worse than they are treated by the misotheists on WP. I think I need a break (and here I though CP would be ''refreshing''.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:33, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::Funny you should put it like that, because most of us can't quite believe that you're still an editor here after your SDG shenanigans. --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:22, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::*While liberals have proved to be interested in retribution, attacking people personally and [[deceit]], JohnZ, Christians and conservatives believe in forgiveness. I understand why you "can't quite believe", because you just don't believe in anything other than material things. And while conservatives believe in ''facts'', from your comments, being on the outside looking in, liberals offer comments and supposition about things they cannot possibly know about first-hand. God's speed to you! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:37, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::::Hmm. Even if it's forgiven, my money's on it not being forgotten. You speak to TerryH much these days, TK? --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:50, 26 November 2008 (EST)

== ==

Not that it should make a difference in the first place to one's opinion of him, but the claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim has been repeatedly disproven. Not only is he a lifelong Christian, but his nominally Muslim father was in fact an atheist, and not a practicing Muslim himself. I find it unfortunate that people who call themselves Christians, conservatives, and patriots perpetuate repeatedly disproven falsehoods under the cover of truth, and blame any criticism of their lies on the "liberal media" and political correctness. It is not "liberal" or "conservative" to tell the truth. There are plenty of issues for conservatives to oppose Obama on without manufacturing information about him, and were you to do so, it would make mainstream America take you more seriously. This does not help the cause in the least.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] November 18 2008

: The above editor was blocked for 5 years for infractions that included editing someone else's comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::Thanks. I was rather shocked to see someone editing my comments to make me look like a racist, for no conceivable reason. That's a real low of deceit. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 00:09, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:*To [[liberals]], the end always justifies the means, sadly. We used to have a pretty good political discourse in America. Then the Bill Maher's, the George Soros's infected the [[MSM} and the colleges, and what we see at CP is happening everywhere. A woman has a Down's baby, rather than abort it, as the liberals demand she should have, and they must endure all the slime Hell has to offer, like Sarah Palin did. Here they wait day and night to sneak bad info into CP, so they can brag about it elsewhere. They edit comments, change user names or just their sigs to appear to be someone else, to start fights. Where in the world are there Christians and/or conservatives doing that? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:50, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::''To liberals, the end always justifies the means, sadly''. The irony of this comment being placed on this page in particular is truly remarkable. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:33, 24 November 2008 (EST)

==Mr.Schlafly, take heart!==

Mr. Schlafly,

I commend you on joining a long list of great minds who, despite all the superficial [[Liberal]] based evidence, managed to see the truth and purged his mind of all pernecious and evil [[Liberalism]]. It is undeniable that Obama is a Muslim, and thanks to you, millions of people around the world have embraced the truth of conservatism, and its spectacular ability to find the truth, even when the [[Liberal]] based evidence distorts and twists the truth. The only thing I can say to you Mr. Schlafly is to take heart! These [[Liberals]], who would take and twist our infallibable country and out impenatrable conservative hearts and minds will never allow their 'evidence' to supersede the truth! We shall win this culture war Mr. Schlafly, with great minds like yours! [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 22:23, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::Is it wrong that I find this amusing?--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::Liberals often are easily amused. Or at least they pretend to be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::Andy, you are quite quick to assume that anyone you either disagree with or simply do not understand is a liberal. You display a profound inability to read user pages (read mine), at the very least. What I find amusing is that this obvious parody has not been deleted, as parodies usually are. And are you claiming that I am pretending to be amused? Why would I pretend? I have no reason to lie, and I have no wish to assume that anyone else is, either. I would, instead, examine the evidence. I would advise you to do the same. I believe, as well, that I recently read something written by someone who apparently opposed you, in which he exhorted you to refrain from bearing false witness against others. Please do not disrespect the teachings of Jesus; I respect them very much and would like to see them respected by others. Lastly, I apologise for my long-winded reply, but I think it is necessary.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:46, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== Islam ==

You've gotta be kidding me. Obama is not a muslim, you tools. The thing about "his Muslim faith" was taken out of context, and you damn well know it. Also, someone who knows Arabic, and has heard the call to prayer and considers it to be pleasant-sounding does not a Muslim make. I was deployed to Iraq in 2005, and appreciated the musical quality of the morning call to prayer, and I am by no means a Muslim. I'm sure Malcolm X's fight for racial equality inspired plenty of non-Muslims too. And holy crap, someone read a book written by a Muslim, they too must be a dastardly terrorist. And yes, I'm sure Obama chose his SS code name based on the several hundred-year old etymology of "renegade".

But, I should have known that you hacks wouldn't actually write a legitimate article on Obama. None of you have even an inkling of what actual, scholarly research, and unbiased writing is all about. [[User:Ottotanaka|Ottotanaka]] 09:23, 22 November 2008 (EST)

:Oh, and unless the guy above me is trying to be sarcastic, he should probably be locked up for having the mental age of a 3 year old. [[User:Ottotanaka|Ottotanaka]] 09:25, 22 November 2008 (EST)

::I think he was being sarcastic, but I could be wrong. I've seen similar attitudes put forth in complete seriousness.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 12:11, 22 November 2008 (EST)

== Formatting? ==
I understand the reason why this page is locked, but could a sysop fix the formatting? Every other page on this site that has a table of contents has it right after the introduction. This should too. The first section should come after the table of contents. I know this is minor, but for some reason, it's really bugging me. Thanks [[User:JANorton|JANorton]] 14:16, 22 November 2008 (EST)

: Why is it bugging you? No, not "every other page on this site" has a table of contents up front, and even if every other one did, consistency is not something to be worshiped.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:19, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Clever, JANorton, clever. By moving the table of contents, you'd bury the information about Obama's muslim faith further down the page, reducing the number of people who would see it. Nice try. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 14:30, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::That wasn't actually my goal, but now that I understand why the table of contents is below the first section. I was really just going for consistency here, but I withdraw my request. [[User:JANorton|JANorton]] 14:36, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Consistency is the hallmark of excellence. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:12, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::''Truth'' is the hallmark of excellence. You've proven yourself to be a liberal through your edits to this wiki, and your attempt to [[Placement bias|hide this information]] under the name of 'consistency' will not do. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:16, 22 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Very well put, Rod. Truth matters far more than consistency does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:21, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I noted two years ago in studying American history that the college-level textbooks we used would present liberal presidents in a consistent fashion: general information, positives, then negatives (typically glossed over, especially in the cases of FDR, Carter, and Clinton), while the conservative presidents were presented in the ''opposite'' order. Reagan's description jumped right into Iran-Contra and accusing him of threatening nuclear war. I guess the only consistency is consistent bias. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Aschafly, who are you trying to kid saying lines like "truth matters more than consistency"? You care nothing whatsoever about truth, as evidenced by you erroneously calling Obama a Muslim and then devoting a paragraph to his CHRISTIAN pastor Wright. Pick a story and stick with it.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] 16:31, 23 November 2008

:::::: That's an excellent observation: "the only consistency is consistent bias." I recall Jesus had a parable about laborers in the vineyard that pointed out how wrong an insistence on a foolish consistency can be. In that parable, the owner pays inconsistently as he likes. From the other end of the spectrum, Emerson criticized worship of a foolish consistency.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:42, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Since you bring up Jesus, the 10 Commandments include "thou shalt not lie". Maybe if you actually knew more about Christianity, you would know this.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: I suspect it's the simple fact that a closed mind ''always'' needs to fit information into strict, predetermined categories. New and different knowledge scares such a person, as it breaks the boundaries they're so used to. But I digress. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:44, 22 November 2008 (EST)

(Unindent) Why is the TOC at the top of all the other biographical articles then? Is its purpose to be useful in getting at the truth or to be untruthful? As I see it the rest of the article is more accessible if the TOC is within the first page view, and that is an opinion informed by a number of books and articles I have read on the subject. As for me being liberal I'm just more centrist than you, I still lean right, my edits just lean towards the middle mark because I am more liberal than the average conservapedian. My edits typically do not land on a pov issue however, they are typically issues of format and factual issues, but this is not a blog so I'll stop there. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 21:02, 22 November 2008 (EST)

==Template==
Is it about time to put the president infobox up on this page? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 15:02, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:Maybe when he actually becomes the president. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 16:09, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Do you think that will not happen? Why not be proactive? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 20:52, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::I think there is a hysteria with acting like Obama is already president. Our president is still George W. Bush and it's and insult to him to downplay the remainder of his presidency by focusing everything on Obama. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 21:00, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::::That is why they call the president a lame duck during this period, if in four years a conservative takes it the format will be changed late Tuesday election night. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 21:04, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Has Barack Obama been sworn is as president? No. Has he at any time held the title of 'president'? No. Do we have a 44th president yet? No. These are simple facts. He's not the president. When he becomes the president, THEN give him an info box. Stop trying to make this a partisan issue...they're just facts.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 21:50, 22 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim/Rev. Wright==

Ashafly endlessly repeats the demonstrative falsehood that Obama is a Muslim, yet devotes a paragraph to the controversy surrounding Obama's CHRISTIAN Reverend Wright. Pick a version of the truth and stick with it. .[[User:ChristianBlade1|ChristianBlade1]] 21:50, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:This has already been discussed ''ad nauseam'', and a decision reached. Please see the archives for this page (links at the top).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:30, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::I'm not sure there's a point in even responding to these register-only-to-whine type liberals. If they're not going to contribute or ask meaningful questions, we should just ignore and move on to more important matters. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:55, 24 November 2008 (EST)

As per Aschafly's instruction, I recreated my account with the proper username. In response to being labeled a "register-only-to-whine type liberal", why is that anyone who points out blatant inaccuracies in articles is labeled a whining liberal? Shouldn't conservative Christians care about telling the truth in their articles? I am not saying this trying to pick fights, I am simply commenting that the most effective way for conservatives to oppose Obama is with his own proven record.
[[User:CBrown|- CBrown]] 11:55, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks for re-registering, and please don't take the 'whining' comment to heart. I'm sure you'll appreciate that the Obama article is controversial, so I'd suggest you check the archives before commenting as there is a good chance the points you made have been made and discussed before (as in this case). Really, an emotive subject like Obama isn't an ideal place for a new user to begin.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:11, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::90/10 applies, especially if you take it literally. A newbie would have to make 10 substantial edits before making an ideological comment. It's like the rule against loitering, though. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::::: No, Ed, and it's unfortunate that you, a senior administrator, don't appear to understand the rule. The rule ([[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment 7]]), if taken literally, would require a newbie making at least ''one'' quality edit for each ''nine'' talk-page comments. So unless that was a simply typo on your part, perhaps you should review blocks you have made on this faulty understanding and unblock all those who ''didn't'' break the rule? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:16, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::::You both have a point, but I'm a great believer in trying to be civil to new users if there's even a small chance they might be for real. Even liberals could contribute a great deal to politically-neutral pages, if they could only be persuaded to divert their efforts away from the endlessly repetitive discussions that take place here.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:00, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Absolutely. I'm all in favor of being civil (and against immediately blocking or otherwise belittling). It's just that, given the endless flow of them, we almost need copy-and-paste responses to the most common interruptions. Your above response would be almost perfect for that purpose. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)

The last two New Yorkers I spoke to about Obama's religion said that he is a Muslim. Even if they are wrong, the perception is there. I think the article should say "regarded as a Muslim".

I'd also like the article to address the dispute between those conservatives who assert Obama is not a Christian and other people who say Obama is a Christian. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:17, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Frankly, part of the reason for Obama being regarded as a Muslim is because of the erroneous and unsubstantiated reporting claiming him as one. [[User:CBrown|- CBrown]] 12:23, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:But why would the two Muslims I consulted believe this? One was a Democrat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:41, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== Talk page edits ==

I was just reading the Recent Changes page, and I noticed that RodWeathers deleted a talk page edit. Isn't this against the rules? I am as much against "liberal troublemaking" as you are, Rod, but I am also very much against censorship.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 17:58, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:There's an enormous difference between censorship and removing liberal vandalism and senseless attacks against the editors of this site. What I removed was a baseless accusation against the editors of wilfull deceit of the public. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:00, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::Rod, please define censorship.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 18:07, 24 November 2008 (EST)
The talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article. Comments that are not about ways to improve this article can be removed. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 18:20, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:This is not Wikipedia, and sysops may remove any information which is not related to the purpose of building a trustworthy encyclopedia. "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:46, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== Personal remarks ==

I dislike reading remarks like the following:
*I'm accusing you of only offering opinion
*Look at what your position is, and if the (liberal) shoe fits, wear it.
*unlike some you support here, I don't ban people
*way to do it is to retract and apologise
*you accused me
*you are calling him a liberal
*You say you're not a liberal

Those who recall writing any of the above phrases, please review [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. Thank you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:44, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Well "way to do it is to retract and apologise" is mine, and it was not a personal remark. In context (i.e. the rest of the sentence ''at least''), I was saying that if an editor wanted to back away from remarks made about and objected to by another editor, then the "way to do it is to retract and apologise" rather than retroactively qualify the remarks.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:16, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:And this is related to Barack Obama in what way? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:26, 25 November 2008 (EST)

: How about Andy calling me a liberal? Why don't you list ''that'' as a "personal remark"? Further, there is a difference between a "personal remark" (i.e. ''about'' the person) and a ''derogatory'' remark. Sometimes it is appropriate to say something ''personal'', especially when it's in defence of some criticism, as the first one on your list was.
: "''And this is related to Barack Obama in what way?''": Exactly, Ed. How is calling me a liberal relevant to Barack Obama? How is Andy bringing up my views on gun control relevant to Barack Obama?
: How is Andy ''speculating'' about my other political views relevant to Barack Obama?
: How about you apply those standards more consistently?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:00, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::Kindly avoid making personal remarks like the above on article talk pages. You are invited to contribute your thoughts on what our standards for interpersonal communication should be, but such contributions need to be made in the appropriate venue. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:54, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Can we add this to the list:
* you appear to have a closed mind
Or does it not count because of the source? Oh, and Philip, I know how you will respond, with claims that it is fair comment, justified by my stance, etc, etc, etc. But just for once, step back and reflect: are not those of us who call you Liberal making fair comment, justified by your stance on a host of issues, from Obama to protecting Liberal saboteurs? And can I add a further term - it hasn't been used yet, but I feel it hovering:
* whited sepulchre
[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:41, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Remarks like the following are out of place here. This talk page is only for discussing changes to the [[Barack Obama]] article.
*bringing up my views on gun control
*calling me a liberal
*I know how you will respond
*speculating about my other political views
*you apply those standards more consistently
*you appear to have a closed mind

If you have complaints about other users, do not bring them up on article talk pages. Persistent violators of this rule will be excluded from the project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:01, 27 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama as a Muslim ==

This is a kind of silly accusation here. The citation at the top (currently citation 4 to the Christian Science Monitor) is misleading - since a Muslim was allowed to swear in on the Koran does not suggest that someone else will. That note would be just as applicable to anyone else.

As for the evidence that he is a Muslim, is this what the article should be focusing on? It makes the article seem rhetorical - that the only concern is for his faith and not his political positions.

* Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[21][22]
This is false. His father was an atheist, his mother a Christian. And as the article goes on to say, he received Christian or at least secular education for most of his life. In any case, what does saying someone's "outlook" is Muslim mean?

: You're clueless about Islam, in which the father raises the sons in the religion. Also, Obama's mother was not a Christian in any meaningful sense. In fact, she disliked Christianity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Obama's middle name (Hussein) references Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad[23], which most Christians would not retain. [24]
Husssein means "beautiful" in Arabic, indeed a reference to the grandson of Muhammed, but again the citation that most Christians would not retain it is misleading - it's more of a footnote than a citation. I am a Christian and my middle name is a reference to a saint. I cannot imagine converting to another faith, but if I were to, I doubt that I would drop my middle name.

: A Christian convert would not likely retain the name of Muhammad's grandson as his own. Many Christian religions ''require'' adopting a Christian name at baptism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Obama recently mentioned his religion as "my Muslim faith."[25]
This was clearly Obama being sarcastic. I'm as hardened a Conservative as anyone, but listen to the interview. It's linked to from [[my Muslim faith]].

: "Sarcastic"??? Right after Obama said not to play games? I've heard wacky explanations for Obama's statement, but never heard yours before. It's far=fetched.

* On the campaign trail, Obama was reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,[30] which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.[31]
I've read books by Muslim authors (maybe), I've read books by Jewish authors, I've read books by atheist authors. I don't think that this says that I am not a devout Christian. Also, this seems to suggest that this Fareed Zakaria is not a Muslim, or at least not a devout one http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/ . (Also holy smokes, the guy has a B.A. from Yale and a Ph.D. from Harvard.) I have not read the book, so maybe the book is different.

:It's unusual for a Christian to pick out and earnestly read a book about the world from a Muslim point of view, except perhaps to criticize it. Possible, but unlikely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.
Again, this applies to anyone, and rings of McCarthyism. How do we know George Bush isn't a closet Muslim? This goes back to the Koran issue - just because it's possible doesn't mean that it's true. Occam's razor, guys.

: "McCarthyism"??? Wow, perhaps you're a liberal to reach for that card. Christians who think people what they say they do need to beware of this Islamic doctrine. Sounds like you weren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.[32]
I don't see the problem with this - if anything, it seems respectful.

: Try harder to "see the problem." Pronunciation has long been used to accurately identify one's beliefs or origins. I hope you don't object to other means of identification too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Obama has chosen the Secret Service code name "Renegade". "Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior, but its first usage was to describe someone who has turned from their religion. It is a word derived from the Spanish renegado, meaning "Christian turned Muslim."[35]
This is just false. Renegado simply means "to deny" in the past sense, and while I don't doubt it was used in the way given, that is not the meaning of the word. And in any case, do you think that if Obama were a closet Muslim he'd drop all sorts of tiny clues like this?

: You seem to really like the phrase "closet Muslim"!! Odd. As to "renegado", learn more about what the word really means.

Not that I should have to defend myself to make changes like this, but I am a devout Christian and a staunch Conservative. I take plenty of issue with Barack Obama, but spending time accusing him of being a Muslim rather than criticising his policies makes the authors of this article look childish. One other thing that the article does not address is why we care whether he's a Muslim. What are the implications of this?

--[[User:Conservativecarl|Conservativecarl]] 20:23, 25 November 2008 (EST)

: Oh right. You're such a staunch conservative that you accuse others of "McCarthyism" (which no conservative would do) and love the expression "closet ____". Your British spelling of "criticising" is hardly reassuring. Obama is smoother and more persuasive than you are!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

:: The spelling is from Linux's auto-correct. And no conservative would criticiZe McCarthyism? The man was a nut, regardless of his political affiliations. And I don't see the point of pointing out political affiliation, this is merely me demonstrating logical flaws in the article. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." [John 1:1] This is a very powerful statement on the value of literature (among other things, of course), so I think that your accusation of it not being Christian to read a book from someone with a different point of view for some purpose other than to criticize it is very wrong. --[[User:Conservativecarl|Conservativecarl]]

::: "Conservativecarl", you're obviously no conservative and you're not fooling anyone here. Maybe you'd like to spend your time trying to fool someone somewhere else. If you'd like to stay here, then provide your real first name and last initial so that your account can be changed, and your country of origin.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:10, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I am an American-Canadian dual citizen, currently residing in Canada for school (with plans to move back to the states and get a job after). First name is actually Paul, initials AC. This doesn't seem important though. In any case, here are the things that I'd like you to address.
:::: 1. Taqiyya, as stated in the article, says that a Muslim may deny their faith if it furthers the cause of Islam. Someone makes the claim that you are Muslim, and secretly furthering the cause of Islam in your spare time. Refute this.
:::: 2. The conversion rate statistic is a statistic fallacy. In many Islamic countries, apostasy is punishable by death, which would at least partially explain the low statistic. The conversion rate from Islam, given that the person has come to a free country such as America, is much higher. Also, Kenya is about 80% Christian, and only 10% Muslim, so Obama's father would be very familiar with other faiths.
:::: 3. Have you ever read The Catcher In The Rye, or Man's Search for Meaning? Both are by Jewish authors, although there is much to be gained from them by a Christian reader, and many Christians have found a lot of meaning in them. This seems to go against your statement that Christians would not read them. Explain.
::::--[[User:Conservativecarl|Conservativecarl]] 15:06, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, you said above that, "Many Christian religions require adopting a Christian name at baptism." That may be, but the denomination into which Obama was baptized (United Church of Christ) would ''not'' require him to make such a change.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 11:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Andy - you also said above that in "Islam... the father raises the sons in the religion". You are aware he never knew his father, and that he only met him once, when he was ten years old? Also, in passing, it would be good if his family background was earlier in the article, as is traditional for bio articles. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 20:25, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Why is Obama, if he is Muslim, such a bad thing? I know that there are many radical muslims in the world, but I also know many who are not. Please explain to me why Islamic President is a bad thing.
:I think it isnt because Muslim is bad, I think its because Obama is trying to cover it up and pretending to be something he is not. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] 17:58, 1 December 2008 (EST)
Well, I think that (again) if Obama is Muslim, he knows he will lose a lot of votes because people dislike muslims for very prejudiced reasons, and even if they say that they are fine, the act of actually voting for one is too hard for them. I think that a muslim president isn't a bad thing, I think a democrat is a lot worse, and that is what should be focused on.

== Fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity ==

The article states:
*''Obama's background, education, and outlook are [[Muslim]], and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.<ref>http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17736/barack-obama-2</ref><ref>http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm. During the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class, according to the LATimes. [http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.obama16mar16,0,1634059,print.story?coll=bal_news_nation_promo Campaign downplays his connection during boyhood in Indonesia, Baltimore Sun, March 16, 2007]</ref>''

While the first link confirms Obama's background, the second link fails to back-up the claim that fewer than 1% of Muslims convert: As I have shown [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Muslim_conversion_rate|earlier]], it gives a conversion rate of 4% for Muslims in non-Magreb Africa and claims that this rate is even higher for well-educated Africans.

Is there any source for the 1% number? And wouldn't be a conversion rate for Muslims exposed to Christianity be more relevant than a world-wide rate?

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 10:21, 26 November 2008 (EST)

: I welcome more data about this. But the rate is effectively 0% in most Islamic countries. The 1% figure is a good approximation worldwide based on the data available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:59, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::I've heard it is illegal (even a capital offense) in Islamic countries to stop being a Muslim. Perhaps that motivates people not to change their religion. Aside from Turkey and maybe Indonesia, I don't know of any Islamic countries with [[religious freedom]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:11, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:::Well Turkey isn't considered a theocracy, though 99% of its inhabitants are moslem. [http://www.enjoyturkey.com/info/facts/Religion.htm]. That's a really interesting tidbit, though, Ed because I'm sure in an Islamic theocracy, conversion to another religion is considered treason and punishable by death. I'm going to try and see if I can't find any stats on Moslems converting from Islam '''specifically''' in Turkey, though with a 99% majority, I have a feeling the 1% figure may be correct. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:15, 26 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Preliminary results (in other words, the first link I clicked). The study I found shows that 35,000 Turks converted from Islam to Christianity[http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/01/are_muslims_lea.php]. Moslems make up 99% of the population of Turkey, which is roughly 75 million. That's a rough conversion rate of 0.05%. However, around the world, over 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity every ''year'' (correction) [http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm]. The world population of Muslims is roughly 1.3 billion people. That leaves a conversion rate of 0.4%. Someone check my math, but that would make the 1% conversion rate pretty accurate. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: You're a bit wrong, mate - the ''rate'' per day is ~0.0046% - and is unreflective of the total number over time. For example, your stats could be used to incorrectly "prove" that within sixty years, all Muslims will have converted to Christianity. Those stats don't prove the point you're trying to make.[[User:Legion126|Legion126]] 21:17, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::: No, your reasoning doesn't follow, because many of the "converts" later return to their childhood religion, as is true in many religions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 26 November 2008 (EST)

(unindent)I wasn't attempting to make a point. Someone got on the topic of numbers so I went and found some, though I'm admitedly not very good with them. I made a correction to my wording; 6 million muslims convert to Christianity every ''year'', not every ''day''. And you're not moving your decimal. 6 million divided by 1.3 billion '''is''' .0046, which translates to ~ 0.5%. I don't think it's fair to say that throughout written history less than 1% of '''all''' Muslims have converted; I think that's inaccurate, and reading through my previous post I came to a conclusion too quickly from the given data. That is still a '''very''' small amount of converts, though I believe the wording in the article should be rearranged to meet the given data. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 00:06, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Jeffrey's math is obviously correct. 6 million/year divided by 1.3 billion < 1 percent. So what part of his argument are you disputing? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:10, 27 November 2008 (EST)

::Well, Ed, given that Jeffrey originally said per day, it was completely valid to dispute it. And regardless of this, a rate per year is not indicative of 1% of all Muslims solidly over time. It proves that less than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity ''per year'', but does not prove the original statement (Though I do apologise for my own incorrect maths).
::Furthermore, given the fact that if Obama converted, it would have been some years ago, probably when he was a fair bit younger. Given recent the recent trend towards a mass increase in population, contemporary figures are only indicative of so much.
::Finally, statistics for Turkey and the world are disanalogous to Obama's situation - the general Muslim population because many live in nations where apostasy is illegal, even a captial offence, and Turkey because it still has a Muslim majority - which America does not. Statistics about the conversion rate among Muslims (specifically, Muslims of East African or, given Obama's education, Indo-Chinese origin) ''in the US itself'' could prove far more enlightening.[[User:Legion126|Legion126]] 19:50, 27 November 2008 (EST)

==Inaccuracy==
Muslim debate aside, I noticed the page starts by listing Obama as a Senator. He resigned that position recently, as he is obliged to do before assuming office in January. Should the article not say he is "president-elect"? Whatever about the disagreements on other aspects of Obama's life, surely this is something everyone can agree on? [[User:AGrath|AGrath]] 14:09, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Thank you![[User:AGrath|AGrath]] 17:00, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== The whole Muslim thing ==

http://malalatete.typepad.com/mal_a_la_tete/images/2008/03/14/obama_swearing_in.jpg

He was sworn in on the Holy Bible. Why would he switch up to the Qur'an as president? Can't we put this behind us? This is a moot point.

: Judging by your edit pattern, I think you're the one obsessed with this.

: Often presidents act differently post-election, and "change" quite a bit from from they were president wannabees. Notice how Obama hasn't gone to church since the election? See our news item about that from a few days ago. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:09, 28 November 2008 (EST)

::Usually, presidents act differently in order to increase their popularity. I don't see how swearing in on the Qur'an would do that. Conclusively presenting himself to be a muslim would only hurt him in his position. He might inspire some people by being so forward, but I suspect it would be outweighed by xenophobia... --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 22:16, 28 November 2008 (EST)

:::So what? He hasn't gone to church. Where would he go to church? He's not a member of Trinity anymore. I don't see him going to a Mosque, either. Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all.

::::Yeah. I really don't think he's a muslim. I think it's unlikely to the point of impossibility. But I was just saying that even if he was a muslim, there would be no point in swearing in on the Qur'an, especially since he is on a pedestal before the world. Wait. There's a contradiction there. People on this site make two arguments: some muslims are allowed to conceal their faith (which they say Obama might be doing), and Obama might swear in on the Qur'an. Those are completely contradictory, because if Obama swears in on the Qur'an (which he won't), the secret's out. Just thinking out loud, I guess. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 23:27, 28 November 2008 (EST)

:::::It's amusing that you say there are no facts to support the idea that Barack Hussein Obama is or ever has been a muslim. Clearly you haven't read the page-long list of facts here. It is unlikely that the liberal Obama fanatics will ever concede the possibility, but that does not absolve us of our duty to try and inform. If only one person has their eyes opened, than I think we've done well. But unfortunately for many, it's true what they say: There is no deception quite like self-deception.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 15:55, 29 November 2008 (EST)

*Exactly, Patriot. Encyclopedia's have a duty to ask questions, and help people make ''informed'' judgments, as A. Schlafly stated (somewhere) above. The fact that __% of people might not agree on where those questions lead, is immaterial. Knowledge, and the questions that cause people to dig deeper, look at things differently, should never be subjected to polls or straw votes! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:03, 29 November 2008 (EST)
**Saying Obama is a Muslim made sense when he was like running for President and all and people wanted to keep him from getting the job.... but now that he's ''got'' the job, so saying Obama is a Muslim only hurts Christianity because it prevents Christians from using Obama as an example to convince Muslims worldwide to consider Christianity.... I mean, here's a guy with an Arab name but who claims to have ''chosen'' Christianity.... the Muslims of the world would jump at the chance to claim the President of the United States as one of their own -- why feed them ammunition to use against Christianity? [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 16:51, 29 November 2008 (EST)
:::But it would be a lie to ay Obama was a Christian if Obama were not, or the evidence were not sufficient to say conclusively that Obama was a Christian. And there is not sufficient evidence to show this beyond doubt, by a very long way. Here at Conservapedia, unlike at Liberal encyclopaedias and web sites, we believe in the truth, in finding it and sticking to it. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:20, 29 November 2008 (EST)

I don't know why you all got to make such a big deal about his religion. Let's talk about his race: did you know he's black? ;-) See also [[Essay:Towards a multi-racial society]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:19, 29 November 2008 (EST)

::::That's the root of the problem, Bugler. We don't know if Obama being a Muslim is the truth. You are absolutely right about one thing though. We do not know that he is a Christian beyond a doubt, either. However, I believe it is impossible to truly know what his (or anyone else's) true beliefs are. All of it is pure speculation.

::::But, every form of this speculation points to Obama being a Christian. So why is it that some are scraping for every last speck of null evidence (yes, it is null evidence) against this, especially when there are much better ways of discrediting him? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:30, 29 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim AND Communist? ==

I find this a bit hard to swallow. Islam and Communism conflict so much that it's impossible to be both. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 17:54, 30 November 2008 (EST)

: You need to open your mind more so you don't find facts so difficult to accept. There is overlap between Marxism and Islam, and we'll be developing entries on it. Search on the internet and you'll find quite a bit.

: Islamic countries are typically not bastions of freedom of religion or freedom of commerce. Those two freedoms often go hand-in-hand. Check out what Saddam Hussein did to Iraqi merchants who used the dollar as currency. It isn't pleasant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:57, 30 November 2008 (EST)

:: I think that incident can be more easily attributed to dictatorship than communism. The main conflict with Islam and communism is that Islam is a religion, while communism prohibits religion. Communism wants every influence of religion gone, while most Islamic countries want religion to be the only influence. Somebody 21 does have a point. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 18:36, 30 November 2008 (EST)

::*A person who stops by merely to ridicule and denigrate others scholarly efforts, without at least trying to make positive contributions to this project, cannot have a "point" other than to disrupt and waste the time of others.

* 15:54, 30 November 2008 (hist) (diff) '''Talk''':Barack Obama‎ (→Muslim AND Communist?)
* 15:53, 30 November 2008 (hist) (diff) '''Talk''':Barack Obama‎ (→Muslim AND Communist?: new section)
* 21:33, 17 November 2008 (hist) (diff) '''Talk''':Barack Obama‎ (→Reply)
* 09:08, 17 November 2008 (hist) (diff) '''Talk''':Barack Obama‎ (→Great comedy article)
* 09:08, 17 November 2008 (hist) (diff) '''Talk''':Barack Obama‎ (→Great comedy article: new section)
--[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:50, 30 November 2008 (EST)

::: So you are saying that if a person has not yet contributed to an article, their opinions should be dismissed as pointless? We should welcome new users, or else this project can never grow. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 18:34, 1 December 2008 (EST)

What [[Marx and Islam]] have in common, as political systems, is opposition to the Western ideals of [[Freedom of religion]] and [[free speech]]. Indeed, both have an anti-Christian bias. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:14, 1 December 2008 (EST)

: Thank you, Ed. But I think that there is a difference between what Islam dictates and what Islamic countries dictate. I am not familiar with the religion, but I don't believe Islam itself would be against free speech. You're definitely right about the anti-Christian bias, though. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:24, 1 December 2008 (EST)

::He's half right, communism doesn't have an anti-Christian bias, it has an anti-religion bias. So it's completely opposed to Islam, just as much as it is opposed to Christianity. It doesn't really work... --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 18:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::: Yes, I think that a bias against religion includes a bias against Christianity (as well as a bias against Islam), but that is beside the point, which is that there are some serious problems with calling Obama a communist and a Muslim at the same time (as pointed out by Bolly and myself), and these problems have still not been addressed. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 18:54, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::: Bolly and JArneal seem to be claiming that none of the over 1 billion Muslims in the world are communists, not one. Did I state that right? Now watch them backpedal off their position above ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:01, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I'm not looking for a confrontation over the article, but I think that if you found a Muslim who was also a communist then he would be considered a 'liberal' muslim, just like if you found a communist christian, I doubt you would find many paralells between your beliefs and their's. Having said that I would be surprised if you found a communist muslim. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:10, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::::Please do not confuse what we are trying to say, Mr. Schlafly. I think that there are just serious problems with calling Barack Obama both a Muslim and a communist. Considering that there are over 1 billion Muslims, I wouldn't be too surprised if a group of them exists somewhere, but that is not the point. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:28, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: Predictably, your two responses above make no sense and conflict with each other. There are Muslim communists. Millions of them. Admit it, or give it up and move on to another issue. I won't be responding to additional obfuscation in the responses.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: I have now triple checked, and found no contradictions with our statements, if you are talking about when he said ''I would be surprised if you found a communist muslim'' and I said ''I wouldn't be too surprised if a group of them'' (communist muslims) ''exists somewhere'', those are not conflicting statements. He said he would be surprised if you found one. I said that they might exist, but I also believe you wouldn't be able to find a single one. Again, please do not confuse what we are trying to say. How do our posts make no sense? I will not admit that there are millions of Muslim communists, because you have provided no evidence whatsoever. Both Bolly and I have been trying to be respectful to you, Mr. Schlafly. Please do not command us to admit things and then leave. I am sorry that you see no reason to continue this discussion. If anyone reading this supports Mr. Schlafly's position, I would like to hear them speak.--'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 21:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)
- ''I also believe you wouldn't be able to find a single one'' How about taking a close look at [[Raila Odinga]], Obama's cousin (and the PM of Kenya), the son of a communist, himself a socialist (and possibly a deep cover Communist), educated at the University of Magdeburg when that city was the hub of East Germany's military and security apperatus, and a man who has achieved power through fomenting a violent uprising with the assistance of radical Islam and has promised to implement Sharia law in Kenya, along with other Islamicising measure. And this the man for whom Obama - the President-elect of the United States of America - campaigned vigorously on a recent reip to Kenya. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:50, 16 December 2008 (EST)

== Insights section ==

While I appreciate some of the points made in this section, particularly the one about President-elect Obama and his campaign's proud participation in homosexual pride events, I fail to see why certain gaffes are mentioned. The '57 states' and forgetting to pluralize "bomb" in his line about Pearl Harbor -- what value does mentioning these minor gaffes bring to an encyclopedia article?

And if these oral lapses are in fact deemed worthy of mentioning, why aren't any of Senator McCain's gaffes included in his article? (The bombing song was in poor taste and various other instances of misspeaking were on par with Obama's state miscount) It was also surprising to note that Governor Palin's far more telling gaffes, especially in the Katie Couric interview, were not to be found on her page. It seems like of all the candidates, her rhetoric was most questionable of all.

Anyway, I do understand that ''is'' Conservapedia and as such, Republican ideals are presented more favorably. However, I really think that some consistency when describing the '08 candidates would serve this site well.

(I won't mention the OBAMA = MUSLIM slant because it's been beat to death)

Cheers. {{unsigned|SJames}}

:Obama's "gaffes" reveal an ignorance about America, from someone who is presented as a bright person. Neither McCain nor Palin had any revealing gaffes of the magnitude of Obama's. Stay tuned, I'm sure Obama will have more illustrations of his astounding lack of knowledge of basic facts about the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:My point is that they really don't reveal an ignorance about America. When we're dealing with historic events as basic as the attack on Pearl Harbor and the number of states in the US, I think it's more rational to conclude that these were slips of the tongue rather than a case of simply not knowing. As you say, he does appear to be an intelligent man and whether you believe that to be an act or not, it does take smarts to keep up that image in the intense public eye. A person capable of such, would know what happened in his birthplace in 1941.

Anyway, I just thought an exposed ignorance on national and world issues would be worth mentioning in the Sarah Palin article if the above have a place in the Obama article. But it's your website so that's fine. (I will attempt to sign this comment below...)--[[User:SJames|SJames]] 14:42, 2 December 2008 (EST)

==Is Obama Hispanic?==

I noticed that in this morning's press conference announcing Bill RIchardson as Commerce Secretary that Obama pronounced "Santiago" as a native Spanish speaker would. It's not a normal way for an English speaker to pronounce that city's name. I wonder what this says about Obama? [[User:BrotherJim|BrotherJim]] 14:23, 3 December 2008 (EST)

*Truthfully, it shows he is a politician and panders when and where he can, like 99% of all of them do. It also shows a liberals proclivity of trying to establish a "simpatico" with other cultures, pardon the pun! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:38, 3 December 2008 (EST)

The evidence that Obama is Hispanic is about as strong as the "evidence" that he is a Muslim, so given his pronunciation of Santiago, Aschlafy should add Obama apparent Hispanic background to the article.
[[User:CBrown|CBrown]] 7 December 2008

:Sadly seems to be the case - the "Pakistan" pronounciation thing is thrown into question by this revelation about "Santiago". If you want to accuse him of "pandering" by pronouncing things correctly, TK, that is entirely your prerogative, but using it as evidence of his faith/ethnicity is questionable.[[User:RadimK|RadimK]] 10:47, 7 December 2008 (EST)

==Category==

I see that there's a '''Category:Obama Administration'''. Shouldn't this be added to this article? [[User:BrotherJim|BrotherJim]] 14:27, 3 December 2008 (EST)

*At Noon, EST, 20 January 2009, that would be the appropriate thing to do. Until then, there isn't any "Obama Administration". --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:35, 3 December 2008 (EST)

::Then why is there a category for it? [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 19:39, 4 December 2008 (EST)

::*Perhaps others, like the editor above, jumping the gun? Is there some special reason this seems to bother you? Can you present some evidence that there is indeed some "''Obama Administration''" serving this country? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:14, 4 December 2008 (EST)

::::I was merely pointing out the irony in a jesting manner. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:16, 4 December 2008 (EST)

It wasn't lost on me. I am surprised they haven't removed the title from Bush's article yet, lol. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:20, 4 December 2008 (EST)

== Muslim? Really? ==

The evidence presented here that Barack Obama is a Muslim are weak, at best. I'm really having a hard time buying the argument that he's a Muslim, and, reading previous comments, that seems to be the general consensus. It would, I think, be much more of a credible argument if you put more emphasis on his views, his dirty political tactics, and his poor record as a Senator; explaining the depth to which he advocates killing babies is much more convincing than trying to denounce him as a Muslim, which you have little to no evidence to support. It makes the otherwise sound article seem badly researched and dependent on rumors and gossip; one of the very reasons I stopped using wikipedia was the quantity of empty claims there, and citing misfitting references here is not much better. We should be working together to keep conservapedia the trustworthy encyclopedia it once was, and not dilute our credibility by presenting guesswork and original research as factual information.

--[[User:Cjalman|Cjalman]] 21:32, 4 December 2008 (EST)

: I understand your concern. The Barack Obama article is one of the mostly hotly debated subjects right now. I am also in favor of changing the article as you said. However, such a change does not have the support of some of the most important administrators, among them Aschlafly. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 21:40, 4 December 2008 (EST)

:: I don't see what the debate is. Everyone knows deep down that Obama is a Muslim, he even admitted it. Just because some Liberals want to deny reality doesn't mean the rest of us have to. --[[User:RightWingAndProud|RightWingAndProud]] 18:51, 11 December 2008 (EST)

==Mind Control?==

The claim that Obama is using mind control seems a bit much. The link goes to brainwashing, which has slightly more subtle connotations (I believe). Perhaps someone could change the article to read brainwashing? [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 15:21, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:We're not about to bury the truth with liberal weasel-words. ''Medical experts'' have noticed that he's using mind-control, and they call it mind-control, not brainwashing. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:17, 5 December 2008 (EST)

The truth? This article is full of unsubstantiated innuendo, half-truths, speculation, and outright falsehoods, but not much truth. If nothing else, this article and its editors prove being a "liberal" and being a "weasel" are not mutually exclusive.
[[User:CBrown|- CBrown]] 7 December 2008

::It is certainly possible I missed the mention, but in the quote I read, it said hypnotism and neurolinguistic programming. The paper that the article quoted did mention mind control, but it used brainwashing more often (as did at least the titles of it's sources. If we think something important is lose by saying brainwashing instead of mind-controlling, I would suggest we keep it as is. I actually thought the reverse. Mind controlling has a blunt, direct mastery connotation, whereas I think brainwashing has more of a subtle, and incredibly insidious connotation for control and influence where the participant is unaware. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 18:33, 5 December 2008 (EST)

==Invalid source==
Just wanted to draw your attention to source 118: http://theinvigilator.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-front-of-disgust.html as it is obviously a joke. [indecent statement removed--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 8 December 2008 (EST)] [[User:420Time|420Time]] 08:08, 8 December 2008 (EST)

: Fine, I've deleted that particular reference. A better reference is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 8 December 2008 (EST)

::This is interestingly indicative of a broader issue with this article - it's built upside down. That is to say, facts are produced to lend weight to arguments already decided on, rather than the facts being synthesised into arguments. For example, in relation to Obama being a Muslim, many of the claims are backed up by spurious sources because those claims neccessitate that kind of scraping that results in errors like the one above. There are arguments to be made that he is a Muslim, sure, but would a more synthesised and less scattergun analysis of things not improve both the article's flow and the article's argument?[[User:RadimK|RadimK]] 17:50, 10 December 2008 (EST)

== Insights ==

The comment about Obama is wearing a flag lapel pin "for reasons that are likely political pandering" is completely speculative. The phrase I quoted here should be removed unless we can find a citation reporting his reasons for wearing the pin.[[User:Bishop|Bishop]] 18:14, 9 December 2008 (EST)
: You should learn quickly that we do not stand for liberal censorship of facts at CP. His pandering is an ongoing trend, not speculation. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:22, 9 December 2008 (EST)
::Rod Weathers, with posts like that you might as well get used to parody accusations. Your post was very clichéd - and the cliché was not applicable in any case – and did not actually respond to the objection. The phrase in question most definitely ''is'' speculative, as it posits a motive that has not been disclosed, and actually uses the modifier “likely”. Bishop quite rightly called for removing the speculation by either deleting the phrase or substantiating it. “It’s true, but don’t say it” is censorship. “If it’s true, back it up” is not.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:57, 9 December 2008 (EST)

::: Early on, Obama ran an anti-patriotic campaign that depended heavily on big donations from moveon.org anti-war types. During that stage, Obama did not wear the flag lapel pin. Later, Obama "changed" in what was obviously pandering to a broader electorate he was attempting to attract. No one seriously disputes this, and a citation to a liberal newspaper that endorsed Obama is not necessary to support it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:09, 9 December 2008 (EST)
::::(EC)::::Bishop disputed it. I disputed it. I was serious, but I won't speculate on Bishop's motives. To be precise, I dispute that the phrase necessarily reflects a fact. It is a speculative phrase. It may well be true, but it is still speculative, and it is certainly not undisputed. If that "insight" was re-cast with ''just'' the facts (i.e. he wore the pin, he had anti-war campaign contributors, he stopped wearing the pin, now he wears the pin again) it would actually make the point that I think it is making much more effectively. To be fair, though, pandering and politicians go hand in hand. They all do it (else they are not politicians for long). Are the "panderings" of other politicians listed in their articles? I don't know about the US but in Oz telling people what they ought to think is a pretty efficient way to stop them from thinking it. And as I said, asking for the statement be supported or removed is '''not''' censorship, liberal or otherwise. It is in fact upholding CP's commandments. I took issue with the fact that a reasonable challenge of an unsupported assertion was dismissed using a cliche trigger phrase. This is the kind of dismissal (equal and opposite, though) that CP rightly criticises in WP.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:55, 9 December 2008 (EST)

::::LowKey, you need to know we are used the the moniker of "parody" dished out by social liberals for anything they cannot even fathom. Like [[Faith]]. Andy Schlafly was right in saying Obama is a panderer, for beginning to wear the lapel pin, reversing his position on ''FISA'', ''No Child Left Behind'' and of course, who could forget his bald-faced lie about always supporting the right to buy firearms, after the SCOTUS ruled against the District of Columbia banning the possession and purchase? I suppose the liberals here will now demand I "prove" he changed his positions on those issues as well...--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 19:36, 9 December 2008 (EST)
:::::TK, firstly I was not accusing of parody. I was pointing out that that is exactly the kind of post that will garner such accusations, though. I guess liberals dish out "parody" the way some conservatives are dishing out "liberal" and "censorship". I explained ''why'' the post would look parodic. Also, see what I said above about pandering. See also what I said about the effectiveness of a "just the facts" approach. There was no demand for proof, only support. And I am not a liberal, although whether or not Bishop is I will not speculate.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:55, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:::::Aschlafly, up near the top of this page, you specifically said, "We provide the information and let the reader decide." Yet in this case, you're perfectly willing to draw the conclusions when they suit you. How is this not inconsistent? Speculative statements are unencyclopedic and belong in an opinion column, not a serious "Trustworthy Encyclopedia."[[User:ETuthill|ETuthill]] 19:23, 9 December 2008 (EST)

"ETuthill", the reader does decide. We're not going to censor the information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:Aschlafly, I reverted this comment by "Etuthill" because I understood it to be trolling. I'm sorry if I was overzealous in that action.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:33, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:*Alexander....generally we don't revert on discussion pages. Let editor's comments show them to be who they are. ;-) --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 19:38, 9 December 2008 (EST)
:::And you just now reverted on Andy's talk page![[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 20:47, 9 December 2008 (EST)
::*Thank you, TK, I'll remember that going forward. Can I still plead "new guy" :) ?-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:46, 9 December 2008 (EST)

::: I'm not a liberal, I was not trolling; I am just interested in seeing facts portrayed as facts, without opinions being added into the mix. It is not "censorship" to suggest that in an encyclopedia, the facts can and should speak for themselves without editorializing. I'm making a suggestion in good faith because I believe that including phrases such as the one I quoted make for a weaker article and less respectability for the project. [[User:ETuthill|ETuthill]] 20:43, 9 December 2008 (EST)

::I agree that the point is best made by ''showing'' the reader that Obama is pandering as opposed to simply stating it. It's a matter of encyclopedic style, but character statements in nonfiction pieces won't affect a reader in the slightest. It may be a ''fact'' that Obama panders by wearing the flag pin now, but the connotation of the word "pander" converts the statement into an assessment as opposed to an account. If you state that he changed his behaviors and list the ways, your reader will be perfectly capable of coming up with the word "pander" independently. If you absolutely ''must'' use the word, you should quote a reputable pundit or journalist (people who we wish to make assessments) .

::OH! Also in the "Obama and Elitism" section, after citation 44, the word "to" is missing in the phrase "in an attempt to counter". --[[User:JKoliner|JKoliner]] 09:46, 10 December 2008 (EST)

==Obama and Blagojevich==

I strongly suspect that this is going to wind up being a new section of the article as the story develops. After all, when Blagojevich says that he's not willing to support Obama's pick because "they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation," that rather strongly implies that he ASKED them what they were willing to give. If that's the case, the fact that they weren't willing to grease his palm is really irrelevant; they knew a serious crime was being committed and said nothing about it, which would make them party to said crime. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:45, 9 December 2008 (EST)

::So Obama's corrupt. We already knew this, as well as him being a socialist and a Muslim, and probably gay as well. --[[User:RightWingAndProud|RightWingAndProud]] 18:51, 11 December 2008 (EST)

::: The whole thing about that is, asking "What's in it for me?" is not, strictly speaking, illegal. It's so far unproven what, if anything, Obama knew about Blagojevich's dealings. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:56, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== Correct Please! ==

Obama is not a Muslim. Among other things, his father was often away on trips. You really need to correct this article and open it up for editing. Also, mind-control? Come on. Obama makes good speeches, but so did Martin Luther King. Why don't you accuse him of mind control?--[[User:DM333|DM333]] 12:35, 12 December 2008 (EST)
:We don't accuse him. ''Medical doctors'' do. And the evidence for his muslim faith are clear and strong. Stop a moment and read, rather than lapping up what the liberal media feeds you. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:40, 12 December 2008 (EST)
::That source was written by one person anonymously and has been decried since then. Look at the comments below it by other ''Medical doctors''. It's not to be taken seriously. --[[User:RonAbdul|RonAbdul]] 15:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Editing some of the crazy stuff. ==

I would do this myself, but it appears that the page is locked form editing, but I think you should take out all the ridiculous and unfounded sections, or ones based solely on oponion. Or, at least, relegate them to a "Conspiricy" or "Criticsms" (or whatever you want to call it) subsection. --[[User:PatF|PatF]] 08:05, 15 December 2008 (EST)
::Many users, myself included, share your view, while there are also a handful who don't. Believe me, you are not the first to raise these issues -- just read previous edits on this talk page! Recently, both sides were working (sort of) on a compromise. Check it out here: [[Conservapedia:Obama_straw_poll]]. Even more recently though, talks seem to have stopped. It could be taking place elsewhere, I don't know. --[[User:SJames|SJames]] 08:33, 15 December 2008 (EST)
::The use of terms such as 'crazy stuff' 'ridiculous and unfounded' and 'conspiracy' is offensive and unhelpful. User PatF is welcome to make substantive contributions to this encyclopaedia, but abusive language will not be tolerated. Nor do we embrace attempts to undo the essential form of the article, arrived at after a good deal of honest debate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:42, 15 December 2008 (EST)
:::I don't know how "arrived" the current form of the article is, though. There was further debate or rather, discussion to reach a compromise at the Obama Straw Poll page. There doesn't seem to have been any changes to the Obama article as a result of it and the discussion has since stopped. Has it been moved elsewhere? I know this may get tiring for some of you who have been debating this topic for a long time, but it's too important to neglect. It's not like those who are firmly against the "Obama is a Muslim" slant have been swayed by any new arguments. They have simply given up on even striving for that compromise they had settled for. That definitely doesn't mean the matter no longer needs addressing. The current state of the article remains as a discrediting force to CP's ''overall'' ideals which is the last thing it needs and deserves. I sincerely hope something can be done. [[User:SJames|SJames]] 09:05, 15 December 2008 (EST)

:::: In response to "PatF" above, you need to do some serious work to improve your spelling. In response to SJames, your quote is incorrect, and no one has identified any errors in the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 09:18, 15 December 2008 (EST)

::::: My apologies, ''likely a Muslim'' is the message that greets the reader before even the TOC. And I think we can all agree that a responsible article is not merely error-free with its facts and quotes -- manipulation and representation of those facts and quotes have a lot to do with it too. The issues with this article have been well-voiced so I won't repeat them. It doesn't seem like your opinion will change at this time. Later perhaps, but most likely not. I'll just try to ignore this article for now and hope for the best. [[User:SJames|SJames]] 09:57, 15 December 2008 (EST)
::::::SJames, there has been exhaustive debate over the Obama article, here and on other pages including the Straw Poll page. The competing views have been presented openly, and attempts at censorship have been discussed and rejected. Why should opinions change unless new facts come to light? Until that hypothetical point any further discussion will serve no purpose except to derail or delay this project, and and attempts to reopen the discussion will be viewed in that light and treated accordingly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:09, 15 December 2008 (EST)
:::::To Aschlafly, sorry about my spelling, I wrote this right before I went to bed and was occuped with other things at the time, but that is not the issue here, and I did not mean to be insulting. And I hardly believe that "No one has identified errors in the Entry", many parts are based off of assumptions about Obama, opinions, and questionable claims. I think, with regard to the muslim issue alone, you can go to any number of reputable factchecking sources which all debunk the Muslim claim. If you are going to make that claim that he is likely a muslim, at least note that there are many sources which disagree with the claim. The "Elitism" claim is an opinion, or, at best, an ad hominem attack. --[[User:PatF|PatF]] 14:07, 15 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: "PatF", your spelling is still atrocious ("occupied" with an "i", "muslim" with a capital "M", etc.). And, no, no one has disproved the statements in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 14:30, 15 December 2008 (EST)
::::::: I suspect that PatF has bought into the [[liberal propaganda]] of Barack Hussein Obama, per our analysis on [[Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?]]. Pat, I understand it's all very compelling, but please take the time to read unbiased news sources before coming to your political conclusions. Conservapedia would be a good start: challenge yourself to think outside of the liberal paradigm that's been built around you and you, too, could come to see the truth.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 14:46, 15 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::Regardless of my spelling (Does it matter? I sometimes miss a letter when typing), You didn't actually respond to the issue that I raised, and no, despite disagreeing with you Alexander, I have not bought into "Liberal Propaganda", fortunately, you see, people actually have different opinions, I have read unbiased sources (this is definitely not one of them), and formed my own opinion about politics. Unfortunately, you guys just seem to respond to my questions with Ad Hominem attacks about my Spelling and me buying into Liberal Propaganda. If YOU could read an unbiased source then respond to my questions then that would be great. Here are a few sites that I have found to be reasonable and, for the most part, unbiased: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp , http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/corsis_dull_hatchet.html , http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/238/ . --[[User:PatF|PatF]] 17:48, 15 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Pat, you're clearly in violation of the 90/10 rule against excessive talk, and an administrator would be justified in blocking you. Please contribute to Conservapedia before raising issues like this, and remember that this wiki has a policy against persistent liberal complaining. I advise you to contribute rapidly before an administrator exercises their right.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 17:49, 15 December 2008 (EST)

== Secrecy section ==

apparently this article is lockad and I can't edit it, but I think someone who can should change the secrecy section...those aren't 'questions that remain unanswered', perhaps 'information that remains hidden'...or similar should be used instead. --[[User:WoodS|WoodS]] 13:36, 16 December 2008 (EST)

: Be clear about what you think has been answered. The questions have been asked.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 13:45, 16 December 2008 (EST)--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 13:45, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:: Perhaps I wasn't clear, what I meant was that the list isn't a list of questions at all (answered or not), for example one of the bullet points is "Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mothers"...a question would be 'Where do all Obamas half-siblings and step-mothers live and what are they called'.

:: I am suggesting that the phrase "The following questions remain sealed from the public." be changed to something like "The following information remains sealed from the public."

:: As for what I think has been answered, I wasn't really talking about that, however I have heard something about the supreme court looking into his birth record, so I would assume when that happens it will sort that one out, but you probably are following that closer than me.

::On a related note the intro says "in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy to a burdensome level" should that 'the' before tax rates be there? I think it would be better without but perhaps there's a difference in American grammar I'm unfamiliar with. --[[User:WoodS|WoodS]] 13:54, 16 December 2008 (EST)

== Apparently no Koran for Inauguration... ==

Tried to edit this page, but it seems locked. Obama is having the Christian evangelist pastor Rick Warren swear him in during his upcoming inauguration. His identity as a possible hidden Muslim aside, it seems clear that he is not going to use the Koran. Please update the article.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081218/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_minister
::The key word here is 'apparently', and the page is locked for good reason. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:35, 18 December 2008 (EST)

:::Secret Muslims are just that, secret. Why spill the beans now when Allah's will has not yet been done.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 15:01, 18 December 2008 (EST)

::::Regardless, it seems obvious that whatever he may secretly believe, he will not under any circumstances be sworn in with a Koran. To suggest otherwise in light of such overwhelming evidence is either naive or blatantly malicious. Thanks. [[User:PL|PL]]

::::: Just because one Christian minister has been asked to do an invocation? Seems like you're putting a lot of emphasis on who does an invocation. But liberals seems to have the same obsession with it, judging by today's "outrage".--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 17:26, 18 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Look, I'm not here to debate his private beliefs. But are you seriously suggesting that you (and your site) still suggest there is a good chance Obama will be sworn in with the Koran? There are many previosly written reasons why this seems obvious to me, Rick Warren presiding over the event is just one additional (big) reason that tops it off.
:::::::Please sign your posts in future with four tildes; we are not interested in anonymous rants. Our position is perfectly fair as to the truth and the presentation of evidence, and we are not going to succumb to censorship proposals. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:51, 18 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: Mr. Anonymous, someone who gives an invocation, perhaps one of several, certainly is not "presiding over the event." You're apparently clueless about Obama's beliefs and your postings demonstrate that you're clueless about the swearing in process also.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 17:54, 18 December 2008 (EST)

: It's still quite likely that Obama could be sworn on the Koran. You don't see the book up close, and on the outside it could look just like a Bible. Even the person swearing in might not be aware. Given that the Bible is much bigger than the Koran, it's even possible they might take a Bible, hollow it out, and put the Koran inside. Then it will look like he is being sworn in on the Bible, but inside it will be a Koran. [[User:TGordon|TGordon]] 20:14, 18 December 2008 (EST)

:: You can't be serious. Even with CP's stance on Obama's super secret beliefs clear as day, I highly doubt they would take this stance when Obama is sworn in on the Bible. [[User:SJames|SJames]] 22:06, 18 December 2008 (EST)

::What sense would it make to be ''secretly'' sworn on the Koran? If he were a Muslim, wouldn't the oath be more binding for him? --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 21:59, 18 December 2008 (EST)

:::Appearances aside...the real question is what is in his heart while he's sworn in? One could swear anything on the Bible, but in their soul have their "fingers crossed" so to speak. He might say a muslim prayer to himself and there wouldn't be no way of knowing.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 12:46, 21 December 2008 (EST)
::::Quite - he 'appears' to be a Christian, just as his cousin, [[Raila Odinga]], claims to be an Anglican but has promised to introduce [[Sharia]] law to [[Kenya]]. Liberal literalism and credulity are finding their apogee here. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:58, 21 December 2008 (EST)

==An "evil Christian"==
I noticed that [[Saint Augustine]] in [[De fide rerum invisibilium]] warned of "evil Christians". Could Obama be such a thing? --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 17:38, 22 December 2008 (EST)
:Quite possibly. A wolf in sheep's clothing, claiming to be Christian but rejecting Christ's principles? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:06, 22 December 2008 (EST)
:No. It has already been proven he is a Muslim. --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 01:41, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Obama straw poll

KimSell — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 21:00:15 GMT

KimSell:

We should probably divide it up into several issues. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:31, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Two that come to mind are religion and birthplace. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::The number of his gaffes. --[[User:MugiK|MugiK]] 11:39, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::First Black President maybe. It seems that Andy is trying to deny him that title as well. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Shouldn't the Obama article simply follow the example set by the other articles about politicians both in style and tone? When you compare for example [[John McCain]], [[Bill Clinton]], and [[Barack Obama]], the choice should be clear.
:"Some conservatives" (Who?) say that he's a Muslim, and "some conservatives" (Who?) insist he wasn't born in Hawaii. I'm pretty sure that "some liberals" also insisted on quite a few things when [[George W. Bush]] became President, but you don't see every accusation in the article (judging from a quick look at least). Sarah Palin did drugs, Obama did drugs, but only the Obama article says it (to be fair, at least in Palin's case, it had been legal at the time, but that doesn't make it any better in my eyes). Maybe one standard for all articles would help us more than deciding just how far to move the Obama article away from the standard set by the other articles? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 11:53, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Yes...Shouldn't all articles (political or not) stick to the evidence for and against, and leave the speculation and editorializing for talk pages and essays?--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:37, 27 November 2008 (EST)

== Admin only? ==

Can I ask why this is the case? It doesn't seem particularly democratic if enfranchisement is restricted. Be wary if you start [[American Revolution|taxing me]]! [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:40, 27 November 2008 (EST)
*Because inclusive discussion has so far failed to net any agreement, see [[talk:Barack Obama]] --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:42, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:Big difference between inclusive "discussion" (yes that page is a mess) and inclusive ''voting''. But I see your point. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Straw poll, not inclusive discussion. You all get to see who thinks what. Happy Thanksgiving. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:45, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation after reading and considering views from both sides. Although the poll was begun with good intentions, there is a danger that it will be misused by Liberals who have already emphatically lost the argument on the Obama talk page to try and wrest the situation back and gain some spurious authority for their plaints. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:07, 27 November 2008 (EST)[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::Who are these Liberal administrators? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:29, 27 November 2008 (EST)

==Great American Tradition==
In the great American democratic tradition, people who were not elected will discuss policy that will be binding on all, while not counting the views of others.

Sympathy vote

KimSell — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 20:09:16 GMT

KimSell: No evidence at all for the claim about votes for Obama.

A '''sympathy vote''' is a vote given in an election to a candidate because of that candidate's apparent disabilities.

Betweenness

KimSell — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:15:47 GMT

KimSell:

[[Image:BPT.jpg|300px|thumb|Point B is ''between'' points A and C]]
'''Betweenness''' is the property of [[line]]s in certain [[geometries]], such as [[plane geometry]], which allows one to talk about when a third point is '''between''' two points.

Betweenness does not hold in some geometries such as [[non-Euclidean geometry]] and the [[Fano plane]]. Betweenness is equivalent to the line being a [[linear order]] of its points. The concept of betweenness was first mathematically expressed by [[David Hilbert]]<ref>http://www.libraryofmath.com/betweenness-proposition-list.html</ref>, though the concept has naturally been used imprecisely in mathematics since at least the time of [[Euclid]].

==See also==
*[[Betweenness of Points Theorem]]
*[[Betweenness of Rays Theorem]]

==References==

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Geometry]]

Affirmative Action President

KimSell — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 01:50:31 GMT

KimSell:

An '''Affirmative Action Vice President''' is someone selected for that office based partly or entirely on the person's race or gender. As of 2008, [[affirmative action]] has not yet been successfully used to fill the position of Vice President of the [[United States]].

An Affirmative Action Vice President is strongly supported by some [[liberals]] who favor [[affirmative action]]. As they support [[affirmative action]] for other positions, it is a logical extension for them to favor it for the presidency also.

These supporters of an Affirmative Action Vice President are likely to support a candidate based in part on the candidate's race or gender in order to bring historical [[diversity]] to the position and promote broader acceptance of [[affirmative action]].

Under [[affirmative action]], a candidate's race or gender is as important as, and perhaps more important, than traditional criteria of qualifications and experience.

== Reference ==

[[category:politics]]

Bush-hater

KimSell — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:44:06 GMT

KimSell:

A '''Bush-hater''' is a [[leftist]] consumed by his hatred of President [[George W. Bush]], typically because of his outspoken [[faith]]. Every '''Bush-hater''' claims all the world's problems ultimately lead back to this [[President]].{ref}
[[Category:politics]]

Talk:Electrical resistance

KimSell — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:08:02 GMT

KimSell:

Another formula (which I remember via the mnemonic "Victory In RhodeIsland") is:

V = R * I

Voltage = resistance times current

Is this true, or even useful? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:37, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

V=IR
I=V/R
R=V/I

Seriously, that is NOT that complicated to do..--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 12:08, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Electrical resistance

KimSell — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:05:22 GMT

KimSell:

Lesbianism

KimSell — Mon, 05 May 2008 18:08:44 GMT

KimSell:

'''Lesbianism''' is [[sex]]ual activity or attraction between [[women]]. Female [[homosexual]]s are often called '''lesbians''' (after the [[Greek]] island of [[Lesbos]], home of [[Sappho]]). Homosexuality normally focuses on men more than in women, but the problem is not minor. Women who are attracted to both women and men are called [[bisexual]]s.

The word "lesbian" was first used in the late 16th century. Lesbianism is also called ''sapphism'' or ''female homosexuality''. (Sappho penned love sonnets to women. She lived from 610-580 B.C.)

In 1997, the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention Program included lesbians as a priority population.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/conference/ppt/linda_ellis.ppt#291,3, Progress has been made in recognizing lesbians as a target population]</ref>

<blockquote>
In the United States, estimates of lifetime same-sex behavior among women are 8%–20%, and 1.4%–4.3% of all women may be sexually active with other women. An estimated 2.3 million women describe themselves as lesbian. In its 1999 report, Lesbian Health: Current Assessment and Directions for the Future, the Institute of Medicine emphasized that more data on sexually transmitted infections (STIs), Pap smear screening, and risk for cervical cancer in lesbians were needed.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol10no11/04-0622_08.htm Lesbians and Infectious Diseases]</ref>
</blockquote>

==Lesbianism and Health Issues==
In April of 2007, the ''[[American Journal of Public Health]]'' analyzed data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, and the data suggested that lesbian women were 2.69 times more likely to be overweight and 2.47 times more likely to be obese than all other female sexual orientation groups.<ref name="ajph">[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17463369&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Overweight and Obesity in Sexual-Minority Women: Evidence From Population-Based Data, Ulrike Boehmer, Deborah J. Bowen, Greta R. Bauer, American Journal of Public Health, 2007 Jun;97(6):1134-40. E pub 2007 Apr 26.]</ref> The abstract for this study indicated that "lesbians are at greater risk for morbidity and mortality linked to overweight and obesity." <ref name="ajph"/> However, lesbians are considered to be amongst the lowest risk groups for some STDs including HIV <ref name="HIV">[http://www.metrokc.gov/health/glbT/lbstd.htm]</ref>

==See Also==

*[[Health]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9384264 Lesbianism] Encyclopædia Britannica.

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

[[Category:Homosexuality]]

[[Category:Sexuality]]

Lesbianism

KimSell — Mon, 05 May 2008 18:06:06 GMT

KimSell:

'''Lesbianism''' is [[sex]]ual activity or attraction between [[women]]. Female [[homosexual]]s are often called '''lesbians''' (after the [[Greek]] island of [[Lesbos]], home of [[Sappho]]). Homosexuality normally focuses on men more than in women, but the problem is not minor. Women who are attracted to both women and men are called [[bisexual]]s.

The word "lesbian" was first used in the late 16th century. Lesbianism is also called ''sapphism'' or ''female homosexuality''. (Sappho penned love sonnets to women. She lived from 610-580 B.C.)

In 1997, the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention Program included lesbians as a priority population.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/conference/ppt/linda_ellis.ppt#291,3, Progress has been made in recognizing lesbians as a target population]</ref>

<blockquote>
In the United States, estimates of lifetime same-sex behavior among women are 8%–20%, and 1.4%–4.3% of all women may be sexually active with other women. An estimated 2.3 million women describe themselves as lesbian. In its 1999 report, Lesbian Health: Current Assessment and Directions for the Future, the Institute of Medicine emphasized that more data on sexually transmitted infections (STIs), Pap smear screening, and risk for cervical cancer in lesbians were needed.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol10no11/04-0622_08.htm Lesbians and Infectious Diseases]</ref>
</blockquote>

==Lesbianism and Health Issues==
In April of 2007, the ''[[American Journal of Public Health]]'' analyzed data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, and the data suggested that lesbian women were 2.69 times more likely to be overweight and 2.47 times more likely to be obese than all other female sexual orientation groups.<ref name="ajph">[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17463369&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Overweight and Obesity in Sexual-Minority Women: Evidence From Population-Based Data, Ulrike Boehmer, Deborah J. Bowen, Greta R. Bauer, American Journal of Public Health, 2007 Jun;97(6):1134-40. E pub 2007 Apr 26.]</ref> The abstract for this study indicated that "lesbians are at greater risk for morbidity and mortality linked to overweight and obesity." <ref name="ajph"/> However, lesbians are considered a low risk group with regard to some STDs such as HIV. <ref name="HIV">[http://www.metrokc.gov/health/glbT/lbstd.htm]

==See Also==

*[[Health]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9384264 Lesbianism] Encyclopædia Britannica.

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

[[Category:Homosexuality]]

[[Category:Sexuality]]

Lesbianism

KimSell — Mon, 05 May 2008 18:04:55 GMT

KimSell:

'''Lesbianism''' is [[sex]]ual activity or attraction between [[women]]. Female [[homosexual]]s are often called '''lesbians''' (after the [[Greek]] island of [[Lesbos]], home of [[Sappho]]). Homosexuality normally focuses on men more than in women, but the problem is not minor. Women who are attracted to both women and men are called [[bisexual]]s.

The word "lesbian" was first used in the late 16th century. Lesbianism is also called ''sapphism'' or ''female homosexuality''. (Sappho penned love sonnets to women. She lived from 610-580 B.C.)

In 1997, the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention Program included lesbians as a priority population.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/conference/ppt/linda_ellis.ppt#291,3, Progress has been made in recognizing lesbians as a target population]</ref>

<blockquote>
In the United States, estimates of lifetime same-sex behavior among women are 8%–20%, and 1.4%–4.3% of all women may be sexually active with other women. An estimated 2.3 million women describe themselves as lesbian. In its 1999 report, Lesbian Health: Current Assessment and Directions for the Future, the Institute of Medicine emphasized that more data on sexually transmitted infections (STIs), Pap smear screening, and risk for cervical cancer in lesbians were needed.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol10no11/04-0622_08.htm Lesbians and Infectious Diseases]</ref>
</blockquote>

==Lesbianism and Health Issues==
In April of 2007, the ''[[American Journal of Public Health]]'' analyzed data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, and the data suggested that lesbian women were 2.69 times more likely to be overweight and 2.47 times more likely to be obese than all other female sexual orientation groups.<ref name="ajph">[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17463369&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Overweight and Obesity in Sexual-Minority Women: Evidence From Population-Based Data, Ulrike Boehmer, Deborah J. Bowen, Greta R. Bauer, American Journal of Public Health, 2007 Jun;97(6):1134-40. E pub 2007 Apr 26.]</ref> The abstract for this study indicated that "lesbians are at greater risk for morbidity and mortality linked to overweight and obesity." <ref name="ajph"/>

==See Also==

*[[Health]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9384264 Lesbianism] Encyclopædia Britannica.

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

[[Category:Homosexuality]]

[[Category:Sexuality]]

Lesbianism

KimSell — Mon, 05 May 2008 18:03:53 GMT

KimSell:

'''Lesbianism''' is [[sex]]ual activity or attraction between [[women]]. Female [[homosexual]]s are often called '''lesbians''' (after the [[Greek]] island of [[Lesbos]], home of [[Sappho]]). Homosexuality normally focuses on men more than in women, but the problem is not minor. Women who are attracted to both women and men are called [[bisexual]]s.

The word "lesbian" was first used in the late 16th century. Lesbianism is also called ''sapphism'' or ''female homosexuality''. (Sappho penned love sonnets to women. She lived from 610-580 B.C.)

In 1997, the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention Program included lesbians as a priority population.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/conference/ppt/linda_ellis.ppt#291,3, Progress has been made in recognizing lesbians as a target population]</ref>

<blockquote>
In the United States, estimates of lifetime same-sex behavior among women are 8%–20%, and 1.4%–4.3% of all women may be sexually active with other women. An estimated 2.3 million women describe themselves as lesbian. In its 1999 report, Lesbian Health: Current Assessment and Directions for the Future, the Institute of Medicine emphasized that more data on sexually transmitted infections (STIs), Pap smear screening, and risk for cervical cancer in lesbians were needed.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol10no11/04-0622_08.htm Lesbians and Infectious Diseases]</ref>
</blockquote>

==Lesbianism and Health Issues==
In April of 2007, the ''[[American Journal of Public Health]]'' analyzed data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, and the data suggested that lesbian women were 2.69 times more likely to be overweight and 2.47 times more likely to be obese than all other female sexual orientation groups.<ref name="ajph">[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17463369&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Overweight and Obesity in Sexual-Minority Women: Evidence From Population-Based Data, Ulrike Boehmer, Deborah J. Bowen, Greta R. Bauer, American Journal of Public Health, 2007 Jun;97(6):1134-40. E pub 2007 Apr 26.]</ref> The abstract for this study indicated that "lesbians are at greater risk for morbidity and mortality linked to overweight and obesity." <ref name="ajph"/>
However, lesbians are at a lower risk of many sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV<ref name="HIV">[http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=6&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.metrokc.gov%2Fhealth%2FglbT%2Flbstd.htm&ei=a0sfSKjEJabeQqOOhPUN&usg=AFQjCNGUpphAG3-Q1aUvAhslwOC9LrJtcQ&sig2=65m09uO41uwq3ISwF-xxmA]

==See Also==

*[[Health]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9384264 Lesbianism] Encyclopædia Britannica.

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

[[Category:Homosexuality]]

[[Category:Sexuality]]

Lesbianism

KimSell — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:32:14 GMT

KimSell:

'''Lesbianism''' is [[sex]]ual activity or attraction between [[women]]. Female [[homosexual]]s are often called '''lesbians''' (after the [[Greek]] island of [[Lesbos]], home of [[Sappho]]). Homosexuality normally focuses on men more than in women, but the problem is not minor. Women who are attracted to both women and men are called [[bisexual]]s.

The word "lesbian" was first used in the late 16th century. Lesbianism is also called ''sapphism'' or ''female homosexuality''. (Sappho penned love sonnets to women. She lived from 610-580 B.C.)

In 1997, the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention Program included lesbians as a priority population.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/conference/ppt/linda_ellis.ppt#291,3, Progress has been made in recognizing lesbians as a target population]</ref>

<blockquote>
In the United States, estimates of lifetime same-sex behavior among women are 8%–20%, and 1.4%–4.3% of all women may be sexually active with other women. An estimated 2.3 million women describe themselves as lesbian. In its 1999 report, Lesbian Health: Current Assessment and Directions for the Future, the Institute of Medicine emphasized that more data on sexually transmitted infections (STIs), Pap smear screening, and risk for cervical cancer in lesbians were needed.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol10no11/04-0622_08.htm Lesbians and Infectious Diseases]</ref>
</blockquote>

==Lesbianism and Health Issues==
In April of 2007, the ''[[American Journal of Public Health]]'' analyzed data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, and the data suggested that lesbian women were 2.69 times more likely to be overweight and 2.47 times more likely to be obese than all other female sexual orientation groups.<ref name="ajph">[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17463369&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Overweight and Obesity in Sexual-Minority Women: Evidence From Population-Based Data, Ulrike Boehmer, Deborah J. Bowen, Greta R. Bauer, American Journal of Public Health, 2007 Jun;97(6):1134-40. E pub 2007 Apr 26.]</ref> The abstract for this study indicated that "lesbians are at greater risk for morbidity and mortality linked to overweight and obesity." <ref name="ajph"/>
However, studies have shown that lesbians are at alow risk of catching the HIV virus compared to heterosexuals of either gender.

==See Also==

*[[Health]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9384264 Lesbianism] Encyclopædia Britannica.

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

[[Category:Homosexuality]]

[[Category:Sexuality]]

Talk:Public school culture

KimSell — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:53:32 GMT

KimSell: /* Another laughable page */

Where are you getting this information from? I am in public school and do not fit into ANY of those categories... AndrasK: 22:26 April 27 (EDT)
:Same here. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 22:27, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

I can usually recognize someone as being from public school by (i) his or her fashion, (ii) his or her demeanor, and (iii) his or her outlook as conveyed by body language. Sometimes I need them to say something, and that reveals the remainder. I'm not kidding. The culture is pronounced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Your experiences justify making enormous generalizations? AndrasK: 22:37 April 27 (EDT)

: It's a culture. Objective observations can be made about cultures. Are you trying to censor that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:38, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ok first of all, stop accusing me of trying to censor anything just because I am pointing out flaws in your Modus Operandi. And that is one example of high school culture. There are other aspects of high school culture, and I will add them to the article. AndrasK: 22:41 April 27 (EDT)

I dont think what you describe is 'Public school culture' andy. It is just modern fashion, popular music taste expressed through fashion etc. jeez, 40 years ago you could say so called 'public school culture' was long hair and bell bottoms. What you describe is modern culture. It is apart from schooling. Unless you're homeschooled and dont associate with modern culture.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:11, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Eye contact==
My excuse for not looking someone in the eye is the same as Japanese culture: a sign of respect.

The other reason might be because they are afraid of their true selves and being "figured out" by others. [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 18:39, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Non-Cultural?==
How are those points you removed uncultural, ASchlafly? It just looks like you removed all of the positive ones. '''[[user:FernoKlump | FernoKlump]]''' 10:26, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:Hmm, good point. How is joining clubs/sports along with being pro-homosexual not part of public school culture? Aren't a lot of home schoolers barred from joining clubs even though they are "enrolled" in the school? -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 10:30, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:: The list is not about what people can join, but what their "culture" is (such as style, views, etc.).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:38, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Another laughable page==

Please can you tell me something? This site is supposed to be an encyclopedia, isnt it? The function of an encyclopedia is, as I understand it, to act as a reference for facts. This is just another list of things that someone doesn't like and likes to imagine describes another group.

As I understand it, part of the function of this website is to act as a learning resource and as something young people can use to research projects or homework from school. Given that pages like this keep appearing, do we honestly believe that any teacher who follows a reference to conservapedia will think that this is a site that is worth referencing in a piece of work? I can tell you, if someone I teach gave me a quote or a reference from an "encyclopedia" that contained this sort of thing, I would mark them down quite heavily. More so even than I would if they used Wikipedia, and my classes know that wikipedia is NOT a good source for referencing, but at least they TRY to have some sort of support for the claims they make on the pages.

Please, please please can we pull ourselves together and realise that lists like this are NOT encyclopedic in nature and should, at the very least, be labelled as some sort of talk or debate page. Otherwise we will drive away people looking for serious information.--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 13:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::KimSell - you obviously know that access to opinion is often stifled in educational environments. I'm glad to see you have advised your students about referencing Wikipedia, but opinions on the actual schools they are attending - and the quality thereof - would be hard for them to find. It's important that your students understand the poor environment they are in, and so this is, indeed, an encyclopediac entry, and it should stay as is. There's enough liberal opinion out there, let's at least have some balance against it. [[User:NormanTebbitt|NormanTebbitt]] 14:31, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Well put, Norman. Kim, give me a lineup of students, and I can pick out the [[public school]] ones based on their appearance and, if necessary, some general conversation. That's objectively observable. It's not opinion. Let's not censor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:37, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Sorry Andy, but a completely unsubstantiated claim about what you can do is NOT evidence of anything. Icould say that I can tell a Frenchman by the way his toes are, but we dont have an article called [[French Toes]] do we? No. Because it is not encyclopedic in nature.--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 16:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: It is not a matter of denying them access to opinions. Opinions are fine. They have their place. But NOT in something that claims to be an encyclopedia. And sorry, but "soome guy on the internet says he can tell a public school student" does NOT make an article encyclopedic in nature. Open any real world encyclopedia and find me an article even slightly similar to this "article". You won't be able to do it, because real encyclopedias require something more than the opinion of some guy on the web. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 16:51, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Public school culture

KimSell — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:51:51 GMT

KimSell: /* Another laughable page */

Where are you getting this information from? I am in public school and do not fit into ANY of those categories... AndrasK: 22:26 April 27 (EDT)
:Same here. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 22:27, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

I can usually recognize someone as being from public school by (i) his or her fashion, (ii) his or her demeanor, and (iii) his or her outlook as conveyed by body language. Sometimes I need them to say something, and that reveals the remainder. I'm not kidding. The culture is pronounced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Your experiences justify making enormous generalizations? AndrasK: 22:37 April 27 (EDT)

: It's a culture. Objective observations can be made about cultures. Are you trying to censor that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:38, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ok first of all, stop accusing me of trying to censor anything just because I am pointing out flaws in your Modus Operandi. And that is one example of high school culture. There are other aspects of high school culture, and I will add them to the article. AndrasK: 22:41 April 27 (EDT)

I dont think what you describe is 'Public school culture' andy. It is just modern fashion, popular music taste expressed through fashion etc. jeez, 40 years ago you could say so called 'public school culture' was long hair and bell bottoms. What you describe is modern culture. It is apart from schooling. Unless you're homeschooled and dont associate with modern culture.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:11, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Eye contact==
My excuse for not looking someone in the eye is the same as Japanese culture: a sign of respect.

The other reason might be because they are afraid of their true selves and being "figured out" by others. [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 18:39, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Non-Cultural?==
How are those points you removed uncultural, ASchlafly? It just looks like you removed all of the positive ones. '''[[user:FernoKlump | FernoKlump]]''' 10:26, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:Hmm, good point. How is joining clubs/sports along with being pro-homosexual not part of public school culture? Aren't a lot of home schoolers barred from joining clubs even though they are "enrolled" in the school? -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 10:30, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:: The list is not about what people can join, but what their "culture" is (such as style, views, etc.).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:38, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Another laughable page==

Please can you tell me something? This site is supposed to be an encyclopedia, isnt it? The function of an encyclopedia is, as I understand it, to act as a reference for facts. This is just another list of things that someone doesn't like and likes to imagine describes another group.

As I understand it, part of the function of this website is to act as a learning resource and as something young people can use to research projects or homework from school. Given that pages like this keep appearing, do we honestly believe that any teacher who follows a reference to conservapedia will think that this is a site that is worth referencing in a piece of work? I can tell you, if someone I teach gave me a quote or a reference from an "encyclopedia" that contained this sort of thing, I would mark them down quite heavily. More so even than I would if they used Wikipedia, and my classes know that wikipedia is NOT a good source for referencing, but at least they TRY to have some sort of support for the claims they make on the pages.

Please, please please can we pull ourselves together and realise that lists like this are NOT encyclopedic in nature and should, at the very least, be labelled as some sort of talk or debate page. Otherwise we will drive away people looking for serious information.--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 13:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::KimSell - you obviously know that access to opinion is often stifled in educational environments. I'm glad to see you have advised your students about referencing Wikipedia, but opinions on the actual schools they are attending - and the quality thereof - would be hard for them to find. It's important that your students understand the poor environment they are in, and so this is, indeed, an encyclopediac entry, and it should stay as is. There's enough liberal opinion out there, let's at least have some balance against it. [[User:NormanTebbitt|NormanTebbitt]] 14:31, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Well put, Norman. Kim, give me a lineup of students, and I can pick out the [[public school]] ones based on their appearance and, if necessary, some general conversation. That's objectively observable. It's not opinion. Let's not censor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:37, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: It is not a matter of denying them access to opinions. Opinions are fine. They have their place. But NOT in something that claims to be an encyclopedia. And sorry, but "soome guy on the internet says he can tell a public school student" does NOT make an article encyclopedic in nature. Open any real world encyclopedia and find me an article even slightly similar to this "article". You won't be able to do it, because real encyclopedias require something more than the opinion of some guy on the web. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 16:51, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Public school culture

KimSell — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:53:40 GMT

KimSell: A plea from the heart.

Public school culture

KimSell — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:40:31 GMT

KimSell:

{{uncited}}

'''Public school culture''' is a culture fostered in [[public school]] which is characterized by:

* fashion that includes black ([[Goth (subculture)|Goth]]) clothing
* facial piercings and rings, [[tattoo]]s, and male earings
* [[depressed]] demeanors
* an absence of [[morality|"right" and "wrong"]]; instead, a principal will say someone "made the wrong choice"
* a sense of hopelessness
* a lack of critical thinking about [[liberal]] indoctrination
* [[compulsive profanity]]
* general inability to look at someone in the eye
* extreme [[anxiety]]
* feeling that it is funny to be dumb
* so accustomed to [[censorship]] of ideas that there is genuine surprise when someone actually says something unfamiliar or [[politically incorrect]]
* a complete unawareness of how prayer is censored in [[public schools]], and how politically [[liberal]] the teachers' unions are

(a start)

Palestine

KimSell — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:33:06 GMT

KimSell: /* PNA */

'''Palestine''' is the name given to the land of [[Israel]] by the [[Roman]]s and others.<ref>http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_name_origin.php</ref> it was renamed this by the Romans to decrease identification of Israel as a holy site after Jewish Zealots went to war with the Romans to try to get Israel to become independent again, the Romans also renamed Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina.

Palestine (from Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: פלשת‎ Pleshet, פלשתינה Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filastīn, Falastīn) is one of many names for the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan. Many different definitions of the region have been in usage in the past three thousand years.

==Ancient==

Worth mentioning that the Philistines who at one time lived in part of the area were completely conquered by [[King David]].

Other English names for this region include: Canaan (Hebrew: כנען‎), Land of Israel (Hebrew: ארץ ישראל‎ Erets Yisrael), Judea (Hebrew: יהודה‎ yehuda), Holy Land (Hebrew: ארץ הקדש Erets Ha-Kodesh‎; Latin: Terra Sancta; Arabic: الأرض المقدسة‎ (Ard-al-Muqaddasah)and Cisjordan.

The Hebrew scriptures call the region Canaan when referring to the pre-Israelite period,(Hebrew: כּנען‎) and afterwards Israel (Yisrael). The name "Land of the Hebrews" (Hebrew: ארץ העברים‎, Eretz Ha-Ivrim) is also found. The wide area appears to be the habitat of the ancient ethnic Hebrews, though perhaps shared with other ethnic groups. The land of Canaan is part of the land given to the descendants of Abraham, which extends from the Nile to the Euphrates River (Genesis 15:18). Already in Genesis 12:6 and 7 we can read:
''And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land. And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land ''
This land is said to include an area called Aram Naharaim, which includes Haran in modern Turkey, from where Abraham the ancestor of the Israelites departed.

The events of the Four Gospels of the Bible take place entirely in Israel.

In the Qur'an, the term الأرض المقدسة ("Holy Land", Al-Ard Al-Muqaddasah) is mentioned at least seven times, once when Moses proclaims to the Children of Israel: "O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin." (Surah 5:21)

==PNA==
Currently, the Palestinians living in disputed territories, are trying to create a state called Palestine, whose creation is supported by several Muslim countries as well as the USA, Russia, the UN and the EU. These last four bodies are known as The Quartet and have established a "roadmap" for negotiations, the aim of which is a two state solution for Israel and a seperate Palestinian state.

One of the names for this region over the years has been "Palestine". It bordered on the west by the Mediterranean, with a coastline that is 230 kilometers (km) long; on the east by Syria, with whom it shares a border of 70 km, and Jordan, with whom it shares a border of 360 km; on the north by Lebanon (and Syria), sharing with them a border of 79 km; and on the south by the Sinai and the Gulf of Aqaba<ref>[http://www.un.int/palestine/history/geo1.html Geography of "Palestine"]</ref>.

The dialect of Palestinian Arabs, and their culture is closest to the Jordanians. The flag of the Palestinians is also almost identical to the Jordanians. To this day the second biggest concentration of Palestinian Arabs is Jordan. It should be noted many Palestinians helped recruit muslim troops for the SS, including Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the uncle of [[Yasser Arafat]], he recruited the biggest SS division the Hanjar division, which was composed entirely of Muslims.

The area Palestine is the home of many [[terrorist]] organizations, such as the [[Palestine Liberation Organization]], [[Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade]] (related to [[Fatah]] [[Arafat]] & [[Abu Mazen]]), [[Hamas]], Arab Bank, [[Islamic Jihad]]

Former U.S. President [[Jimmy Carter]] has criticized the [[United States]] and [[Israel]] for not recognizing the victory of the [[terrorist]] organization, [[Hamas]], in parliamentary elections and a violent takeover of the Gaza Strip in which [[Fatah]] had been routed. <ref>[http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1181813074587 Carter: Stop favoring Fatah over Hamas], ''Associated Press'', Jun. 19, 2007. Retreived from the Jerusalem Post June 20, 2007.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Yasser Arafat]]

== References ==
<references/>
== See also ==

==External link==
*[http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1468wmv&ak=null Graduation Ceremony in a Hamas Kindergarten], Al-Aqsa TV (The Palestinian Authority), May 31 2007. Children vow to die for [[Allah]].
*[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56241 Christians warned: Accept Islamic law], 'New Hamas rule means real changes,' missionaries to be 'dealt with harshly', By Aaron Klein, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', June 19, 2007.

[[Category:Middle Eastern Countries]]
[[Category:Disputed Territories]]

Talk:Writing Homework Eight

KimSell — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:43:43 GMT

KimSell: New page: What is a "perfect" essay?

What is a "perfect" essay?

Debate:Fetus versus Baby

KimSell — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:51:10 GMT

KimSell: /* Continued */

{{debate}}
==Moved from Main Page==
:One distinction attempts to make a baby not seem human, calling it a fetus. It was liberals and the godless who came up with the subtly nuanced language in the first place, to avoid saying the word "baby" when talking about procedures to kill it. Through such finely crafted mechanizations, over generations, people's perceptions are gradually turned. And that was the whole point. The toddler/teenager comparison is apples and oranges, for there is no doubt in anyones mind that both those terms apply to human beings. It is just more of a comfort to say "the ''fetus'' was sucked from the womb by a tube", than to say "the ''baby'' was sucked from the womb by a tube". The more we obscure language to make palitable what normally isn't, the more society as a whole loses. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:56, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
::At the risk of offending you, sir, I have to disagree as a Doctor. A Fetus is a very different organism from a baby. If it were a baby, the medical profession would simply call it that. However, a life goes through many stages before birth and it gets confusing if we simply refer to all forms as a baby. therefore, there are several distinct characteristics that a lifeform goes through before the actual birth. The term was not invented by liberals, it was simply hijacked (please excuse the hyperbole) [[User:DrCB|DrCB]] 18:06, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Sorry, Doctor, I was unaware that medical schools were now teaching students the motivations of those in your learned profession who "hijacked" the term "fetus"! However, I am old enough to remember a time before all the controversy, and the common term was aborted babies, not fetuses. But I have no doubt someone will come up with yet another explanation, to continue this argument ad-infinitum. And that I will not be a part of. Cheers! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:11, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Excuse me, sir. I went out of my way to phrase my response in a way that was neither condescending nor insulting. I'd ask that you have the common decency to response in kind. I pity you if you can not exercise common curtesy in debate. As for your point, nowhere in medical school did we learn mind reading or fortune telling. I simply stated and I stand by the assertation that the term fetus is a medical expression that represents one of many stages life goes through before birth. As for aborted babies, one could easily argue that those opposed to the practice picked a very harsh, and unpleasant way to decribe the practice. [[User:DrCB|DrCB]] 19:22, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::Also, the characterization of a [[pharyngula]] state embryo as "human" is dubious at best. If you consider potentiality to be the benchmark of humanity - and thereby, any fetus is a human baby - technically, a sperm is a baby, too. That definition would confound the term's common usage.-[[User:DParker|DParker]] 19:38, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Folks, move this nonsensical discussion and silly comments somewhere else, please. The biological absurdities (e.g., "a sperm is a baby, too"!) are not going to remain here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
==Continued==
Hi.-[[User:DParker|DParker]] 20:09, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Thank you! Biologically an unborn child (fetus) has the DNA and every other attribute of a human being. Nothing else does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:14, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

A skin cell has the DNA of a human being. Does that make it a human being? No. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 20:51, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Liberals and Academia

KimSell — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:20:34 GMT

KimSell:

The phrase '''Professor values''' refers to the lack of morals and values in the culture of college faculties, which is characterized by [[atheism]], [[censorship]], [[socialism]], unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge, advocacy of [[liberal]] beliefs, [[liberal grading]], [[liberal bias]], anti-patriotism, plagiarism, false claims of credentials, lack of productivity, and promotion of sexual immorality.

In a Zogby poll, 58% of [[Americans]] said that the bias of professors is a serious problem, while 39% said it is a "very serious" problem.<ref>http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1334</ref>

[[Liberal]] politicians are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate. Examples include:

* [[Gary Hart]]
* [[Al Gore]]<ref>Beginning early in 2001, "Gore will be [at UCLA] to develop a new curriculum for family-centered community building, a multidisciplinary approach that brings together authorities from such fields as education, business and public policy to work on problems that ail our society and affect our children. ... He also will be teaching at three other universities - Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro and Fisk University in Nashville - in addition to his teaching and research work at UCLA." [http://spotlight.ucla.edu/special-guests/al-gore_teach/]</ref>
* [[Bob Kerrey]]
* [[Michael Dukakis]]
* [[Tony Blair]]
There are about 3600 colleges, many small, and perhaps 500,000 professors. Yet there have been a relatively large number of shocking crimes and bizarre conduct.

== Shocking Murders and Crimes by Professors ==

* Kansas State University English professor Thomas Murray was a popular teacher, but he was convicted of murdering his ex-wife with 17 stab wounds and blunt trauma to her head. She "was found dead in her bedroom atop a dresser."<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/murray/backgrounder_ctv.html</ref> Professor Murray had written several books, including "The Language of Sadomasochism."<ref>''Id.''</ref> He did not testify in his defense and spoke only at sentencing, where he called the state's case a "fairy tale."<ref>http://www.kansaspublicradio.org/newsstory.php?itemID=5892</ref>

* Shortly after the end of the school year and his contract, Marshall University Psychiatry associate professor John M. Adams burglarized and murdered Bobby Burns on July 2, 2003, and then kidnapped two women and forced them to drive him across the Ohio River.<ref>http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/07/29/loc_ohprofessor29.html</ref>

* University of South Florida professor Sami al-Arian pled guilty to "aiding a terrorist group" and was "sentenced to 57 months in prison."<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/72228</ref><ref>http://www.mysuncoast.com/Global/story.asp?S=7961089&nav=menu577_2_1</ref> He then "spent more than a year in civil contempt after refusing to appear before two grand juries investigating Islamic charities in Northern Virginia."<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/72228</ref>

* Claremont McKenna College visiting professor Kerri Dunn was sentenced to a year in state prison after she was found guilty of staging a phony [[hate crime]], in which she "spray-painted her car with racist and anti-Semitic slurs and then reported a hate crime on campus."<ref>http://www.knbc.com/education/3998600/detail.html</ref>

* University of Central Florida political science professor Michael Shawn Reichert was arrested for having "a stash of more than 100 child pornography pictures on his work computer," "plus three pornographic movies."<ref>http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_local_orlandocrime/2007/07/ucf-professor-a.html</ref>

* A [[British]] university professor was gaoled for ten months for plotting to defraud a hospital trust. <ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20010626/ai_n14398964</ref>

* [[French]] [[Marxist]] [[structuralist]] [[philosopher]] Professor [[Louis Althusser]] (1918-1990) killed his wife in 1980 and was afterwards confined to a psychiatric hospital.

* British history professor Felipe Fernandez-Armesto was incarcerated for jaywalking and defiance of police instructions in [[Atlanta]]. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6251431.stm</ref>

* Alison Brading, a professor at Oxford University, is fined for breaching local conservation ordinances in Oxford, for replacing a door of her 18th Century cottage, to an easier to open one, after she claimed the old one often expanded and jammed, trapping her in the house. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4463470.stm</ref>

* Axe-wielding Professor Daniel Storm, of the University of Washington, polluted using ether to save paying safe disposal fees.<ref>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003607035_uwprof08m0.html</ref>

* An Associate Professor at Youngstown State University was locked up and fined $50 after baring his buttocks in front of children at a county fair. <ref>http://www.thejambar.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=38283b71-1223-4e85-929f-ba0f932d5366</ref>

== Shocking Behavior ==

*Emory University History Professor of History [[Michael Bellesiles]], a [[gun control]] advocate, wrote a book entitled ''Arming America, The Origins of a National Gun Culture'' (2000). Gary Wills gave it a glowing review in ''The New York Times'', but admitted later that "I was took. The book is a fraud."<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_501644.html ''Reports of the 2nd Amendment's death have been greatly exaggerated ...''] Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Apr. 8, 2007.</ref> Bellesiles resigned from his position as Professor of History when an independent committee of scholars examined his work and concluded that "his scholarly integrity is seriously in question."<ref>http://hnn.us/articles/1069.html</ref>

*88 Duke professors -- more than 10 percent of the [[liberal]] Duke professorial faculty - endorsed and published an advertisement hurtful to students who had been wrongly accused of rape during a lacrosse team party, which "helped create the lynch-mob atmosphere."<ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/03232007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/duke__who_wont_pay_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm</ref>

* When student Rebecca Beach circulated an email at Warren Community College in New Jersey disclosing that decorated Iraq war hero Lt. Col. Scott Rutter would be visiting, English professor John Daly replied: "Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors."<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47461</ref>

(add more examples)

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Liberals]]

Talk:Professor values

KimSell — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:19:54 GMT

KimSell:

...does [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] fall into this category as well? For example, ''"Liberal politicians are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate."'' [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:No, because he's not a politician, and he does have a doctorate (two, actually, I think). And since you bring it up...Gary Hart also has a doctorate. And, while Dukakis only has a Harvard law degree, his academic work has been in fields where he can most reasonably be considered an expert (public policy). The same can be said of Al Gore (and his have hardly been "high-ranking academic positions"--"visiting" professorships, and non-credit courses). And, finally, Kerrey is an administrator, not an academic.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 20:35, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

== What is this about? ==

'''What?''' Another article based on an '''unheard-of phrase''' plucked out of the air? This certainly does not look like an encyclopedia article - cf. [[Hollywood values]], [[Liberal friendship]], [[Second generation atheist]], [[Liberal grading]], [[Embraced deceit]], etc. None of these belongs in an encyclopedia. Apart from anything else, who on earth is likely to look up a phrase like "professor values"? Shouldn't an encyclopedia consist of articles on topics that users are likely to look for, not on opinion pieces by its editor-in-chief? What point are you trying to make, exactly? Who is the target of this latest attack? This is the sort of thing I would expect from a blog or a hate-based website, not from a family-friendly and '''trustworthy''' encyclopedia. This sort of thing is making Conservapedia look ridiculous. Or would you like articles on [[Doctor values]], [[Taxi-driver values]] and [[Lawyer values]] as well? If so, I'd be happy to draft them for you! There must be lots to be said about the misdemeanors of all sorts of groups. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:15, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

== Tony Blair ==

Huh? How is this not relevant to the article? He has no doctorate, he has been appointed to teach at Yale and he is a liberal politician. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:19, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: That appears simply to be a guest lecture appointment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: You mean just like Al Gore?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:54, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Since you don't seem to mind guest lecturers being added to this list, I will put Tony Blair back.
== Really? ==

I just did a google search, and the first few pages of the 735 results don't have any signinifigance to subject at hand. So, here's my question: Did you just make this term up Andy? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:07, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: There's a great deal of bias out there, DLerner. That's a reason why we're here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:10, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Yes, Andy. But the problem is, there's a great deal of bias here too. Are there any articles critical of conservatives on this site? Believe me conservatives aren't perfect. You didn't answer my question, where is the term "Professor values" from? I know there are a lot of stupid people/policies on colleges (just watch the Penn & Teller episode on [[censorship]]) but that isn't the point. Where is the term from? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Professor values

KimSell — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:54:26 GMT

KimSell: /* Tony Blair */

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

KimSell — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:22:25 GMT

KimSell:

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



== possible bias ==

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

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

they actually don't refer to them as concentration camps, but merely say that they have been called concentration camps
and they meet the definition of a concentration camp
if you were wondering

Britannica- a concentration camp is an internment centre established by a government to confine political prisoners or members of national or minority groups for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment.

Yep, thats Japanese-American internment

:He's right you know ^^
"concentration camp" has negative connotations, but thats ok because it was negative. [[user:hmuckabee|Hmuckabee]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Richard Dawkins' edit ==

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

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

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

== grammatical note ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Factual corrections on Henry Liddell ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::: It does seem as if, considering that you have been working on this list of examples of liberal bias on wikipedia for over a year and you've only found 99, it seems as if you're either doing a very poor job or that there isn't very much liberal bias, especially since there are 2 million pages. In addition, if you were actually trying to objectively prove an overall liberal bias on wikipedia, you would have both a liberal bias page and a conservative bias page, but I guess that would be too unbiased for conservapedia {{unsigned|Echew99}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

== #2 (Prodigal Son) ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== #81 ==

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

== Belfast / Good Friday Agreement ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== #4 Justice Byron White Error ==

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

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

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

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

== Dawkins again ==

Can somebody tell how the Oxford statement "The Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree" continued? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

==#84==
I haven't looked at the Wikipedia article recently - however, #84 should be removed from here and simply placed in [[Wikipedia|the article]] - because the fact that false information obtained from Wikipedia went into a news source is not bias by Wikipedia- merely stupidity by the news source.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:31, 1 December 2007 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Viewership ==

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

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

== Unfair? ==

Isn't this article being a little unfair to Wikipedia? Yes, Wikipedia has problems, but some of the things here are really off the mark...

For instance: #73, and all other points that speak of "National Enquirer" type "gossip." How is it "gossip" that Nina Totenberg was severely injured? How is information on William Donald Schaefer (#85) "gossip" but not similar information about [[Al Gore]] on this site? And isn't "gossip" more like rumor and unsubstantiated information then verifiable facts with links to news stories?

Other entires act like Wikipedia is a concrete, unchangeable text made by one author, and that if something is left out it must be a sign of bias. See #20, Eritrea, #54, Jimmy Carter, #78, John Peter Zenger, #79, Bacon's Rebellion, and #82 the Piltdown Man. "Oh, if only there were some ''magical button'' that I could press in which I could ''add content to'' or ''delete erroneous content from'' Wikipedia. Curse you, Wikipedia, for not adding such a feature!"

And as for #77--that's totally ridiculous. Who determines what has "zero educational value?" Who determines what is "beneath a regular encyclopedia?" Aschlafly?

This is the core page of Conservapedia. A lot of editing on it will need to be done if this site wants to look credible. [[User:Cheesehead|Cheesehead]] 12:20, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::Excuse me Cheesehead, We are not the only ones who have determined how worthless Wikipedia can be...it's college professors who have done the same thing. They have cited the fact that Wikipedia is edited by amatuers who insist on being amatuer; it's edited by 15 year-old kids who write like they're in the first grade, and who demand complete control over people who can do better; and the editing is continuous for many articles, as good material gets replaced by goofy material over and over again. College professors have warned their students not to trust Wikipedia as a source at all. Do not come here and complain that WE are being unfair to Wikipedia when we have pointed this and more out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::The above has to be the most subjective dismissal of Wikipedia I've ever read. First of all, not all college professors dissuade or prevent their students from citing Wikipedia. Secondly, ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all. Now, they are invaluable as starting points that may direct you to illuminating second and third party analysises of a subject. This goes for Conservapedia as well. Wikipedia doesn't make the claim that they are authoritative. In fact, Wales has been crystal clear about that.

:::Thirdly, it's a FACT that Wikipedia is written by amateurs? Yes, a sub-population out of thousands and thousands. But, Please - This is just another baseless, misleading claim. Talk about your ad-hominems. Every single person I have ever encountered on Wikipedia has been eloquent and quite knowledgeable about the articles they cultivate - at least the registered users. Sure, that's anecdotal evidence, but I've been a regular editor there for three years now. These 15 year olds you speak of more than likely are the ones who edit articles on superficial pop culture or modern music. Who cares? Many articles here and there require fleshing out. It's open source and free to be edited by anyone. If you need any convincing about brilliant writing and comprehensiveness simply read any of Wikipedia's Featured Articles. Then gander at the thousands that are ranked as GA. Take your pick. Your post smacks of cynicism and prejudice that permeates this site. Don't get me wrong, I like it here, I think this place has merit and potential. If I thought differently, I wouldn't have registered an account and started editing/creating articles. And I'm not about to say that Wikipedia isn't without its flaws and foibles. Of course there are, things go on there that shouldn't, but some of your claims are downright outrageous, parochial and unilateral. Next time, try and be a little less narrow in your analysis of something which is credible and useful to many. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:35, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::::You've just proven it for all of us in your rant. ''"ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all"'' Credible and useful to many as well? I don't think so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:38, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::: Ok, now you're using a sort of Straw Man tactic in order to make it seem as though I'm contradicting myself. I thought it was patently obvious what I meant. In Academia no encyclopedia should be used as a primary source. HOWEVER, college students, high school students, and the general public use Wikipedia for gathering general information on a subject. More often than not, it is completely accurate. It's as simple as that. As a scientist, I wouldn't submit a manuscript for journal review with Wikipedia, Encarta or Britannica listed in my reference section. That doesn't mean they are useless or completely inaccurate. In the articles I've edited/read, the information matches up perfectly with my own personal knowledge of the subject - medicine, biology, chemistry, etc.. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 15:23, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:: Cheesehead, try to understand what [[gossip]] and [[liberal bias]] are before denying that they permeate [[Wikipedia]] entries. The nearly 100 examples in the list here reflect the approach taken and continued by [[Wikipedia]], and illustrate why so many serious contributors have abandoned [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:51, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== German-American ==

The term German-American, especially in its hyphenate version typically refers to American of German descent, and not to people that hold both passport, maybe because both countries subscribe to the view that you should only have one. Just like other hyphen American in the 19th century it is commonly understood that they were Americans. So, I see no point in complaining about that fact. See the websites of German-American heritage groups for more information [http://www.germanheritage.com/][http://www.german-american.com/]. [[User:Order|Order]] 06:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: The hyphenated "German-American" implies dual nationality, or no nationality, and that is incorrect. Far less than 1% of websites use this in reference to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]], in its bias for phony [[globalism]], pushes it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, "German-American" doesn't mean DUAL nationality, it indicates the individual's country of birth, descent, heritage, and nationality. It's not a citizenship term. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:15, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: Where would an 'African-American' have a passport from? [[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:43, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: The term creates confusion about citizenship. There's no denying that. It is used in far less than 1% of the websites referring to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]] with its anti-[[American]] and [[globalist]] bias, pushes the confusing term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 28 December 2007 (EST)
:First, if you are confused about dual citizenship, then only because you don't know that Germany doesn't allow for dual citizenship. And afaik, neither does the US. Can you give us a reference for your 1% figure. I guess the confusion just arises from being unfamiliar with the phenomenon of Hyphen-American in 19th and the first half of the 20th century. In 1987 President Reagan proclaimed a German-American Day on October 6 [http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/100287d.htm], and from the proclamation it is obvious that it refers to Americans of Germen descent. The German heritage site list Thomas Nast as a famous German-American [http://www.germanheritage.com/biographies/mtoz/nast.html], and same holds a 1983 Presidential Commission for the German-American Tricentennial [http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga-tricentennialreport.htm]. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: No, User:Order, I'm not confused but the Wikipedia entry is designed to create confusion in the [[liberal]] direction. American citizens are American citizens, not "another country"-American. As to the 1% figure, please do your own research on [[Google]] before criticizing work done by others. Surely I don't have to explain how to compare the sites mentioning "Thomas Nast" and those claiming he was a "German-American".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, Order, the US does allow dual citizenships with some countries. I actually have a triple citizenship because both my parents are foreign nationals. Even so, the suggestion that "German-American" is a confusing term is plainly ridiculous. There are plenty groups that self identify as X-Americans (Italian-Americans, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, African-Americans, and Irish-Americans leap to mind. In fact, here's a link to the [http://www.ugac.org/ German American Heritage Foundation]. Noone seems to think this term is confusing except you, Andy. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 17:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)
: Obviously, you want to have 100 entries before the end of the year, and I can understand that you are reluctant to remove this item, but let me still answer to your comments.
:First, if you make a 1% claim, you will have to provide evidence. This is not criticizing the work of others, it is inquiring where to find the work of others. So, from what you say you used Google for you research. What were your search terms? Up to which page did you go?
:Second, I did some google for the term "German-American", and it seems all hits on the first page and 74 of the hundred hits use "German-American" in the meaning of "Americans of German descent". This use seem to be the most common.
:Finally, a presidential committee including Thomas Nast as German-American seems to be very relevant. Is there anything wrong about that report?
:[[User:Order|Order]] 21:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: User:Order, I can see you lurching towards [[last wordism]] here, as [[liberals]] tend to do. Your "obviously" statement is out of line as I could easily increase this list of examples of bias in Wikipedia to 130 by New Year's if I wanted to. Thomas Nast on Google retrieves 175,000 sites, but Thomas Nast and "German-American" only retrieves 3,800, and only a tiny fraction of that refers to Nast himself as "German-American" rather than using the term as an adjective to "culture" or with another meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: 3.800 out of 175.000 makes 2%. But good that you told us how you got the statistics. First, you are looking for a very specific combination of phrases, namely "Thomas Nast" and "German-American". You should also mention that about only 32.400 sites use the adjective "German", so at most 20% of all site mentioning his name mention his ancestry at all. But the complaint was that the term "German-American" was used in a confusing way, and if we look at the hits for "Thomas Nast" and "German-American", we see that that at least the first 20, use "German-American" to mean American of German descent. As do most hits for "German-American". And we still got a presidential committee listing him among famous "German-Americans", which should carry some weight, too. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:30, 28 December 2007 (EST)

==What's Wrong With Bias?==
If an article I saw had some information missing from it, or presented in a bad way and I knew enough about the subject; I would edit it. That's what Wikipedia is for, isn't it?

At least Wikipedia is biased in all directions, and not just trying to do it along one single political agenda. Everyone can edit articles there to say whatever they want. If there's a majority of users who think a certain way then sure their own beliefs are going to be pandered to more. What stops you helping make their site better?[[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:49, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: A lie supported by a majority does not make it true. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: User1601, [[Wikipedia]] is '''not''' "biased in all directions." Rather, it has an overwhelming bias in one direction. The examples here confirm that. Several of the examples illustrate how attempts to edit [[Wikipedia]] to correct its bias are futile - in response, the [[liberal]] mob and bullies who run [[Wikipedia]] will restore the bias or even make it worse!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::I find it hard to support your point when you are arguing in favor of a site which much more polarized than wikipedia. -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:31, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: Concealed bias is particularly objectionable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I'd like to note that the second entry about typing "conservative" into wikipedia is not true, regardless of whether it once was or not. A page search for "anti-baby" and "anti-family" returned nothing. Second, the statement "you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion" seems rather subjective. It seemed to be a rather scholarly article regarding the general ideals of conservatives. Seeing as this is the "second" example of liberal bias in Wikipedia, this is rather damaging to the cause isn't it? Perhaps it's back down to 97.

: Wikipedia corrected its bias on the above point only after we exposed it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

well
you know
that kind of seems like a load of crap
because it doesn't exist now
and you have no way of knowing whether it was changed because you "exposed them"

{{unsigned|Echew99}}

== Renaissance: I contest point 64 ==

It is widely agreed amongst art historians that the driving force behind the Renaissance was first the rediscovery of roman art and the evolution of humanist philosophy. Christian themes prevailed because the church was one of the major funders of the artists. Also if Christianity was a major influence in the Renaissance why were mythological works produced by all four masters and most other artists? -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:19, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== Formatting error in list leads to possibly unwanted inflation of count ==

I just noticed this:
{{quotebox|29. Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples have included: 
30. *pro-life Congressman Jerry Costello, merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating[38] 
31. *anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[39] 
32. *the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, by repeating a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS[40] 
33. *conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS[41] 
34. In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more liberal targets, such as the Democrat Jerry Costello, or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.}}
Is it intentional that the JBS bias is stretched over six points? It strikes me as a formatting error.

I am currently not aware of a way to fix the list in the current form. The main problem is the paragraph after the last example. Without it, things would be easy to fix. In the current form, here is my suggestion (it's important not to have additional spaces in the "#:*" or "#:" parts). It looks okay and gets the point across :

#[[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:
#:*pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>
#:*anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>
#:*the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>
#:*conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>
#:In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.

(You can simply copy and paste the above section from the edit box here, I left the references intact.) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 08:51, 29 December 2007 (EST)
:I think that formatting is intentional, as each one catalogues a different example of bias (but all are loosely related under the same category, JBS smears). [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 13:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::I disagree because all other Examples of Bias stick to the "one theme, one number" setting and are self-contained We could move each entry freely without loss of information. Additionally. if we took each ''instance'' of a particular bias as its own number, we could easily fill up the list to a hundred using only the various articles about evolution, gun control, and so on. I don't believe that was the goal of this list. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 13:58, 29 December 2007 (EST)

JakeC is correct. Those "entries" were originally (back in July) added as a single numbered point[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=221970], and remained that way until fairly recently (three weeks ago), when they were inadvertently (it would appear) altered as part of a reformatting effort to put spaces between the hashes and the first character[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=346123], but in this case put them between the hashes and the asterisks. I've fixed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 30 December 2007 (EST)
P.S. The last one ("In response to this criticism...") was always a separate point, so that's the way I've left it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Another example of Wikipedia silliness ==

Might it be worthwhile to add to this list the large record Wikipedia keeps of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BJAODN featured vandalism]? Also, both administrators and users [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:April_Fools go berserk] on April Fools' Day instead of acting like [[Conservapedia|a real encyclopedia]] would - that is, to treat it like any other day. [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 13:39, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Regarding April Fool's Day: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Are_you_working_on_the_Conservapedia_Page.3F Maybe not the best idea?] (Note: The link points to the section ''above'' the one I want to link to. I mean the "Please do not v*ndalise our project templates." section. The CP spam filter doesn't allow the word "v*ndalise" to appear anywhere for some reason) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 14:18, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:For accuracy's sake, they don't update that record of vandalism. They used to keep track of the most humorous stuff, but now they only keep the page for posterity. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:The bastards, having fun... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:22, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Zeta - if we want to go there? ==

I don't know if anyone wants to go quite so deep into the cesspit that is Wikipedia, but I'll ask anyway. [Ed. Note: remainder deleted based on application of our [[rules]]]

: You're right that it is a cesspit, and our adherence to higher standards than [[Wikipedia]] requires us to refrain from wading into every cesspit. For now, we'll pass on trying to clean up the cesspit you've identified, though I do not fault you for identifying it as such. I look forward to reviewing your substantive contributions here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:56, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Organization ==

This is a long and impressive list! I think it might benefit from organizing the points under headings like: "Anti-American Bias", "Anti-Christian Bias", "Anti-Conservative Bias", and so on. This could make it easier to navigate and more powerful.

If people are interesting in this the categries and which point goes where could be worked on the talk page and then a Sysop could unprotect the page briefly so points could be placed.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 22:02, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Done. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:07, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::Thanks for your help, Ed! I should clarify however, that I was not proposing the page be edited yet. I wanted some discussion to see what should go where first. For example, under what heading should the first point, about Butto being strong Pro-life be placed?--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:01, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Don't be too methodical. Please pick the low-hanging fruit first. If you find a half-dozen items that go together, just put those together. Others will follow your lead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:35, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Reorganization is fine, provided it does not dilute the entry through [[placement bias]]. For example, the entry about Bhutto is timely and compelling, and works well on the first page seen by readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:20, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Holy cow! Elkman blocked everyone who uses my IP range ==

Because I rightfully described a recent question of his as "disruptive trolling" when I reverted it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.135.49.177&diff=181119795&oldid=180656254 here]. Elkman's statement about blocking the IP range is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.135.49.211 here]. Probably won't make the list, but it's another little insight into how Wikipedia works. If you're an admin or higher, you can break all the Wiki policies you want and get away with it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)
: I see, though, that Elkman got overruled, if I'm reading it correctly. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:37, 31 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes. It wasn't an official overruling, but the majority opinion was against him. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::: And no apology, right? It's amazing to me how [[Wikipedia]] causes so much harm and almost never apologies or admits it was wrong. I guess that is the [[atheistic]] culture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:38, 31 December 2007 (EST)
::::Uh, hello? I was accused of being a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=327742 sockpuppet] and was blocked for nearly two months. After being unblocked, the first thing I see is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALardoBolger&diff=359482&oldid=299187 hostility] on my talk page. Also, the article [[liberal style]] #38 reads: "silly demands for apologies". If you're expecting those on Wikipedia to apologize for their actions, it would seem common sense to start it on your own site first. I'm not asking for an apology though, I'm merely stating a point. As for the blocking on Wikipedia, accusing a question on one's talk page as [[troll|trolling]] and then saying you want the administrator blocked for it, well, on any wiki, you're just trolling yourself, yes? (please note, I'm not liberal, atheist, or a supporter of Wikipedia, but just imagine what action would've been taken had that happened here on CP) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 12:28, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::This is the closest I got to getting an apology: "Jinxmchue wins; I lose." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.135.49.211&diff=181148462&oldid=181148406] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:51, 31 December 2007 (EST)

You forgot to mention that I ''did'' get blocked for my actions. I can't edit pages while blocked. I'm not even sure I should edit pages after the block expires, to tell the truth. I'll admit that I was wrong to place the block -- in fact, I was wrong to get involved at all. [[Sin]] is unforgivable, and [[Sin (Fundamentalism)]] states that any sort of imperfection is intolerable and unacceptable, so anything else I say at this point won't help. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 21:12, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: Don't know why you're attacking religion here. Sin is forgivable ... to those who ask for forgiveness, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::First "I guess that is the [[atheistic]] culture," and then "Don't know why you're attacking religion here." If you want to believe that when Atheists do something wrong it's because they're atheists, go ahead. But don't turn around when people do the same thing to religion.--[[User:Anschelsc|Anschelsc]] 16:27, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::: If a Christian does something wrong, he is going against God's standards. If an atheist does something wrong... well, actually, if you're an atheist, you have no basis for right and wrong. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:03, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::They might not have a deity, but that doesn't mean that they cannot have a different basis for deciding what is right or wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:49, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Perhaps I didn't word it the best, but although an atheist can ''decide'' that something is "wrong", somebody else could decide otherwise, and he has no basis for claiming that something in inherently ''wrong''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:51, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::Sure, but I don't see the big difference. Also theists disagree about how their deity wants them to behave, and in the end decision how to behave remains with the individual. And of course, atheist can clearly claim that something is inherently wrong, just like many theists do when they embrace the golden rule. It seems like you claim claim that nothing is inherently wrong, but that it is wrong for some external reason. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:48, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: Define "inherently wrong". And some theists disagreeing with other theists doesn't invalidate the concept. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Inherent, means by nature or habit, the essential character of something. If you involve a third party to define the morality of a behavior, this third party is external. It might still provide a valid reason, but it is not intrinsic. Theists disagreeing proves that in the end every individual theist decides for himself, has to decide for himself, which rules to apply and when. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:20, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: I was after a definition of "inherently wrong" (not just "inherent") that would in principle allow one to determine if something was inherently wrong or not. Your definition doesn't allow me to do that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I gave you an example for a definition of what is inherently wrong, namely the golden rule. But if it is still unclear I am more than happy to go into detail. As far as it isn't a tangent. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:36, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: So cannibalism is not inherently wrong? I ask because in cannibalistic societies, it was often (if not always) the case that two (or more) tribes ''both'' practiced cannibalism against the other tribe. Also, what if you want to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong, but they don't follow (recognise as authoritative) the Golden Rule? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:25, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: And both of these tribes typically held theist beliefs. Thanks. Theism was often even the motivation for cannibalism. Cannibalism as it was practiced was certainly not according to the golden rule. Or would you like to live in fear that you end up as dinner, whenever you meet a group from another people? I guess not. So, you do it by talking to them if you get the chance. What is your alternative? Telling them about your deity, instead? We can expand on this, but your example shows quite nicely, that having a deity doesn't guarantee any behavior. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:44, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: ''Of course'' it depends on the deity, and what he says. And yes, they did live in fear that they would end up as dinner (although it wasn't "whenever you meet a group from another people"), but that's the point: it didn't stop them. Telling them that there is a Golden Rule is not going to stop them. That's an arbitrary imposition on them, which they have no obligation to accept. But telling them that their actions are wrong ''according to the God who made them'' does give them an obligation to accept. Of course, you do have to convince them that what you are telling them is the truth, and having free will they can choose to accept or reject that standard, but there is a logical basis for accepting that standard. (And, of course, Christian missionary influence has led to the abolition of cannibalism in many places.) The Golden Rule was, of course, a rule given by that Creator. But if it wasn't, it's just another arbitrary rule that provides no logical basis (as distinct from a self-preserving one, in this case) for them to follow that rule. The point is, when it comes to right and wrong, the only absolute basis for it is the standards of the Creator. Because He is the Creator, He can set the rules. (The fact that people have the ability to reject those rules does not change this.) If there is no Creator, the rules are set by human beings according to their opinions. There is nothing ''intrinsic'' or ''inherent'' about an action that makes it right or wrong other than whether or not it conforms to the standard of ''the One who has the authority to set the rules''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:18, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::The alternative though, Philip, is that man created God in his image and wrote the rules up according to beliefs that society has built up. Some of them for good evolutionary reasons such as look after your family/tribe members; others for power. Through centuries of social and religious development, these rules become inherent in society, e.g. it's bad to kill, steal, etc. While a prehistoric man might not have any moral compunction not to kill a competing male for resources and is therefore amoral by our standards, that same man transported and brought up in our society would be indoctrinated into our rules, either by convention or law. Claiming that man has morals and the only source of them must be God is, in my humble opinion, one of the weakest "proofs of God's existence" arguments. After all, did the tribe of Israel go around murdering and raping each other before the Ten Commandments? Of course not. They wouldn't have got very far if they did. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:34, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::: Yes, that is an/the alternative explanation for how morals came to be, but that explanation doesn't provide a firm foundation for morals. I'm not claiming this as evidence of God. I'm claiming that without God, there is no solid basis for morals. And even evolutionists such as Dawkins agree with this.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/765][http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/397] The Ten Commandments were putting in writing what the Isrealites had already been told, as far back as Adam and Eve. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:15, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::So, you could ask what didn't stop them? What didn't stop them was culture, theistic beliefs, and peer pressure. And as you admit, they did live in fear, so at least you have something in common with them, and that is a basis to come to an understanding. If I understand you correctly, rather than to appeal to something they share with you, your advice is to have them first accept your version of how the world came to be, something that is probably alien and strange to them. It appears to me that trying to make them accept the story of a talking snake is not exactly the the best first move, I see two other more fundamental problems with your reasoning, moral problems.
::::::::::::: First, you admit that there are no intrinsic values. All value are externally derived from your deity. This means that morality now becomes dependent on how you interpret what a deity might have said or intended. However, we do not generally accept it if someone commits an immoral act, and defends himself by pointing to his deity. We rightfully hold the person itself responsible for its acts. You undermine free will, because you give people the option to claim that they just misunderstood the deity. And we have proof that people understand the same deity differently, now, and through history. In the end even you cannot escape that an individual makes the choice in the end for his actions, and the existence of a deity doesn't change this.
::::::::::::: Second, you will have to live together with people who do not share your beliefs about the origin of the world. It seems like you gave up on convincing others to live in peace with you, unless they accept your version of history. This is frankly a recipe for disaster. Regardless of whether your version is correct, you should be able to come to an agreement with people you disagree with. And the golden rule has been proven to be acceptable to humans of all backgrounds and convictions.
::::::::::::: Finally, and we touched on this subject before. It appears that you only treat people morally because of your relation with your creator, and not because of your relation with those other people. I in contrast think that people should follow the golden rule because they care about themselves and other people around them, and not because of fear for some deity that might not might not exist. We know that those other people exist, and we know that we care about them and ourselves. I see nothing wrong with the golden rule. And it is certainly not arbitrary. If the creator would change this rule, people should still live by it.
::::::::::::: But to end on a positive note, least we agreed that you think that there are no intrinsic values. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:49, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: What didn't stop them was their culture, the ''wrong'' theistic beliefs, and peer pressure (what peer pressure?). I'd ask you to keep in mind that I'm talking about Christianity, not theism. I don't have fear in common with them. Missionaries do quite often find something in common. One case I read (not involving cannibals) was of a tribe who worshipped the spirits of the mountains, but when you dug deeper, they had an ancient memory of the "one true God". So the missionary told them more about this true God. Regardless, to animistic cultures not tainted by evolutionary ideas, the biblical account makes a lot of sense. It's not as "strange" as it is to you.
:::::::::::::: You are confusing principles with application. Morality is dependent on what the Creator says. How we come to understand that is a separate issue. Without the Creator's standards, there is no basis for right and wrong. Atheists do not accept it if someone blames "his deity" for an immoral act ''because atheists don't believe in any god'', but have no reason to reject the immoral act except their own opinion. Christians do not accept it if someone blames "his deity" for an immoral act, ''because it is not the true God that he is blaming''. But Christians do have reason to reject the immoral act, as being contrary to what God has said. See, Christians have a basis for this; atheists don't. Yes, a person makes their own choice, and are responsible for their own actions, but you can't blame them for their actions unless you have a standard higher than them and you by which to judge them.
:::::::::::::: Your second point is pointless. Yes, I live with people who don't share my belief. And yes, that is a problem. My solution is that they should all share my belief, i.e. belief in the ''true'' Creator God. Your solution is that we should all share ''your'' belief, i.e. belief that right and wrong is whatever we consider them to be (which may or may not be that we consider them to be based on the Golden Rule). Frankly, your belief is a recipe for disaster, because it is ''in principle'' unable to solve anything. That is, even if everyone were to believe that right and wrong is decided by our opinions, there's still no guarantee that we will agree on what is right and what is wrong.
:::::::::::::: Yes, I only treat people morally because of God. Because without Him there is no basis for doing so. That is why Christians throughout history have been responsible for starting hospitals, schools, orphanages, charities, welfare organisations, for abolishing slavery, etc. etc., and no other religion, including atheism, has made anything like the contribution to society that Christianity has. Because Christianity teaches that people have worth, because they are created in God's image. Non Christians have no such teaching, with the results that they have done relatively little to advance society.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/] [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4932/] [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_26-28.pdf].
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:15, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: So even missionaries did look for things in common, that is indeed encouraging, but I wouldn't have expected otherwise. Because that is how people connect, and that is actually the basis of the golden rule, that you recognize something of yourself in the other. And that is something most humans have in common, even if they don't share similar myths. And indeed, it is probably no surprise that people that grow up in pre-modern societies recognize something in the stories from other pre-modern societies.
::::::::::::: How we understand it is not a separate issue. How do you know what the one true god wants? Supposed that it is an interventionist god, and not just some prime mover, or some unexplained natural force. So which true god is it? Is it the true god who wants us to stone obnoxious children at the gates of the city? That is probably not the true god you were looking for. Or is it the true god who finds it acceptable for you to sell your daughter into slavery? That is probably not your true god either. What about the true god who wants you to give up all your possessions, and live in poverty? That may not be the one either? Or how about the one true god who wants you to turn the other cheek? Is this the one? There are quite some choices. We know that you think to have the wisdom to chose the correct one, but we can't rely on everybody choosing the right one. Courts do not argue if the offenders interpretation of the bible is right, but if his choices and actions are. So in the end, it is your choice that matters, and you cannot escape making a choice.
:::::::::::::You don't have to follow the golden rule because of what I believe, and that is the beauty of it. You can be dead certain that if you treat other people bad, they will treat you bad, too. No matter what I believe. So rather than basing your morals on a hypothetical, you can base it on something that does actually exist. Sure, the application of the golden rule changes as society changes. And that is a good thing, because it encourages discussion about how we want to live our lives, which is in turn the essence of a democracy.
:::::::::::::I agree Europeans born in Europe have done a lot to advance western society. I am happy to accept that credit. In this context it is a bit a pity that you reject on of the key ideas that emerged during the European enlightenment, namely that of the intrinsic value of humans. But, lets not forget that also other people created orderly and civil societies, and in this globalised world, they have also a lot to contribute and to learn from.
:::::::::::::In the end, the crucial bit becomes if you accept the golden rule as a guideline or not, and the reason why you accept it is secondary. This rule should be self-evident, but if your belief in a deity is the only way for you accept it, your belief serves at least a good purpose.
:::::::::::::To conclude, I suggest we can cut this discussion short. You do not believe in intrinsic values, and that was what exactly the point I made at the beginning of this discussion. I gave an example for a definition of what is intrinsic wrong, and I am not really surprised that you attack the example. It was actually to be expected that you try to steer the discussion on a tangent when you asked for an example. But I hadn't expected that you struggle with the golden rule itself. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:39, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: How we understand ''is'' a separate issue. First, do you agree in principle that if God (whomever He might be) created us, then he owns us and has the right to set the rules? That question needs to be answered before going on to deciding "which God" or how we determine what He wants.
:::::::::::::: If courts ask if a defender's actions are ''right'', by what standard are they judging "right"? Originally, courts did this on the basis of the Bible. Then laws were made, on the basis of the Bible, and where applicable the courts judged if a person's actions were "right" on the basis of those biblically-based laws.
:::::::::::::: I said that ''Christians'' have improved society, and you changed that to "Europeans", claiming that therefore we agree on that. But the people concerned did what they did ''because of their Christian beliefs'', not because they were Europeans.
:::::::::::::: The "enlightenment" was no such thing. It was more of an "endarkenment", in which God was rejected and so they had to invent alternative explanations for things, such as the worth of a human. What is the intrinsic worth of a human? Probably about $3 worth of chemicals. But even that is only because people are willing to pay for chemicals. The point is, nothing has any ''intrinsic'' worth except in the sense of what they are worth ''to others'', i.e. everything's worth is due to something ''outside'' the thing or person. Saying that people have ''intrinsic'' worth is simply deeming it to be so, with no basis. But if the omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the Universe considers you to be worth something (which He does), then boy, are you ''worth'' something! You are not just worth a few dollars, or even a million dollars, but you are worth Him coming in human form and suffering and dying a cruel death to redeem you (buy you back). That's where our worth comes from.
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: So, on principle, if you make a being that is sentient, that has what we call free will, and that can suffer pain, then you don't own it in the sense that you mean. What you propose would be worse than a zoo, and close to an abusive relationship. But the crucial bit is actually that we know almost nothing about this being, "whoever it might be", and that thus everything depends on your interpretation. Some might ask you why are you still able to go online, why you do not live in poverty. They would ask if you didn't hear that your creator wants you to live in poverty? You don't because you choose not to follow this interpretation. It is was your choice to pick one interpretation over another. If person A commits an immoral act and claims that god told him to do so, and person B commits a moral act and claims that god told him to do so, we don't judge this action by checking if they did actually talk to god, but by the effect of their action on other humans. We laud person B, and loathe person A.
::::::::::::: No, they did it neither because they were Christians, nor because they were Europeans. Christians were in each debate on both sides on the aisle, as were Europeans. But it could change the world because they were Europeans, had a different access to the world and the mighty, than other parts of the worlds. Most of the progress you claim for yourself was a consequence of the "enlightment", and it changed the world because it started in Europe, like it or not. BTW: most of our legal system has pre-Christian roots. The Roman republic had and has more influence than the bible on law.
::::::::::::: So, a human is worth $3? You did admit that this is an external price, and thus not an intrinsic value. And sure, moral acts always refer to interactions between people. That is in the nature of acts. But to judge this act, you can look at these people, and it doesn't matter whether they were created by a benevolent creator, a malevolent creator, an omnicient creator, an alien, within 6 days, 6 ages of 1000 years, or 6 billion years. If someone hits you on your head, it hurts, and almost all humans can agree on this. The know this today, and they knew it in the middle ages, during the roman republic, in pre-Christian Iceland, in China during the Han dynasty, on Easter Island, in the Amazon, etc. That is something all humans have in common, and it provides a solid basis. More solid than some creation story that might or might not be true, and upon which almost no two people do agree. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:29, 22 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: I made this last point already a few times, so I guess there is no point it discussing it again. Everybody has to make up his own mind about the golden rule. Leaving this behind us, can you briefly explain this story about this entity, that allegedly makes the rules, that had to hurt itself, to make up for pain that others suffered. It is customary to not ask what it actually means, because it has religious roots, but can you nevertheless make an attempt to explain the rationale for that. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:29, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::"''Yes, I only treat people morally because of God.''" Philip, I think (hope) I have misunderstood you. Could you just clear this up, please? Do you mean that you only treat people morally because God has directed you to and that if he hadn't you would have no problem in treating people immorally? If not, what do you mean? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:21, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: Not specifically because God has directed me to, but more because of who we are (creations of God), and what we mean to Him. The last part of my concurrent post above to Order should explain it more. If we weren't created by God (an impossibility, as an uncaused universe is impossible, and complex things don't arise by chance), then there is no absolute basis for morals, which means that there's no basis for how you treat other people, except to the extent that you get something out of it. (For example, you might treat a neighbour nicely so that he will help you with something, but you might kill someone else in order to obtain scarce resources. Self-preservation can justify either scenario in different circumstances.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 21 January 2008 (EST)

:Um, dude. ''You blocked yourself for your actions.'' That's like a deputy locking himself up with the jail key for shooting a roomful of innocent people to catch a suspected jaywalker. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Wow. And now they're just outright lying about me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_31&diff=prev&oldid=181326376 here]:

<blockquote>
he avoided the block through anonymous IP's, '''stated he was avoiding the block in a blatant attempt to show off'''.
</blockquote>

I, of course, never made any such statement. These guys are really pathetic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:37, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== Examples should be restricted ==

Examples should be restricted to issues that were corrected on Wikipedia and then reverted. Only then can you really say that Wikipedia is truly biased. Most of the examples have been corrected after their posting here on Conservapedia. This is not any kind of example of bias; in fact it's exactly the opposite: Wikipedians want to make sure their encyclopedia is as free of bias as possible, so much so that ''they go out of their way to visit Conservapedia to correct that bias.'' You have to realize that Conservapedia is not all that popular, nor are many of its topics (e.g. the page for Rick Scarborough has less than 100 edits).

It's patently unfair to call bias when it's very easy to swing the bias of Wikipedia more towards center ''by editing it your bloody self.'' [[User:Illuminatedwax|Illuminatedwax]] 16:35, 2 January 2008 (EST)
: As far as your last sentence is concerned, I've already tried that, and it doesn't work, at least not on issues for which there is a group of editors (and sysops) determined to keep the status quo. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:08, 2 January 2008 (EST)

:Puhleeze. Wikipedia not only won't tolerate opinions contrary to the admins' biases in discussions, it won't let relevant facts they don't like remain in articles. [[User:Perlster|Perlster]] 17:57, 5 February 2008 (EST)

== The last point ==
Can somebody delete the last entry as a "bias" - not only is it formatted/linked incorrectly, but such an article wouldn't ever exist on Wikipedia because it is completely non-notable and has no reliable sources. You can't create a Wikipedia article when the only coverage is another wiki like Conservapedia. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:34, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:If you meant the one I think you meant, I've deleted it, although not necessarily for the reasons that you say. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:28, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Not sure why it wouldn't be for the reasons I provided. The individual was obviously upset that an article he/she created was speedily deleted - or maybe he/she was witness to it, I'm not sure. However, Wikipedia is subject to policy, and one of them is Verification from Reliable Sources. It's unchallengeable. Someone who creates an article about biases in Wikipedia and uses another Wiki as a reference shouldn't be surprised when said article is tagged for deletion. Wikipedia knows its own problems (to an extent), so the users will still try their best to adhere to NPOV, V, and NOR. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::: I didn't say that it ''wasn't'' for the reasons you said. To some extent I didn't understand both what you were getting at, and what the item was getting at (and that was one reason for deleting it). As for NPOV, see the comments that I'll make shortly in the following section. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:01, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Oxford FOI statement ==

It would be only fair to include the entire Oxford reply in the item on Dawkins professorship. Also the part that says ''Since then Dr Dawkins, as he was then, was appointed to the Charles Simonyi Readership and subsequently had the title of Professor conferred in July 1996.'' Quoting selectively and omitting this sentence looks like we have something to hide. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:45, 3 January 2008 (EST)

:Is that... disclaimer being brought up and applied here again? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:55, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::It was mentioned in the revert, but we still haven't had any evidence if the disclaimer is relevant at all. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:47, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== Wikipedia as a knowledge base ==

I have used (and do use) wikipedia frequently however in saying that, I would never use wikipedia as a scholastic resource. I would use it to get an idea of what I wanted to look for, define search terms and maybe as a starting point for further research but I would never take it as pure truth and take what I read there with a grain of salt unless backed up with other data from various sites. Instead of mocking wikipedia non-stop as a liberal haven of half truths and lies why dont Conservapedians just see wikipedia for what it is. It is simply a knowledge base, open for all to edit. Almost like a search engine with more info, whether fact or fiction, and leave it at that. I mean why care if its liberal or not? Does it hurt anyone? If you dont like it, dont read it. MetcalfeM

: What you say could also be said about the National Enquirer and, yes, both hurt a lot of people with their gossip and distortions. The difference is that the National Enquirer does not also claim to be something better than it is. Wikipedia does claim to be neutral (a lie) and an encyclopedia (misleading).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 3 January 2008 (EST)

: Up to a point I agree with MetcalfeM. But only up to a point. I said to someone the other day that I thought Wikipedia was a good source, except in two cases. One is controversial topics, where one view often overpowers the other. And controversial topics are not exactly that rare on Wikipedia. (More in a subsequent post.) The other is obscure topics where there might be a single, or very few, contributors, who may or may not know what they are talking about and who may or may not be sufficiently objective. One point on which I strongly disagree is that it doesn't "hurt". Both gossip and misinformation can be quite harmful.

Admittly Wikipedia is subject to false accusations etc etc. Being such an enourmus site it must be hard to vet everything on it. However it is misleading also to state conservapedia is an encyclopedia by the same regard and although it doesnt claim to be neutral, conservapedia is just as slanted to particular view (or ideology or whatever you want to call it) as Wikipedia. I mean this without offence of course. Just trying to get a clearer picture. MetcalfeM

: The "clearer picture" is that Wikipedia lies in claiming to be neutral, and we do not lie about what we are. Second, Wikipedia allows gossip that destroys and misleads people, while we prohibit it. If you like the National Enquirer, you'll love Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:32, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I do not love wikipedia however, as stated, it is a wonderful knowledge base. A collection of thoughts, ideas and, yes, facts and hearsay. To tar every editor and entry on wikipedia with the same brush is absurd. I am not American hence have not had a lot of exposure to the National Enquirer but I know all publications are subject to gossip and conjecture. You would only be mislead by wikipedia if you took wikipedia as read without looking further. By the same logic this website could be misleading if a subject posted here was not fully investigated. A point in case is the old entry which stated Einsteins theories had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. Granted it was fixed but while it was there it was misleading. As some entries on atheism here are slightly misleading.MetcalfeM

::It also depends on the subject in question. As a compendium of knowledge, some topics are aces (the sciences, popular culture etc.), others are weaker, while some are flat out atrocious. Aschlafly denounces Wikipedia because of its supposed uncontestable policy of Neutral Point of View. I don't mean to speak for him, but my perception is that he (like many others here) is convinced that this core policy is breached far too often. While I agree to an extent, I've seen hundreds of editors try their best to uphold and adhere to it. I know I do. Also, there is rampant vandalism from random anonymous users by the minute, sometimes insidious, which then goes unnoticed for far too long. However, that's what happens when you have 2 million articles. I must say though, there are measures that have been taken. Dozens of automated bots patrol Wikipedia and undue silly or vulgar vandalism, frequent page blanking etc..etc. There are also fail-safe programs/scripts such as TW and Vandalproof that hundreds of users use to fight vandalism on a consistent basis. TW is particularly useful. Anyway, my point is this: Wikipedia is useful as a starting point, to point you in the right direction. It can be entirely accurate on a majority of topics, while others, well...aren't. Biographies of living people (especially those in politics) are hit frequently with vandalism, and sometimes it's not fixed fast enough. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:48, 3 January 2008 (EST)

You have hit the nail on the head Wisdom89. As I stated, Wikipedia is fine and dandy as a starting point and will give some direction in what you are searching for. Like a search engine with information. There are many people that try to adhere to wikipedias outline of a NPOV but it is must be hard to keep all millions of articles that way.
I am just sort of astounded by conservapedias vitrol in expounding Wikipedias failings. Who cares if wikipedia is liberal when they say they are neutral, BAH! What difference does it make? Res ipsa loquitur, it is what it is. MetcalfeM

: The problem with Wikipedia's NPOV policy is, as mentioned, that it is violated too often. But we're not talking just about deliberate violation that can be reverted, but distorted thinking. I've many times seen people equate a neutral point of view with a ''scientific'' point of view (by which they mean evolution and its ilk). Yes, in their minds, they are trying for an neutral point of view. But they have a weird idea of "neutral". And this problem is not just with a few nutty editors, but with a swag of such editors ''and sysops'' who enforce this POV by sheer numbers and authority.
: And this extends to not just articles about, for example, creation, intelligent design, and evolution (where evolution is presented as true, and creation and intelligent design as false, despite the NPOV policy). In such articles there ''may'' be a token attempt to be neutral. But in articles not directly about these issues, such as an article about birds, evolution is presented as unchallenged fact. No neutrality there, yet such articles must number into the thousands.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:21, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== More admin screwups ==

I don't know if Jinxmchue has been around here lately, but he forgot to mention my latest screwup: I screwed up renaming some categories from "National Historic Landmarks of (state)" to "National Historic Landmarks in (state)".

Oh, by the way, I mentioned earlier that sins aren't forgivable. It's not an attack against religion -- if I wasn't religious, I wouldn't care about my sins or my mistakes or anything like that. Let's take a look at [[Paul]]'s letter to the Romans chapter 6:
: Romans 6:1: What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not! How can we who died to sin yet live in it?
: Romans 6:15: What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Of course not! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
: Romans 13:4-7: But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

I think Paul puts forth several clear arguments here about why sin isn't acceptable and why it isn't excusable for someone to sin, make mistakes, screw up, or otherwise transgress against someone. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 21:37, 5 January 2008 (EST)

: I read your first quote and see if refers to ''persistent'' [[sin]]. Do yourself a favor: open your heart and mind to what the [[Bible]] says, before you go down a path that leads to depression, anxiety and sorrow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:55, 5 January 2008 (EST)

:Sins aren't forgiveable? That's not the same faith that I was brought up in then! And why wouldn't you care about your sins if you weren't religious? Surely you would still care about doing wrong to others. Or are you saying that you only care about your sins for fear of divine retribution? Genuinely confused. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 16:19, 8 January 2008 (EST)

:: I couldn't figure out what he was talking about either, but don't know where he "mentioned earlier" that sins weren't forgivable, so didn't know the background. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:27, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== 88. Jimbo on international editors ==

Number 88 (currently) is dubious:

: Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:[128]

:"I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.[129] Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]

You make it sound like any global project that isn't limited to Americans is automatically biased, just because political views differ throughout the world. A more reasonable position would be that an American-only wiki (such as this one effectively is) is automatically biased. [[User:Ortega|Ortega]] 18:29, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Example number 14 ==

I first posted a message regarding this example on TerryH's [[User talk:TerryH|talk page]], and he suggested that I take the discussion here.

Looking back on my [[User talk:TerryH#Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|original message]], I realize I was a bit unclear in my intentions. I don't deny that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public; that's not what I'm against. What I'm against is us making false claims about Wikipedia's citations.

In example #14, it is claimed that the sources cited say nothing about "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" of the 6 times figure. While this is correct for one of the sources cited, the other source, from TheStar.com ([http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501]) does indeed criticize the extrapolation and credibility, making #14 false.

As I said on Terry's talk, I just don't want Conservapedia filled with same kinds of inaccuracies as Wikipedia. Only the truth should reside here, nothing else.

Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 17:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:This is an issue I brought up some time ago when the example was listed as #8 - see above. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 18:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:: The references don't support Wikipedia's claim. To the contrary, the references tend to support Conservapedia's claim yet Wikipedia claims otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::The Star said "The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation.". I can see why people call that criticism because of poor extrapolation. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:50, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Hmmm... Perhaps something along the lines of:

<blockquote> But of the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility", only one briefly mentions extrapolation or credibility, and both instead tend to confirm the liberal bias on Wikipedia.</blockquote>

...Maybe? Well, in any case, I'll point out the small spelling error (to --> two) that needs to be fixed as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:05, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:It is not that briefly. The article spends three paragraphs on it. So I would can the "briefly". The other reference is to a blog, and we all know that it is bad style to quote some minor blogs to make a point. The second reference should be removed for that reason alone. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:26, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:Feebasfactor, there is no spelling error. You're mistaken. User:Order is right about the reference to a blog, which is silly by Wikipedia to cite that as a reference. Moreover, Wikipedia implicitly admits we're right in example 14 because it weakened its criticism of Conservapedia on that point. By the way, no one seriously denies that Wikipedia is significantly more liberal than the American public, expect perhaps devout Wikipedia "NPOV" types.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Right, I ''was'' mistaken... I initially read the sentence differently, thinking "to articles" was intended as "two articles". Upon rereading it makes perfect sense as the former, sorry about the confusion (mine...). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:35, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::Indeed, there just few people contesting it. But that doesn't give you the freedom to use shaky statistics to come up with a number. If you want to say it is more liberal do so, and find sound evidence for that. If you want to say it is six-times more liberal, then you need to have sound evidence for the '''six-times''' as well. And the article is criticizing how you arrived at this number. You are probably taller than Danny de Vito. But if you claim that you are six times as tall, the fact that Danny de Vito isn't the tallest, is not proof for you six-times claim.
::The other reference has some criticism of the six-times figure, but only in the comments. But as said, using such a blog as source is dubious in the first place. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:18, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::: I did spend hours here debating apologists for Wikipedia over the "six times as liberal" figure. I even built entries here explaining the methodology, and refuting criticisms of it, and you can find those entries with searches. Measuring temperature, or almost anything, is never perfect and there can be constructive criticisms of any measurement. But as I recall the real articles about Conservapedia did not really doubt or criticize the figure, and certainly didn't criticize the figure in a manner claimed by Wikipedia in its entry about us. Many people, including liberals, were intrigued by the attempt to quantify how liberal something is. The intense criticism of the measurement seems to be by people who think there is something wrong with quantifying how liberal a group is. Nothing wrong with it at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::::You're missing the point entirely. Your #14 is incorrect. Your entry is explicitly stating that the references do not criticize the derivation of the 6x's estimate. The references absolutely do. That's the problem here. One may be a blog, I'm surprised it's being used as it's not reliable, but the other is. You're misleading the readers of this article simply to inflate the number of biases. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 22:19, 10 January 2008 (EST)
::::Also, the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia does not use the phrasing "credibility and extrapolation" anymore - and it hasn't for some time now. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 22:22, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::Given the time and effort that you put into defending the comparison of a poll with 3 possible answers and a representative sample to a self-identification project with 32 possible answers by a self-selected group, I did indeed wonder fairly frequently, if hadn't been easier for you to spend an afternoon on getting reliable numbers. It would have been easier and less work to do, and there would be less reason for criticism. You might get an A for persistence in a debate, but not for proper use of statistics. Yes, measurements are never perfect, but that is no excuse to measure with a rubber band. But as long as you insist on using shaky statistics you can expect that kind of criticism.
:::Anyway, the paper does criticize how you arrived at those numbers. You should be able to admit that, even if you disagree with the criticism itself. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:30, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::: Which newspaper article specifically criticized our methodology for saying "6 times more liberal"? Let's look at what the article actually said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:50, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::Among the two references there was only one newspaper, so it should be obvious that the The Star was meant. And you put the point #14 yourself up [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=316514&oldid=316513] in October, so I guess that you took a look at the references. Maybe you didn't read all of it, since the article spends three paragraphs on the six-times figure, and they are not positive. Or maybe you also just forgot since October. But are you really asking that we repeat the excerpts that are critical and sometimes even condescending towards CP and yourself here? It might give the impression that you want to get victimized, but I don't see how that would further the discussion. The Star article has been cited on this page for those that are interested. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:35, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::: I'm simply asking what specifically in the reference (the Star article is it, I suppose) that you think justifies the Wikipedia statement that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', '''a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility'''." (emphasis added)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::It says nothing about it, Andy. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:31, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Wikipedia's article says that the statistic is criticized for its unscientific derivation, reflecting the wording in the article, and Andy, your own words. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:55, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::From the Star: "Schlafly makes a number of claims about Wikipedia. The most sensational is that Wikipedia is "six times more liberal than the American public." How does Schlafly know? He takes a list of a few hundred Wikipedia users who have self-identified as liberal compared to those who say they're conservative – about three times more. He multiples this by the fact that, he says, twice as many Americans identify themselves as more conservative than liberal, to come up with the number. The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation. He agrees that it's not a scientific, 'but it's the best means we have, and no one has disputed that Wikipedia editors are more liberal.'" [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:59, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::: First, you're quoting the statement substituted by Wikipedia ''after'' we pointed out the bias and defect in Wikipedia's harsher statement. Second, the Star article only references "unscientific" in connection with MY statement that it is unscientific. So am I the real source of Wikipedia's claim that "the statistic is criticized for its '''unscientific derivation'''"???? That's Wikipedia bias in action: twisting and turning to do anything it can to smear a [[conservative]] source, argument, person, or movement, and hence the need for this list of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:34, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::: That is uttter nonsense - it doesn't matter when it was altered, either statement on Wikipedia (back months ago and what it says right now) made it patently clear that the author of the Star was being critical of YOUR derivation/extrapolation. He calls it "hardly a solid base" and "sensational". Quit trying to dismiss or dodge Conservapedia's errors by regurgitating the same old rhetoric over and over again. "Smear", "liberal bias" etc..etc.. For once admit that maybe, just maybe some of these examples are misleading, obsolete, hair splitting or flat out wrong. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:07, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: Sorry, "Wisdom", I'm afraid that you're the one in denial. Wikipedia did smear us, then changed the smear (without apology by Wikipedia or admission by you) to something less objectionable but still misleading. I admitted to the reporter that the "6 times" was not scientific, and the reporter wrote that. It is still not accurate, though not as bad as before, for Wikipedia to claim that my own admission is support for its statement that "the statistic is criticized for its '''unscientific derivation'''". Nobody ever claimed it was a scientific derivation!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:15, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: Andy, I would appreciate it if you would not condescend to me by placing my alias in quotations. Thank you. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:43, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I guess the case that Andy wants to make is that it wasn't the Star criticizing CP, but that it was Andy himself. So apparently it was Andy who called it the methodology "hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation", and that he himself then went on and called it "unscientific". The Star was apparently just reporting. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:04, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: Yes, Andy did indeed call it "unscientific" (which it most certainly is), but it was the Star itself that reported the claim was "sensational" (the MOST sensational of them all, actually) and "hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation", unless you were just being sarcastic and I missed it : ). But still, the only thing that gives me grief is the (seemingly) sheer inability of any Conservapedia operator to just admit when something might be inapplicable or incorrect about this list. Sure there are biases on Wikipedia, but I get the feeling this is more about racking up negative points against Wiki instead of "getting the truth out". [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:20, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::: "Wisdom", the point here concerns the prior smear by Wikipedia, which you seem unwilling to acknowledge. And as to your choosing the name "Wisdom", is there an innocent explanation for that, or is it another [[liberal]] attempt to appear smarter than [[conservatives]]??--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:00, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::It isn't that I'm not willing to acknowledge a smear (in yours eyes), it's more like I feel you're hyperbolizing by referring to it as such. As I mentioned earlier, I feel that in its past and present form, the statements are quite fair. If you want, since I heavily contribute to that article and revert vandalism/POV on a regular basis, I can change the wording to something along the lines of "the statistic has been referred to as sensational etc..etc.." It's probably more appropriate anyway. Now, the second point. My user name. Technically, this should be of no concern of yours, and the fact that you question it as you did further solidifies my belief that liberal paranoia and antipathy permeates this site, however, I will answer it. It's completely innocent. I've gone by Wisdom89 on the internet since 1997. The only reason it was chosen was because of a gift an old friend gave me. I don't really need to go into any further detail do I? I do not feel liberals, conservatives, or moderates (whatever) are more intelligent than one another since I tend to eschew using the terms in the first place. That is the extent of it. I am liberal, if I HAD to pick a side of the spectrum, but this doesn't mean everything I say is a reflection of that term. I am my own person. Silly political vernacular doesn't define character, especially since I'm "conservative" on a number of issues. Anyway, that's enough talk about that stuff. Cheers Andy. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:53, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I am bit confused about what the smear exactly is, but it seems like you take case with the assertion that you were ''criticized'' for the unscientific derivation, and not with the label ''unscientific'' itself. We all agree that the figure ''is hardly based on solid numbers'', we all agree that it is ''unscientific''. The smear seem to be the suggestion that this is ''criticism'', while it it is simply a ''fact'', and Andy was apparently the first who stated this fact. I agree, Wikipedia should take out the ''critics'', and simply state that the numbers are unscientific and hardly based on solid numbers, without any reference to the alleged ''critics''. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:03, 11 January 2008 (EST)

==Offensive Content==
Has anyone considered that Conservapedia articles might actually be fairly graphic in nature? The words "inserted anally" come up fairly frequently. [[user:hmuckabee|Hmuckabee]]
:That's nothing. You should see the pictures the exhibitionist editors add to the sex-related articles. Well, no, you actually ''shouldn't'' see them, and neither should kids. Sadly, Wikipedia makes no attempt to shield children from these images. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:12, 16 January 2008 (EST)
::Actually, I'm wrong. WP does make an attempt to shield children. At the very bottom of every page (which would be after all the content in each page has been viewed by children) in small print is a link to their various disclaimers. These include "USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK" and "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE." Many of the images and information WP articles contain is as bad as any pornographic website, yet does WP care? Of course not. If your kids stumble upon offensive material on WP, well, that's YOUR fault, of course. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:17, 17 January 2008 (EST)
:::I thought it was common knowledge among Conservapedians that Wikipedia is not censored. I could google any objectionable pornographic word I'd like and receive 10,000 pornographic hits, or sites which contain extremely offensive ads and banners. I mean really, the internet itself is an unholy cesspool for that stuff, not just Wikipedia. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 15:51, 17 January 2008 (EST)
::::Well, at least pornographic websites make some kind of attempt (however minimal) to keep kids away before they see anything. And Google can be set to filter results. Of course, such filtering does not exclude Wikipedia articles, which are often near or at the top of the results. I mean, who needs pornographic websites when you have Wikipedia? (Makes me glad I downloaded a filter for our computer that can block specific articles/categories on Wikipedia.) [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:41, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Disruptive userboxes in wikipedia ==

Wikipedia has several disruptive userboxes. They include userboxes supporting cuba, Iraqi insurgency etc. I want to bring this fact. --[[User:Dendronicus|Dendronicus]] 10:49, 14 January 2008 (EST)

I am here giving some examples of these disruptive userboxes[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics]:
#Userbox with a text "This user believes that communism is an ideal system of government, in theory"
#Userbox with a text "This user's safety and liberty are threatened by all firearms"
#Userbox with a text "This user is pro-Cuba"
#Userbox with a text "This user recognizes the right of Iraqis to resist occupation"
#Userbox with a text "This user knows that there are 2,000,000 reasons why the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong"
#Userbox with a text "This user knows that there are 654,965 reasons why the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong"
I have given here only few examples of the disruptive userboxes which are present in wikipedia. --[[User:Dendronicus|Dendronicus]] 10:59, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Yet you leave out the hundreds of alternative user boxers. Nice going [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 11:05, 14 January 2008 (EST)

==nummer fortie one==
I do not get it. can sumone help me? What is wrong with 99.84% ? I guess I do not get per cents so good.--[[User:Dagg|Dagg]] 19:47, 14 January 2008 (EST)

==Ron Paul Newsletters==
The assertion that the newsletters gave tactical advice to militias is not unsubstantiated. Below are some gems found in the January 1995 issue. Maybe we need to list all of these so nobody thinks the statement is unfounded?
: Local militias called "one of the most encouraging developments in America"
: "I want to share with you these rules from the Sons of Liberty, a militia in Northern Alabama..."
: Small things are harder to find. Keep the group size down.
: If you have more than one rifle, store it in a hideaway spot. Remember to store ammunition with it, enough ammo for at least one combat load.
: Avoid the phone whenever possible, and never speak in plain English about club business.
: Destroy any documents or discs that become unnecessary.
: Most groups meet under cover of another activity: a gun club, Bible study, self-help group, even a bowling league.

:: And where is the substantiation that these are "right-wing"? It doesn't exist. This is yet another [[Wikipedia]] smear. Moreover, the adjective "tactical advice" is misleading and inflammatory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Why is it misleading? Read what I posted -- they are pieces of advice regarding tactics. Hence, tactical advice. [[User:Paisan30|Paisan30]] 21:57, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:: I did. You should read what I posted. You didn't even quote Wikipedia's smear correctly, and the defects in your denial grow from there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:14, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::I wrote some of Wikipedia's "smear", and I didn't quote anything other than "tactical advice". [[User:Paisan30|Paisan30]] 23:22, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::: You're not making sense. Wikipedia's unsubstantiated smear includes (as an example) the statement that "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories." You've cited nothing to justify the smear of "right-wing", and you've shown nothing to justify the inflammatory statement that this "gave tactical advice," which has military-like connotations. In fact, what you describe does not appear to be "advice" at all, but merely a factual description of club rules of interest for various proper reasons.

:::: If you wrote that sentence "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories," then you should consider becoming a fulltime smear artist on Wikipedia. It's clever in the way that it smears the reputation of a good man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 14 January 2008 (EST)

== #6: Axiom of Choice ==

The [[Axiom of Choice]] may be somewhat controversial in an abstract mathematical way. But what does it have to do with liberal bias? And how did it get to #6? [[User:MilesAgain|MilesAgain]] 06:44, 15 January 2008 (EST)

== A simple solution to grievances ==

I gotta say, if you think that wikipedia is missing an important point on a topic, edit the page to include it. Is that not kind of the point? --[[User:Falcifer|Falcifer]] 17:02, 16 January 2008 (EST)

: No, my friend, you're missing the point. Wikipedia ''enforces'' its bias. Edits that remove [[liberal]] bias there are reverted. It is a waste of time to try to remove [[liberal]] bias. It's like trying to keep the Titanic afloat by using buckets to expel the water.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 16 January 2008 (EST)

:I will use the number two entry as an example:

"Wikipedia's entry on Benazir Bhutto has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she was pro-life and led the movement against the United Nations' creating a new international right to abortion."

You mean that a person adding a section describing Bhutto's work on abortion and citing, for example, a page from a reputable autobiography of her, will find that this addition will be removed? I'm sorry if I sound incredulus.--[[User:Falcifer|Falcifer]] 17:25, 16 January 2008 (EST)

== The main premise of Wikipedia.==

If you think it's wrong, you can attempt to fix it. If the page is locked, discuss on the talk page. I honstly fail to understand how this is all lost on every last one of you... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)

: Lynch mobs operate with essentially the same procedure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:28, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:: So does democracy. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:54, 17 January 2008 (EST)

::: No, democracies can't survive with mob rule like what goes on at Wikipedia. Fundamental restraints on bias and bullying are essential for democracy to survive and thrive. Like, for example, a constitution that is objectively enforced against the mob to curb its bias and excesses.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::: And therefore you must not attempt to fix things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:15, 17 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Many of us, including myself, have attempted to fix things at [[Wikipedia]] -- with all the success of someone who tries to object to what a mob is doing in a lawless society. [[Ron Paul]]'s page on Wikipedia, for example, was locked. Most of the other examples of smears and gossip cannot be fixed. The mob won't allow it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: See the first post I made here. Everything you just said is tackled there.

:::::: On another note, out of naked self-interest, this is my last post on this topic for now, for I wish to remain here. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:27, 17 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: I've tried discussing things on talk pages, only to face a brick wall of opposition to anything I say (well, anything they don't agree with). I've seen others do the same, but with less self-control have hit back uncivilly at the brick wall, which then gives the brick wall cause to block or ban them. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:36, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>stares at PJR's reply* ...wait, are we discussing Wikipedia or Conservapedia here? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:05, 18 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Dunno, but it is a beautifully coherent metaphor. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:26, 24 January 2008 (EST)

I thought Wikipedia was for the most part unbiased, then I came here and realized they were biased...against shabby articles with outdated unverifiable sources, and against hate crime.
Thus Conservapedia was born. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 13:56, 18 January 2008 (EST)

: "Rainedaye", you have 11 edits here, and they are all talk, talk, talk. No substantive edits. Let me guess: you're another [[liberal]], right? Oh how [[liberals]] love to talk, talk, talk. It's so obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 18 January 2008 (EST)

::Most of the operators here love to "talk talk talk" just as much as anyone - sometimes even more than the average user. Does that make them liberal too? [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:26, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:Heh, hard to edit when the pages with the most problems are locked! And I have to be a liberal because I think some articles are grossly biased? What can I say, you caught me red-handed [[McCarthy|Aschlafly]]! --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 19:01, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Bahaha is this meant to be funny? I hope so because Aschlalfy cracks me up.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

== Sudden Jihad Syndrome ==

{{cquote|Wikipedia has refused to have an article on Sudden Jihad Syndrome despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including neoconservative academic Daniel Pipes. and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.}}
Okay, even ignoring spelling and grammar here, I don't see (1) how this is bias and (2) how the bit about multiple commentators is ''true'' in any practical way.

Wikipedia deleted the article because it's a term that's basically only used by Pipes. He came up with it, he ''once'' got referenced using it ("But it sure looks like another case of what Daniel Pipes, founder and director of the Middle East Forum, calls 'Sudden Jihad Syndrome.'" - The Courier Editorial, which would most likely just count as being mentioned in passing), but that's it. I don't see the "multiple commentators", unless you really go into semantics ''and'' stretch the understanding of what counts as a reliable source.

The WP discussion shows that the article, just like ours, had tons of original research, using sources that don't mention SJS ''at all'' to show how it fits into a pattern that's wide enough to make '''every Islamist on planet Earth fit into it''':
{{cquote|Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers. -- Daniel Pipes, "Fighting Militant Islam, Without Bias"}}
Sorry, but Wikipedia had a good point deleting it. It's not liberal bias or some other sort of bias, it's "You didn't show reliable sources that actually use the term in a notable way, and your article was full of original research."

And the same goes for ''our'' article, by the way. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:23, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== #46 ("Worldwide view" is fictional terminology) Is based on a seriously flawed premise ==

I have mainly come to CP because it looks to be a better attempt to live up to what WP aspired to (i.e. a factual encyclopaedia); but #46 in this list is itself an example of axiomatic bias. "American treatment" of topics may be all well and good, but it should be recognised as such, and it should be recognised that the "American treatment" may differ not just from other parts of the world but even from the rest of the world (and yes, those are different concepts).

For years I have been involved in online communities, and often US-ism has been a running joke that only the Americans could not see. So yes, there is a worldwide view in a general sense, and there are also many regional/national/cultural views other than the American view that should at least be acknowledged.

WP's "American" banner has been one of the practices that I have enjoyed. If I see that someone has acknowledged that the topic/article has a US POV (hmm.. even despite NPOV policy) then the US-centric tone does not bother me so much, as it is at least overt.

I am only new to CP and I have jumped in and commented much earlier than I intended to, but my chief frustration with WP has been militant editors with an axiomatic materialism so basic that they cannot even acknowledge it. The value that I saw in CP is that the axioms are expressed and acknowledged. It unsettled me a little to see a suggestion that a US-centric POV is in place but not acknowledged. Now if it is in place AND acknowledged then I wouldn't necessarily have a problem. (I'm from Oz, BTW).[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:41, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:I know what you mean. I've had to add things like "in America" to a lot of the legal pages... and an "in English" to the [[vowels]] page. Ethnocentricity? Nahhh. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:54, 24 January 2008 (EST)

: You may be interested in my reply to another editor on this general topic [[Conservapedia talk:About#You're missing a trick|here]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:45, 25 January 2008 (EST)

== Possible new entry ==

In the Wikipedia entry for T.H. Huxley, the following sentence can be found: Persistent types sat rather uncomfortably next to Darwin's more fluid ideas; despite his intelligence, it took him a surprisingly long time to appreciate some of the implications of evolution. (See the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.H._Huxley#Vertebrate_palaeontology ) [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:41, 26 January 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Don't insert [[liberal bias]] into the content page. Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)
:Didn't seem terribly biased to me. After all, Conservapedia has, in the past (But fixed by yours truly) had sources posted that did nothing to confirm the relevant subject matter. Example being the [[Video games]] article, first paragraph. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:11, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:: Mistakes are not bias. The Wikipedia hatchet job on its entry for Conservapedia is not the result of mistakes, but of bias. That is obvious enough, wouldn't you agree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:33, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::If you say so, sir. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:36, 27 January 2008 (EST)

What bias? We all agree that the Star in its article on 11 March 2006 mentions that the numbers are unscientific [http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501]. Hence, the statement that "the two citations (...) say nothing about extrapolation or credibility", as the previous and now current version say, is not true, there is no denying about that. Actually, you confirmed yourself that the Star article mentions that the numbers are unscientific, twice, but added you that it was you yourself who called them them unscientific first. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=368263 Here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=368501 here]. And this is exactly what my last edit reflected; that you were the source for the "criticism", and that Wikipedia twisted it to make it look like the newspaper criticized you. Or how else do we have to interpret your statement "the Star article only references 'unscientific' in connection with MY statement that it is unscientific." [[User:Order|Order]] 05:51, 27 January 2008 (EST)

: Explanation for the second reversion: "credibility" is not the same as "scientific". No one claimed that the "6 times more liberal" statement is "scientific". But no one seriously disputes that Wikipedia is far more liberal than the American public. The statement is credible, and it's false and misleading for Wikipedia to claim that newspapers criticized that statement for lack of credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:08, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::Someone criticized the six-times number for lack of credibility in the Star, and not the general statement that Wikipedia is somewhat more liberal than the American public. Your own reversion now says "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." Do you deny that this refers explicitly to the six-times statistics?
:: You told us that you yourself were the source for all the criticism in The Star article, and not the journalist. It says "The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation." Did you tell the Star this or is this the journalist speaking? The article can be misunderstood on this point, so could you clarify this point. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::Why are people still insisting that the "extrapolation and credibility" statement remain in the first place? Either change the tense to the past, or remove it completely. Wikipedia does not use those words, and hasn't for the past 4-5 months. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:45, 27 January 2008 (EST)
::::The first half of the entry is outdated, and the second is plain incorrect. Anybody, who looks at either the Wikipedia article or the Star article will see that in a glance. They probably conclude that CP is sloppy about their entries, and not exactly trustworthy. The current entry should obviously change, since it outdated and wrong. If it is true that Andy is the source of the criticism in the article, and not the journalist, then the WP article is indeed giving the wrong impression. If the journalist is the source for the criticism then this entire item is somewhat pointless. Andy should get the benefit of the doubt when he claims that he was the source for the criticism, but given that he tries to change the subject, rather than answer it, feeds suspicions that he tries to duck this simple question, maybe because he wants to come back on his earlier statements that he was the source of the criticism. It becomes a bit dubious. [[User:Order|Order]] 06:44, 28 January 2008 (EST)

==Uhm, percentages==

97? I don't mean to bring math into this, but how many Wikipedia articles are there, exactly? Something on the order of 2,200,000 (English version alone)? I think it speaks to that websites wealth of integrity that a RESPONSE website, whose own motto, "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is clearly (alright, it MIGHT take TWO braincells to decrypt) a slight towards its larger, more heavily-trafficked cousin (twice removed, thrice reverted), can only find 97 faults. There's practically nothing here that alleges WIDESPREAD, rampant uncontrollable lying on Wikipedia. There is are few fleeting references to over-hyped John Birch Society affilitations, which is kind of like saying Wikipedia misrepresents a congessmans's Kevin Bacon Number. This website, while heavily enjoyed, appreciated, and useful to many people (myself included!), doesn't have to read like some Bizarro-world. And, for now, it does. [[User:Repub236|Repub236]] 13:36, 30 January 2008 (EST)

: Perhaps 75% of Wikipedia is pure junk: unsuccessful rock bands, obscure liberal journalists, unheard-of towns, Hollywood trivia, obscenity-related entries, public high schools, etc. Of the remaining 25%, much of it is biased, incomplete, erroneous, etc. But we're not going to spend all our time identifying the thousands of problems. When something on Wikipedia is particularly flagrant, we've identified it to the extent we spend time on this.

: I wonder if your "percentages" analysis would apply to, say, the percentage of time that a president lies? No, I don't think a comment like, "he only lies 1% of the time" would be acceptable to anyone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:24, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::Are your numbers based on an analysis of a random sample of Wikipedia articles? It has been suggested that we should do this, rather than rely on anecdotal evidence. A reference that gives a bit more background information on these numbers would be very much appreciated. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::Wikipedia ''does'' break down the articles into categories, which are aligned and categorized into various "projects". It would very easy to slice that baby open and count the rings. Sorry, anti-choicers; I meant baby in the ecstatic figurative way:) By the way, a President who only lies '''1%''' of the time? Let him out of the duffel bag and behind a podium!!! [[User:Repub236|Repub236]] 17:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)
::::Sure, you could do it this way. You could also use the random article feature and do a study on a thus obtained sample. Either way, it is definitely possible, and has been suggested for a long time. Apparently somebody has done this, given that Andy uses the outcomes of such a study, but it would be nice if he would provide a reference for the rest of us. We could then tell how the study was conducted, rather than guess. It would be easy to do it, but why do it, if it has already been done. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:14, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::::Agreed. Either one works for me; perhaps this wasn't the most direct route to a satisfactory..."inquiry" / "impeachment of Conservapedia axioms"...but I think that's a good course of action: Let's get some mad scientific method skills up in this slice. (Sorry). [[User:Repub236|Repub236]] 20:34, 30 January 2008 (EST)

== more on "level of support for evolution" ==

The Wikipedia article is constantly edited to make sure that it '''does not''' actually address the subject, as stated in its own title. There are redundant paragraphs about how almost all "scientists" (computer scientists? political scientists?) alledgedly support evolutionism. What is (usually) missing is the essential truth necessary for the article to be useful - what are the views of the general population? The polls by Newsweek, Gallup, and CBS show quite similar results. The numbers can easily be verified online. However, against WP's own stated policies, they are removed from the article again and again. [[User:Perlster|Perlster]]

== Bias check ==

Could I get a check on Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Minnesota History of Minnesota] article to determine where it's biased and where it's just wrong? The article talks about the increasing role of government in the early 20th century, and it talks about [[Hubert Humphrey]] and the rise of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, so those issues in themselves may be questionable. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 11:05, 14 February 2008 (EST)

== Cobb County stickers ==

The material that was removed and then re-added reads like editorialization and could easily be considered synthesis. Someone could try using those reasons to remove the material again, but I doubt the evolution cabal would let it stand. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:36, 22 February 2008 (EST)

: It's particularly bizarre how the evolutionists insist on labeling as "creationist" anything they disagree with, even though (like the stickers) it is not creationism, as illustrated by the biased edits to that entry on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:40, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Point-by-point analysis ==
So last night I went though each point on here, and I responded to some of them that I felt were either insufficient or just plain wrong. Here is my list (all numbers as of 10 pm on 2/22/08):

2. How is this bias?
3, 8, 18, 52, 54: merge; these are all the same point
4. How do we know this isn’t true?
5. Not mentioning every detail about someone is not bias, but the
overall point is good.
7. This is not bias just because a conservative said it.
9. Factually true, but how is it bias?
10. This has been fixed. Even if it was still there, this would be
more against Christians because they believe that it is immoral.
12. This has been fixed.
14. True, but it’s not bias to look at the worldwide view.
15. Fixed, and we do need a source to back it up.
17. Vandalism is not bias (although it is a problem).
19. Not really bias (although, again, it is a problem).
21. If there is a source saying this, then this is not bias.
23. This is not bias, although I see how it might be taken that way.
24. It is stated in the article that people find it improper.
27. Vandalism is not liberal at all. It’s usually someone being stupid.
29. It’s the same thing for conservative. The stated examples aren’t bias.
30. This has been fixed.
31. I agree that it’s kind of overboard, but they don’t “promote” it. Also, that is not bias.
32, 46: merge; same point
35. Not bias.
36. Not bias.
37. Not bias, and it had just been founded.
38. Perhaps they did not know about that paper. The other examples are good though.
39. How much they donate is irrelevant to what they believe in.
40. It does not prominently feature that.
43. There is bias, but it seems like it goes both ways.
44. “Citation needed” does not mean that it may not be true, just that they need a citation. And first you complain that they don’t have it, but then you complain that they do?
47. Not bias.
49. No, a worldwide view means exactly that: a worldwide view.
50: Not bias.
51. They say almost exactly the same thing on Wikipedia.
55. Not really bias.
56. It’s not bias to not mention every detail.
57. May I see the methods you used to gather those results?
59. At the bottom of every page, things like this are addressed.
62. It is true, though absurd.
64. This has been fixed.
65. I see many options besides atheist.
68. All of these have been fixed.
69. Not bias.
71. Neither of the claims are supported well, and being a worldwide encyclopedia means it can’t just be American.
74. Not bias.
75. Meanwhile the same page is locked here, forcing only one side of the issue on us.
77. Fixed, and how do we know that? Meanwhile the same article about Conservapedia was blocked here.
78. Not bias.
82. Not bias.
83. Not bias.
85. Not bias, and you even say it has been fixed.
86. Not gossip or bias.
87. Not gossip or bias.
89. Not bias.
92. To answer the question at the end: no.
94. Not bias.
95. Not bias.
96. Not bias.
97. Fixed.
98. True, but they definitely are in the minority, so they would want to self-identify more. It’s like saying people with hair have no category, but people with no hair do, so they're anti-hair.
99. Not really bias.
100. Source for second statement?
102. Not bias.

And sorry for the wall of writing, I can't make it a list like it should be, with bullet points. --[[User:Blabberno|Blabberno]] 13:40, 23 February 2008 (EST)

One more thing: if you just decide to block me, rather then actually respond, you're wasting a chance to make your own site better. I support this site, but I feel like much of the list is erronous in some way. --[[User:Blabberno|Blabberno]] 13:44, 23 February 2008 (EST)

: "Blabberno", your dialog is unreadable. Pick your best 5 examples, and I'll reply. In the meantime, please contribute in a substantive way while you're here, so that all can learn with you. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:50, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Sorry, I did kind of realize it was hard to read. I'll choose my best few responses (in my opinion):

3, 8, 18, 52, 54: merge; these are all the same point that Wiki does not cite things correctly, although the actual point is accurate.

: Those are separate examples of [[liberal bias]] on [[Wikipedia]]. It's not merely that Wikipedia is inaccurate, it is that it is biased. You seem to be missing that basic point, despite the many examples. Perhaps what is needed is even more examples, not less, so that you can finally see the pattern.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:27, 23 February 2008 (EST)

39. How much they donate is irrelevant to what they believe in.

: Wow, what a statement. How someone spends his money is highly relevant to reflect what his beliefs are. Surely you don't dispute that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:27, 23 February 2008 (EST)

44. “Citation needed” does not mean that it may not be true, just that they need a citation. And first you complain that they don’t have it, but then you complain that they do?

: First we complained that Wikipedia censored the religious reference, and then (after Wikipedia reacted) we complained that they downplayed and discredited it. Is that so difficult for you to follow?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:27, 23 February 2008 (EST)

75. Meanwhile the same page is locked here, forcing only one side of the issue on us.

: Our entry includes many quotes from the "other side." And we don't censor all opposition while pretending to be neutral, as Wikipedia does. As above, this item #75 is right on the mark.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:27, 23 February 2008 (EST)

77. Fixed, and how do we know that? Meanwhile the same article about Conservapedia was blocked here.

:Your comment is incoherent. Wikipedia censored and deleted an entry about its bias, as I recall. There is no such entry there now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:27, 23 February 2008 (EST)

98. True, but they definitely are in the minority, so they would want to self-identify more. It’s like saying people with hair have no category, but people with no hair do, so they're anti-hair.

: Again, your criticism is incoherent. Fairness dictates that having a self-identification for one type of group requires having a self-identification for the alternative type of group.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:27, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Sorry again about the bad formatting. When I originally did it, it was in the right type: line by line. Is there a way to make it the correct format? --[[User:Blabberno|Blabberno]] 15:37, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:To skip to the next line in wiki formatting, type in <nowiki> </nowiki> after the previous line. But in any case... none of these are going to be changed. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:51, 23 February 2008 (EST)
:There's two other ways to do it. One is to simply leave a blank line between each entry. The other is to start each line with a colon. The colon actually causes it to indent, but (a) an indented list in your post is not inappropriate, and (b) lines beginning with colons don't wrap onto the previous line. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:16, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:: Right, because there is no logical reason for changing any of these items. Now if we allowed [[liberal logic]], then the outcome would be different.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:27, 23 February 2008 (EST)
==Religious affialition of Wikipedians==
I edited several wikipedian user templates so that templates identifying one with religion a or atheism etc. will result in you being put in that category for example several atheist wikipedian user templates now put the user in the category Category:Atheist Wikipedians, if he/she puts the template on their userpage, revealing our current estimated amount of atheist/ and others is greatly underestimated there is 1722 atheist Wikipedians of which 17 are objectivist. Also we forgot agnostics there is 515 of them numbering about as much as the christian sample of wikipedia alone. There should be a part on the picture where it reveals the sample size. that means there is 2222 atheist or agnostics out of our sample wow! Way more than the sample for christians Please update the picture showing religious affiliation of Wikipedians--[[User:Java7837|Java7837]] 16:22, 28 February 2008 (EST)
:Actually, I'd like to know where that graph came from in the first place. It was put there by [[user:Wahrheit|Wahrheit]], but I've not seen any explanation of where the figures came from. Unless Wahrheit can explain that, I think the graph should be removed as possibly bogus. And by the way, the graph ''does'' include agnostics, and how does 515 <s>outnumber</s> mean "about as much as" 789, the figure shown for Christians? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 28 February 2008 (EST)

== "Wikipedia has been called the National Enquirer of the Internet:[1]" ==

I'm removing this claim because the source is very flimsy. An inactive blog written by a self proclaimed "eccentric" isn't a powerful enough position to put such a quote in the banner. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 18:57, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

== Graph: Number of people claiming a faith = 2179; Number of atheists = 1508. ==

Is it just me, or are there more people of faith on wikipedia than atheists?

The graph shows that the number of people claiming a faith = 2179 whilst the number of atheists = 1508.

That's 60% believes, versus 40% disbelieves.

Is wikipedia in fact "faithist"?

It makes me wonder if we have any statistics regarding the number of atheists on Conserapedia versus the numbers from the faith groups?

I really hope that Conservapedia (unlike wikipedia) is not bias to any one faith group.

It would be a sorry day for "The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia" if it was dominated by any one faith group; would that be health, surely we wouldn’t want any one group’s view to dominate the others …

Well lets hope not ...

{{unsigned|Qgobo}}

:Conservapedia is a conservative Christian resource primarily, I believe. That is the main viewpoint espoused, and I think the stated purpose.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:07, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Tom, isn't that rather the point, wikipedia isn't a "Christian resource primarily", and thus it should be allowed to express a view other than the one seen here. If bias means subscribing to primarily one doctrine, then wikipedia is less bias than conservapedia. Wouldn't a better title for this page be "Where and how Wikipedia differs from Conservapedia"? However, perhaps your broader point is that no one here is receptive to my point of view so I should gently move on. [[User:Qgobo|Qgobo]] 23:51, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

[[Faith]] is a uniquely Christian concept. It is being used incorrectly above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jews, Hindus, Muslims would be interested to know that. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Aschlafly - please read "people of faith" in the above comments to mean "non-atheists". {{unsigned|Qgobo}}

::: That's a meaningless category. It's like making a category of all voters whose last name begins with "A". They disagree among themselves.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Not true - this article is about how atheists bias wikipedia. Thus, comparison with the group “Non-atheist” is not arbitrary selection at all. It is the logical selection of the group of people on wikipedia who are not atheists i.e. the opposite group to the atheist group.

:::: I believe what you really dislike about my point is that christians have been lumped-in with the other faith groups! If this is your point then forget the atheist and focus on the “non-christians” on wikipedia as a group, then you can see the christians are sorely out-numbered and that wikipedia is blatantly anti-christian website (despite being the largest <s>faith</s> {non- atheists} group on it).

:::: Also, if you do not view the “other faith groups” as proper “faith groups” why are they even on your chart? Why not have “christians vs atheist” or “christians vs non-christians” . Either of these would seem more logical based on your statements above. - [[User:Qgobo|Qgobo]] 00:33, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

The meaning of "faith" is something on which I disagree with Andy. So my answer is that you can't divide the groups into "faith" and "non-faith". They ''all'' have faith: Atheists have faith that God doesn't exist.

Further, the group "non-Atheist" is just as arbitrary as "non-Christian", "non-Muslim", "non-Jewish", etc.

The claim that "wikipedia is less bias[ed] than conservapedia" is a very doubtful one, given that it treats the atheistic view of origins as fact and the biblical view as pseudoscience.

Qgobo's comment that we don't want the encyclopedia dominated by one faith falsely presumes that the one faith is not the correct one.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: Very well put, Philip, without conceding your broader definition of [[faith]]. Your observation is insightful given your broader definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== People for the American Way ==

Granted that Wikipedia does not use the word "liberal" when describing People for the American Way, but it also does not use the word "conservative" when describing the National Right to Life Committee. Wikipedia's conservative bias perhaps? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:33, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

: That does look biased. Good catch, except realize Wikipedia editors think "conservative" is pejorative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:45, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
::Good thing this site shows it's better by not simply inverting that. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:28, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Professor values

KimSell — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:19:11 GMT

KimSell: