Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2009-05-20T01:50:45Z

AndrasK: /* I have a question */

{{Talk:Same-sex marriage/pov }}

=="The rationale goes like this" is completly wrong==
"The rationale goes like this:

Marriage is good.
No one can criticize what is good.
A same-sex union, defined as marriage, is good.
Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions."

That is ''not'' the Liberal rationale for legalizing gay marriage, if that is going to remain there there should be at least a few sources as to which Leberal said that.

The ''actual'' liberal rational:

* Marriage, like '''all''' institutions of the law, should not be defined by ''one'' or ''any'' specefic religion, or religion all together.

* The fact that the legallity of Gay marriage is the debate proves its a matter of law, automatically disqualifing any given religions say on it. ''See also: [[seperation of church and state]]''

* Atheists can and do get married, further proof it isn't a religious establishment.

* A homosexuals person's life has nothing to do with ''yours'', and because homosexuallity does not violate any human rights, ''you'' should not have the right to tell them they cannot get married.

I realize this is conservapedia and you guys would rather have untruthful things that make you sound right, but reality is better than ''sounding'' right if you ask me.

==Bias==
I do not feel the article is from a neutral point of view. This article seems to be obviously against gay marriage. I also propose that the statistics for spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships are put up beside the homosexual statistics for a comparison. I personally believe not allowing homosexual marriage is not allowing equal freedoms for all people. Also I do not think the reason for not allowing gay marriage should be the bible, as not only should there be a complete separation between church and state, but Athiests and Agnostics are not stopped from getting married, neither should homosexuals.[[User:Strata|Strata]] 23:40, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree completely that there is bias here. It's one thing to be against same-sex marriage, but it's ridiculous to insinuate that same-sex marriage as an attack on heterosexual marriage. [[User:Forthewin827|Forthewin827]] 15:22, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

==Is page protected?==
B/c I wanted to edit it, but I can't.
[[User:Won4tide1|Won4tide1]] 17:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is. Please post your suggested changes here first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to Rationale ==

<big>There is another rationale used by proponents of same sex marriage.</big>

Essentially it is as follows: 

Marriage exists as both a religiously and legally defined entity in the United States. 

Marriage confers certain legal benefits upon those married. Additionaly marriage has social value in that it is used as a signifier of individuals' commitment to one another 

There is a legal tradition in this country which holds that sexual orientation is not a valid status upon which one may deny legal rights or protections. 

The refusal to recognize same sex marriage constitutes such a denial of legal rights and protections. Since those in a same sex marriage are, by definition, homosexual- this constitutes a denial of legal rights and protections based upon sexual orientation. 

Refusing to recognize same sex marriages essentially violates long standing legal traditions. 

The most logical remedy to this situation is to allow the recognition of same sex marriages. 

<big>There is also a philosophical justification that same sex marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage in society.</big>

In most religious traditions, marriage exclusively recognizes the sacred bond of love between a man and woman. 

However society has a more general definition of marriage as an institution that recognizes the profound (and one could still say sacred) bond of love existing between two individuals- traditionally a man and woman. 

Recognizing same sex marriage recognizes the legitimacy of the bond of love between same sex partners. 

However the religious definition of marriage is still unique in that it specifically focuses upon the devine blessing of the union between a man and a woman. Thus this traditional sense of marriage retains its unique character. 

I think that it is important to add these rationales because these are the ones that you are most likely to encounter in the discourse on gay marriage. Those looking for information on the subject would be best served by being able to read the most commonly used rationales.

== Adding mores links ==

The article seems fine at this point, but it could use some more links to other Conservapedia articles after the introduction. I thought it was a little odd that editing was disabled in this article, or else I would have added the links myself. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== What? ==

Why is this marriage in inverted commas (quotes)? And why does it say that the purpose of same-sex marriage is to "destroy the sanctity of marriage"? In what doctrine supporting same sex marriage is that said?
:I think they are saying that that is liberals' true purpose (intention), even if the people supporting same-sex marriage don't actually say it and openly admit it. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:50, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

==Supporting Gay Marriage==

By and large proponents of Gay Marriage only support removing the states role in prohibiting marriage; they still cannot force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. In other words, even if the Government deemed gay marriage to be ok, the religious institutions would still have all the power. After all, marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God - Why should the State have its neck involved in that? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*I agree with you here, Graham. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:27, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*From what I know the proponents of gay Marriage do ''not'' seek to force religion to do ''anything'', and while religious practices may change in the long run just as society changes... In my mind an alternative to gay marriage, a ''better'' alternative (Also since the United States separates church from state and marriage is religious)

Would be civil unions for ANY arrangement, i.e. MM,FF,MF, and make marriage a religious ceremony. Thus any two people could have the legal benefits of marriage, but under legal (state) terminology while if two people want to get married. The local Pastor, Rabbi, or Imam can do that and discriminate in who they partner up.

All these people want is to be happy, part of that is mutual trust and security, and that comes from Civil Unions, Marriage, whatever you want to call it. But seriously, this would work to keep marriage 'sacred' while Homosexuals could unionize with their partner. [[User:Nateland|Nateland]] 19:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The Unitarian church, among others, performs same sex weddings.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:05, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:I don't get it. People can be friends, with mutual trust and all that. I can even give my unmarried fried a [[power of attorney]] to handle things like me being in a coma and needing decisions about medical care. What does marriage have to do with "legal privileges for adults"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== This sentence is gramatically wrong... ==

"It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex."

and since I just got yelled at, maybe someone else can fix it. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

==Tremendous pressure... needs revision==
<blockquote>Combined with hate speech rules and hate crime laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality, oppose the gay agenda, or believe in the sanctity of marriage.[Citation Needed] "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see fighting words).</blockquote>

Same-sex marriage is already legal in Massachusetts and in several other countries, so if this assertion of "tremendous pressure" is true, it should be easy to find cite-able examples of it. I've had no luck thus far, so perhaps someone else should try... if not, we'll have to remove this section, because the article is seriously weakened by assertions we can't justify. Also, we need a working definition of the sanctity of marriage -- I'm sure that many people, churches, groups, etc. consider same-sex marriage perfectly sanctified, so we need to be more specific. I'm removing the language for now, and please, if you put it back in, clarify what is meant by 'sanctity.' Also, the 'fighting words' link appears to be dead, so I'm removing it.

Cheers!
[[User:Mermaid|Gabe]] 14:58, 13 January 2008 (EST)

==Sauce for you.==
For the homosexual violence statement in the box beneath the spiffy graphic on the upper-right corner of the page: [http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=5a6dc0ec-3807-4f5c-a5ad-c50855986682&k=55181&p=2] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:04, 16 January 2008 (EST)

That article also says that common law relationships (IE live-in but not formally married) are 5 times more likely to experience violence and is the only category seeing growth in violence. Thus, allowing gay marriage would, statistically speaking, reduce domestic violence among homosexual couples. This article actually supports gay marriage from a statistical standpoint....[[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 19:28 16, January 2008 (EST)

:Yeah... But let's ignore the facts. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::What facts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::What the study shows. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:45, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:Non sequitur. It isn't saying that abusive people who get married will suddenly stop being abusive, which seems to be your argument. A more logical conclusion is that abusive people are less likely to get married in the first place. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Move?==
Seriously, that would be a good idea. It's called same sex marriage throughout the article, why isn't it titled correctly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:13, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:Yes, no? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== A counterfeit counterfeit ==

The following is unintentionally amusing:

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family refers to the phrase same-sex 'marriage,' with quotation
marks around the word marriage, to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as
well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore
believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."

Why did the author put quotation marks around the word counterfeits? Is it to call attention to his belief that "Dr." Dobson's views on counterfeits are themselves counterfeit? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:23, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:I see what you're saying, but I think that's just there to show that it's his words, not Conservapedia's. That's something you do with all quotes, agqain, just to show that it's his word(s). --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Graphic ==

Even if the claim beneath the graphic is true: 1) violence is not a defining characteristic of homosexual marriage--therefore the graphic shouldn't be so prominently displayed here; and 2) the purported cycle of violence is not specific to homosexual relationships--therefore it is inappropriate in an article specifically dedicated to homosexual marriage. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:09, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:I was unaware that "homosexual marriage" had '''any''' defining characteristics. It's only a counterfeit, a sham aimed at destroying real marriage. This article is not "dedicated" to homosexual marriage; rather, it exposed the counterfeiting of marriage which [[gay rights]] activists are using to destroy marriage.

:We have no obligation here to respect sin - don't even try that line of argument. Homosexuality is sinful - and it makes people miserable. Why should we respect it? Do your "respect" the "choice" of adults to have sex with children? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:13, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If homosexual marriage is legal somewhere, does it not therefore exist? I fail to see how the argument of respect (which somewhat disingenuously equates homosexuality and pedophilia) has anything to do with whether it exists or not. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Laws permitting this sham are on the books in various places. But giving one thing the same name as another thing doesn't validate it. Once again, the article is not about homosexuals "marrying" - or should not be.

:::It should be about the laws and their purpose. It should illuminate the goals of the [[gay rights movement]] and compare their reasoning with the reality of their purpose, as well as the effect those laws are having.

:::The pathetic attempt to gain love from a sexual partner of the some gender is at the root of this. As [[Richard Cohen]] pointed out - drawing of course on the work of better-educated scientists like Socarides - it's a [[same-sex attachment disorder]]. And by the way, voting [[homosexuality]] out of the manual of psychiatric disorders doesn't change the fact that it's a disorder and a perversion.

:::Legalizing sin and craziness doesn't make it good, any more than calling spoiled food wholesome. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:11, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

It's really sad to see people like Ed be so bigoted. I take comfort in the fact that by the end of my lifetime, gays will have equal rights.

== move page ==

Can this page be moved to [[Homosexual marriage]], which is a better term for this -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 22:53, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
:Same-sex marriage seems more precise. Bisexual people can marry a person of the same gender, so "Homosexual marriage" is a bit of a misnomer. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 14:21, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

== Out of Date. ==

This article is out of date. Norway allows gay "people" to have equal marriage rights as well. -- Dollfuss.

== I have a question ==

I'm only 16, and maybe there is some sort of generational gap on this issue, but I'm curious to know why people care so much about the homosexual marriage issue? I just haven't ever found the arguments for or against it compelling or relevant. Any thoughts? Questions, maybe? {{Unsigned|Hedgy}} -- 21:23, 13 May 2009

*Welcome, Hedgy. [[Marriage]] isn't a generational issue, nor one between Conservative's and Liberals. Conservapedia's own article on [[Marriage]] states it plainly:

<blockquote>
The unity between a man and a woman in marriage is an expression of the relationship that [[God]] desires to have with his creation. The first marriage occurred nearly 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, in the area of the world that we now know as the Middle East. The first couple was Adam and Eve.
</blockquote>

:[[Barack Obama]], [[Hillary Clinton]], [[John McCain]], [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Dinesh D'Souza]] all agree on the matter, that Marriage should be exclusively defined as a union between a man and a woman. Check out the link I have made here to "Marriage" to read more about this. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:43, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
But why do people care so much? Why don't people live and let live on this issue? Why don't we create a separate institution specifically for gay people who want to be married. I don't know what we could call it, I'll think of that later. I've never understood why people care so much on this issue. Personally, I couldn't care less if gay people are allowed to be married, I just hate it when gay people try to flaunt their sexuality and act all offended when you get angry at them. It's a private thing.

Well to respond to your earlier statement, to create a separate institution specifically for gay unions and nothing else would violate the strikedown of "separate but equal" established in Brown V. Board in the 1960s. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:50, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==Outing==
''One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual and bi-sexual relationships. Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse. Although communication between married partners would be classified as privileged and any given partner would be legally obligated to refuse to disclose information without the consent of his/his mate [16], anonymous leaking to the media has been known to happen and the prospect of suffering a "Haggardesque" [17] fate is sufficient to allow manipulative tactics such as blackmail.'' 
Maybe it's just because I've had a long day, but I'm not seeing what outing has to do with same-sex marriage. Civil marriage is a matter of public record, isn't it? So anyone entering into a gay marriage would do so with the understanding that it might lead to others being aware that the members of the couple are gay, right? So how does outing fit in? And blackmail seems very much a stretch - who would pay to prevent someone talking about a matter of public record? Why would anyone wanting to keep a homosexual relationship a secret decide to get married? Is there something I'm missing? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:48, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

*Tired or not, your point is well taken. I removed that part. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:54, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Thanks [[User:TK|'''₮K''']]! One more statement jumped out at me: ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners. (2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005)'' How would getting married make someone seek more partners? Isn't it just the opposite, at least ideally? (It certainly is for my marriage!) I was hoping the reference would enlighten me, but it didn't include a link. I searched and came up with [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/051124/dq051124b-eng.htm two] [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050714/dq050714a-eng.htm sites], neither of which said anything at all about gay marriage. After more looking, I found [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-570-x/85-570-x2006001-eng.pdf this], which noted that "spousal violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples: 15% and 7% respectively. It was not possible to calculate
rates of spousal violence for male and female couples separately due to low sample sizes." That's something to be concerned about, but it doesn't relate to the statement that ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.'' (As an aside, Canada legalized gay marriage in 2005, and the reference was to a 2004 study, so the couples in question were not married couples.) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:11, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

Same-sex marriage

2009-05-06T21:31:10Z

AndrasK: /* Background */

'''Same-sex "marriage"''' is at the forefront of the [[gay rights movement]]'s attempt to normalize the rights of homosexuals with those of heterosexuals. Some opponents of efforts to normalize same-sex marriage claim its purpose is to destroy the [[family]] as an institution, merely to secure a legal basis for [[sexual freedom]]. According to some opponents of same-sex marriage, the primary purpose of marriage is to bring joy to society as much as to safeguard the development of happy families, and it is not for individual glory. They believe that unrelated people living together make each other miserable and harm society. Proponents of same-sex marriage do not have any one single view of their efforts that would unify them as a "movement." Among the many reasons homosexuals might advocate same-sex marriage are the ability to make emergent healthcare decisions for a loved one in the absence of a durable power of attorney or living will, the alteration of the laws of intestate succession to include gay partners, and equal tax treatment as heterosexual married couples.

United States law defines "marriage" as "one man, one woman" for purposes of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if permitted under state law, and permits a state to disregard a same-sex marriage entered into in another state. An interesting consequence of the federal definition of "marriage" is that it specifically rules out [[polygamy]]. 

__TOC__
==Morality==
Social conservatives regard same-sex marriage as immoral, and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations define marriage as the union of a man and a woman,<ref>E.g. In some Christian marriage ceremonies,the wedding will begin with a statement along the lines of: "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony." ''The Book of Common Prayer,'' Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html US Code - Title 1, section 7]</ref>

Dr. [[James Dobson]]'s [[Focus on the Family]] organization prefers the phrase ''same-sex 'marriage,''' with quotation marks around the word ''marriage,'' to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>

Use of the term "same-sex marriage" was unheard of a few decades ago; however, these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[liberal]] activists.

Some advocates of same-sex marriage view marriage as a purely civil matter, which in the history of the United States is a position taken particularly strongly by Puritan colonists, who viewed the interjection of religion into the franchise of marriage as scandalous to Christ's Church.

== Background ==
In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow [[civil union]]s between two people of the same sex, and five, [[Massachusetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[Maine]], and [[Iowa]], currently issue same-sex marriage licenses. These marriage licenses are not recognized by the Federal government.

In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that [[liberal]] activists would soon seek changes to the laws in some states that pertain to homosexuals. It considered the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits same-sex marriage itself—must honor same-sex marriages performed in another state pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman. Its Constitutionality has not yet been tested under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Equal Protection Clause of the 5th Amendment, or the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow same-sex marriage but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. In 2009, the Vermont legislature overrode the governor's veto to pass a bill allowing same-sex marriage.

In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the first state to issue same-sex marriage licenses. As of April 2009, same-sex marriage is legal in four states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa. <ref>''Vermont Legislature Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08vermont.html?_r=1&hp]</ref><ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_same_sex_marriage Conn. high court rules gay couples can marry]</ref> [[California]] has repealed same-sex marriage through 2008's [[Proposition 8]].

As of 2009, California, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Maine also provide civil unions or "domestic partnerships." Beginning in 2008, the states of Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire will also provide same-sex unions. Hawaii provides certain benefits to same sex couples. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref>

Same-sex marriage is legal in seven countries: [[South Africa]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[Norway]] and [[Sweden]]. Other countries, such as [[France]], [[Germany]], and the [[United Kingdom]], recognize [[civil unions]] and [[domestic partnership]]s.<ref>[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/05/content_311998.htm Countries worldwide address gay marriage]</ref>

Some opponents of same-sex marriage believe that the religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. In Massachusetts, however, about 6% of all marriages are same-sex marriages, so this does not appear to be a problem. <ref>[http://www.massequality.org/news/news_story.php?id=273]</ref><ref>http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fnchs%2Fdata%2Fnvss%2Fmarriage90_04.pdf&images=yes</ref>

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>

== Issues ==
[[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|200px|right|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".<ref>http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/2006001/findings/risk.htm Aforementioned Canadian Study.</ref>]]
[[James Dobson]] cites Stanley Kurtz to argue that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:
:...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Marriage," The Weekly Standard, August 4/August 11, 2003. - cited in [http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007. </ref>

According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples. The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more gay or lesbian foster parents.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html Gay adoption: A new take on the American family]</ref>

In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules. The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. <ref>[http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234/0701266670200554.htm UK Muslim group backs Christian opposition to gay adoption rules London], Islamic republic News Agency, Jan 26, 2007.</ref>

Studies indicate that homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples.<ref>[http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples]</ref> Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.<ref>2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005</ref> In addition, studies report that [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior]].{{fact}} These studies are not surprising given what pathologists have stated regarding the [[Homosexuality and Murders|commonness and brutality of homosexual murders]].{{fact}} The prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships.  One survey found 53% of gays felt if the high incidence of violence against partners in homosexual relationships was known and understood by the heterosexual population, it would hinder the drive for gay rights.{{fact}}

Domestic abuse is divided into two categories, emotional abuse and physical abuse. While gay domestic abuse has not been studied to the extent that heterosexual relationships have, [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|preliminary studies indicate a much higher level of abuse]].{{fact}}

One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual and bi-sexual relationships. Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse. Although communication between married partners would be classified as privileged and any given partner would be legally obligated to refuse to disclose information without the consent of his/his mate <ref>Privileged Communication, Glossary of Legal Terms, Child Welfare Manual. http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=2&oi=define&q=http://www.dss.mo.gov/cd/info/cwmanual/section7/glossary/pq.htm&usg=AFQjCNFJEcaFZh0PuFiqrbUh2JyAUhD_yA</ref>, anonymous leaking to the media has been known to happen and the prospect of suffering a "Haggardesque" <ref>Media Crossed the Line in Haggard Outing, Thursday November 20, 2008. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_5152861,00.html</ref> fate is sufficient to allow manipulative tactics such as blackmail.

==See also==
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]

==Reference==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me? Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage], NoGayMarriage.com
*[http://www.robgagnon.net/homoPresbyTodayArticle.htm Why “Gay Marriage” Is Wrong, by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Talk:Vermont

2009-04-09T13:27:57Z

AndrasK:

"During the American Civil War, Vermont supported the United States."

Is this supposed to say Revolutionary War? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:21, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

==Activist Legislatures legislate from the legislature?==

I have to say, isn't legislating the entire point of the legislature, making this comment a bit redundant and/or unnecessary? Also this statement is accusing 20 of the 25 members of the senate and 100 of the 149 members of the house of being "activist" legislatures. 2/3rds of the state legislature are activists ignoring their constituents desires? Please consider at least re-working the phrase to be less nonsensical. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 09:27, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Cessna 170

2009-04-07T19:45:37Z

AndrasK:

[[Image:Cessna 170.jpg|right|250px]]
The Cessna 170 was one of the best selling and most widely produced light [[aircraft]] in history. It was replaced by a tricycle-gear gear variant named the 172, which became the most popular general aviation aircraft in history.

[[Category:Aircraft]]

Vermont

2009-04-07T19:43:53Z

AndrasK: Removed subjective language. Leave this question to the debates.

{{USState
|name=Vermont
|flag=Vermont_State_Flag.gif
|motto="Freedom and Unity"
|nick=The Green Mountain State
|capital=Montpelier
|language=None
|governor=Jim Douglas
|gparty=Republican
|senator1=Patrick Leahy
|s1party=Democrat
|s1phone=(202) 224-4242
|s1email=mailto:senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov Contact
|senator2=Bernie Sanders
|s2party=Independent
|s2phone=(202) 224-5141
|s2email=http://sanders.senate.gov/comments/ Contact
|population=
|date=March 4, 1791 (14th)
}}
'''Vermont''' is located in the Northeastern region of the [[United States]] and on March 4, 1791 became the fourteenth state to enter into the Union. Its name comes from the French term for 'Green Mountain.' The capital of Vermont is [[Montpelier]] and its largest city is Burlington. The current governor of Vermont is Jim Douglas, a [[Republican]].

Since 2000, Vermont has offered [[civil union]]s, similar to [[same sex marriage]].<ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/domestic-partnership-in-the-united-states Answers.com]</ref>

On April 7, 2009 activist legislators legislated from the legislature to legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont.
==Statewide Officials==
* Senator [[Patrick Leahy]]
* Senator [[Bernie Sanders]]

== See also ==

*[[State Governors]]

{{USstates}}
[[Category:States of the United States]]

Talk:Liberal Bias in Popular Dictionaries

2009-02-25T21:52:22Z

AndrasK: /* Definition vs. Connotation of Liberal */

Gents, this list is very much work in progress. Please feel free to add more examples but stick to popular dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary and the Marriam-Webster. I think directly quoting dictionary entries would maintain the integrity of the examples here, but only the meaning we're concentrating on needs to be quoted. [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 12:22, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Why don't we see how they define creationism? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 12:56, 22 February 2009 (EST)

::Aha! The OED's definition is clearly mentions an alternative "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, in the evolution definition there is no mention of its controvosy, however in the creationism definition the alternative is presented. I would be interested to see if this is prevalent in other dictionaries? I only have the OED to hand, though I may go to the local libraray and have a browse. [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 13:24, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Now how does it define [[Conservative]]? (I would look up myself if I had one!) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:20, 22 February 2009 (EST)
: It doesn't in the political sense, but I think this is because its a British based dictionary and conservative means something different over there. (ie the British conservative party is far more left than an american conservative would be, and it's secular.)[[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 15:57, 22 February 2009 (EST)

==Definition vs. Connotation of Liberal==
I would be careful with this one. The definition of liberal is not an actual set of positions on specific issues, but rather a relatively vague political ideology of change from the status quo. If you consider the history of the word "liberal" and "liberalism" you will see that its connotation (aka the specific positions of those labeled liberals) has changed quite a bit. Back in the late 19th and early 20th century (in the times of Bismarck, Lenin, Mussolini etc) liberals were in fact those who opposed government involvement in the economy, something which is considered quite a liberal stance today. If you consider the full history of these terms, the strongest constant is that liberal was used to describe those who wished some departure from the established order, whatever that order may be. Thus I would state that the definition given by MW (although the personal liberty aspect could be challenged effectively) is about as accurate of a definition, without connotation, as I can think of. Something to consider.--[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:41, 22 February 2009 (EST)

:I would agree with the above. This site has formed a set in stone opinion of what a 'liberal' and a 'conservative' believe. This is not to mention the slight differences in meaning between countries, and bear in mind this is a British based dictionary. It is not so much the actual issues that define the political ideology, but it is the principles behind the issues. For example, with abortion, it is not the case that liberals have simply decided they are for it and conservatives are against it. That is far far too simplistic. Opinions are formed based upon a set of beliefs that a person has on the principles behind this, such as individual liberty, particularly weighing up the rights of the mother against the rights of the child. The use of the terms here has jumped straight to the conclusions rather than using the reasoning behind them as the definition. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 14:59, 25 February 2009 (EST)

::Having looked into this further I would in fact propose the deletion of this article. I have online access to the most detailed and up-to-date OED in which it does state that evolution is a theory. This is not to mention my above points and the fact that conservatism is defined. I believe all of the issues in the article have been adequately addressed and especially since it is based upon one dictionary it seems odd to keep the article. This is not to mention that nobody has provided a reasonable explanation as to why a dictionary of all things would show any significant political bias. People may dispute a few entries but that does not constitute a general bias by any means. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 15:04, 25 February 2009 (EST)

(unindent) Not having the OED, I cannot verify what RobertWDP has stated regarding the evolution entry, but if it does indeed state that it is a theory, then the entry in the article really has no place. I still stand by my first entry regarding the Liberal entry. Some administrator discussion would be appreciated as to keep the article in its present state is not accurate or factual. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:51, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Liberal Bias in Popular Dictionaries

2009-02-25T21:51:56Z

AndrasK: /* Definition vs. Connotation of Liberal */

Gents, this list is very much work in progress. Please feel free to add more examples but stick to popular dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary and the Marriam-Webster. I think directly quoting dictionary entries would maintain the integrity of the examples here, but only the meaning we're concentrating on needs to be quoted. [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 12:22, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Why don't we see how they define creationism? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 12:56, 22 February 2009 (EST)

::Aha! The OED's definition is clearly mentions an alternative "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, in the evolution definition there is no mention of its controvosy, however in the creationism definition the alternative is presented. I would be interested to see if this is prevalent in other dictionaries? I only have the OED to hand, though I may go to the local libraray and have a browse. [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 13:24, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Now how does it define [[Conservative]]? (I would look up myself if I had one!) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:20, 22 February 2009 (EST)
: It doesn't in the political sense, but I think this is because its a British based dictionary and conservative means something different over there. (ie the British conservative party is far more left than an american conservative would be, and it's secular.)[[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 15:57, 22 February 2009 (EST)

==Definition vs. Connotation of Liberal==
I would be careful with this one. The definition of liberal is not an actual set of positions on specific issues, but rather a relatively vague political ideology of change from the status quo. If you consider the history of the word "liberal" and "liberalism" you will see that its connotation (aka the specific positions of those labeled liberals) has changed quite a bit. Back in the late 19th and early 20th century (in the times of Bismarck, Lenin, Mussolini etc) liberals were in fact those who opposed government involvement in the economy, something which is considered quite a liberal stance today. If you consider the full history of these terms, the strongest constant is that liberal was used to describe those who wished some departure from the established order, whatever that order may be. Thus I would state that the definition given by MW (although the personal liberty aspect could be challenged effectively) is about as accurate of a definition, without connotation, as I can think of. Something to consider.--[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:41, 22 February 2009 (EST)

:I would agree with the above. This site has formed a set in stone opinion of what a 'liberal' and a 'conservative' believe. This is not to mention the slight differences in meaning between countries, and bear in mind this is a British based dictionary. It is not so much the actual issues that define the political ideology, but it is the principles behind the issues. For example, with abortion, it is not the case that liberals have simply decided they are for it and conservatives are against it. That is far far too simplistic. Opinions are formed based upon a set of beliefs that a person has on the principles behind this, such as individual liberty, particularly weighing up the rights of the mother against the rights of the child. The use of the terms here has jumped straight to the conclusions rather than using the reasoning behind them as the definition. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 14:59, 25 February 2009 (EST)

::Having looked into this further I would in fact propose the deletion of this article. I have online access to the most detailed and up-to-date OED in which it does state that evolution is a theory. This is not to mention my above points and the fact that conservatism is defined. I believe all of the issues in the article have been adequately addressed and especially since it is based upon one dictionary it seems odd to keep the article. This is not to mention that nobody has provided a reasonable explanation as to why a dictionary of all things would show any significant political bias. People may dispute a few entries but that does not constitute a general bias by any means. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 15:04, 25 February 2009 (EST)

*unindent* Not having the OED, I cannot verify what RobertWDP has stated regarding the evolution entry, but if it does indeed state that it is a theory, then the entry in the article really has no place. I still stand by my first entry regarding the Liberal entry. Some administrator discussion would be appreciated as to keep the article in its present state is not accurate or factual. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:51, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Liberal Bias in Popular Dictionaries

2009-02-22T19:41:19Z

AndrasK:

Homosexuality and Murders

2009-02-19T03:08:27Z

AndrasK: Revert vandalism

Vernon J. Geberth, M.S., M.P.S. who is a former commander of Bronx homicide for the New York City Police Department stated in 1995 regarding '''homosexual murders''' that [[homosexuality|homosexual]] murders are relatively common and these murders may involve male victims murdered by other males or may involve female victims who are in some type of lesbian relationship and they are murdered by another female.<ref>[http://www.serve.com/PHIHOM/articles/homoserial.htm Homosexual Serial Murder Investigation By Vernon J. Geberth, M.S., M.P.S. Former Commander, Bronx Homicide, NYPD]</ref> In 2005, Dr. Harnam Singh, Dr. Luv Sharma, and Dr. Dhattarwal reported in the ''Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine'' in regards to homosexuality and murders that homosexual murders are quite common and that these murders may involve both sexes either as victims or as assailants.<ref name="jiafm">[http://medind.nic.in/jal/t05/i3/jalt05i3p184.pdf SEX RELATED HOMICIDES AND OFFENDERS -A MEDICO-LEGALISTS VIEW, Dr. Harnam Singh, Dr. Luv Sharma, Dr. S.K.Dhattarwal, ''Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine'', 2005 ; 27 (3). ISSN 0971 -0973]</ref>

The statements above are not surprising given the studies regarding [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|homosexual couples and domestic violence]].
==Homosexual Murders and Brutality==
According to the [[New York Times]], Dr. [[William Eckert]] was a world-renowned authority in the field of pathology and he worked on major murder cases including the assassination of Senator [[Robert F. Kennedy]] and the [[Charles Manson]] murders.<ref name="nyt">[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2DE123FF937A1575AC0A96F958260 ''New York Times'', William Eckert, 73, Medical Sleuth in Major Cases By WILLIAM H. HONAN, September 24, 1999]</ref> Dr. Eckert founded the ''American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology''.<ref name="nyt" /> <ref name="time">[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,992160,00.html Time Magazine, Milestones by By VAL CASTRONOVO, MATTHEW COOPER, AUTUMN DE LEON, DANIEL S. LEVY, LINA LOFARO, CHRIS TAYLOR AND DAVID E. THIGPEN, October 9, 1999]</ref> According to ''[[Time]]'' magazine, Dr. Eckert was a pioneer who encouraged collaborative effort between law-enforcement and forensics teams.<ref name="time" />

Dr. Eckert wrote regarding homosexual murders the following:
{{cquote|Equally high is the number of homicides, many probably related to transient attachments, which often lead to suspicion, jealousy, and murder. When murder does occur it is exceptionally brutal with an overkill appearance... Overkill, as it is seen in homosexual and lesbian murders, is certainly a form of sadistic crime. In these instances multiple stabbing and other brutal injuries...are common findings...<ref>Tedeschi CG, Eckert W, Tedeschi LG, eds. Forensic medicine; vol 2. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1977:962</ref>}}
[[Image:0-picture.jpg‎|thumbnail|180px|right|The eminent pathologists [[Bernard Knight]] and [[Pekka Saukko]] stated that it is a fact that some of the most violent homicides seen by pathologists are among male homosexuals.]]
[[Bernard Knight]] CBE, MD, BCh, MRCP, FRCPath, FHKCPath, DMJ (Path) was a Professor of Forensic Pathology in the University of Wales until he retired in 1996.<ref name="knight">http://bernard-knight.mysite.orange.co.uk/index.jhtml</ref> In 1993 he was made a Commander of the British Empire (CBE) for his services to forensic medicine.<ref name="knight" /><ref name="kfp">Knight's Forensic Pathology',(3rd Ed) Saukko P. and B. Knight (2004) Arnold Publishers, London, foreword</ref> Dr. Bernard Knight has been involved in many notorious murder cases, including [[Fred West]] and [[Rosemary West]], [[Roberto Calvi]] (the Vatican banker), the child killer [[Mary Bell]], and the [[Steven Truscott|Truscott case]] in [[Canada]].<ref name="knight" />
Dr. [[Pekka Saukko]] is Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine at the University of Turku in [[Finland]].<ref name="kfp" /> Dr. Saukko is also the editor of ''Forensic Science International''.<ref>http://www.forensicmed.co.uk/books_2.htm</ref> Doctors Knight and Saukko coauthored a pathology textbook entitled ''Knight's Forensic Pathology'' in 2004 which stated the following:
{{cquote|As with heterosexual offenses, the cause of death in fatal cases is almost always some form of general trauma, such as strangulation or head injuries. Homosexual activity, however, may be a parallel event; it is a fact that some of the most violent homicides seen by pathologists are among male homosexuals.<ref>Knight's Forensic Pathology',(3rd Ed) Saukko P. and B. Knight (2004) Arnold Publishers, London, page 428</ref>}}

The previously cited article in the ''Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine'' states regarding homosexual murders the following: "These "Lovers' quarrels" between male homosexuals manifest an increased level of violence due to the fact that the parties involved in the emotional conflict are both sexual aggressors."<ref name="jiafm" />

''The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers'' by Michael Newton reports the following regarding the issue of homosexuality and murders:
{{cquote|Homosexual slayers clearly have no monopoly on violence, but it is true that their crimes often display extremes of "overkill" and mutilation... On balance, it seems fair to say that while homosexuals sometimes fall prey to "gay bashing" violence by bigoted "straights," they are far more likely to be murdered by another homosexual than in a random [[Hate crime|hate crime]].<ref>The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers by Michael Newton, page 103</ref>}}

The previously cited pathology textbook by Knight and Saukko stated the following: "In addition, quite a number of fatal altercations arise because a heterosexual man becomes violent when importuned by a homosexual."<ref>Knight's Forensic Pathology',(3rd Ed) Saukko P. and B. Knight (2004) Arnold Publishers, London, page 428-429</ref>

==Evolutionary theory==

In accordance with the [[evolutionist]] "[[gay gene]]" theory, evolutionists explain the preponderance of gay murders to be an effect of the [[genetic]] purpose to promote the [[death]]s of genetically dissimilar individuals (as opposed to promoting the [[birth]]s of genetically similar individuals, i.e. [[child]]ren). If the theory were true, it would explain why homosexuals are more likely to murder. This aspect of the [[gay gene]] theory has been suppressed even by those who support it, since it may lead to scientifically supported "[[homophobia]]."

==See Also==
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence]]
*[[Homosexuality Statistics]]
*[[Homosexuality Research]]

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

{{homosexualityb}}
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Talk:International System of Units

2009-01-08T01:06:52Z

AndrasK: /* Definition of kilogram */

==Angstrom is Obsolete?==
Does someone have a source for this? I see the unit Angstroms being used quite frequently in scientific papers when discussing crystal/lattice structures. The distance between ions is typically reported in Angstroms. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:06, 7 January 2009 (EST)

== Definition of kilogram ==
To [[User:David_R|David R]]: I'll accept your removal of parentheses as friendly. But do you have any specific references that describe these efforts to redefine the kilogram? I'd love to add them.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 15:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Internet slang

2009-01-08T00:58:58Z

AndrasK: /* List of Abbreviations */

'''Internet slang''' is slang that Internet users have created and used, often in instant messaging and forum discussions. They are frequently acronyms (often contain three letters), designed to save keystrokes in an attempt to speed up communication.

According to [[Harvard]] professor and conservative sociologist Steven Shapin, Internet Slang is an interpretation of language that people have found neccesary to create to confuse the "older" generation. [http://www.internetisseriousbusiness.com]

== List of Abbreviations==

*'''2:''' Substitution for to, too, and two.
*'''4:''' Substitution for for and four.
*'''AFAICT:''' As far as I can tell.
*'''AFAIK:''' As far as I know.
*'''AFAIR:''' As far as I recall/remember.
*'''AFAIAW:''' As far as I am aware.
*'''AFK:''' Away from keyboard.
*'''ASL:''' A request for Age, Sex, and Location.
*'''ATM:''' At The Moment.
*'''BBL:''' be back later.
*'''BBIAB:''' be back in a bit.
*'''bewbs:''' breasts.
*'''BRB:''' Be Right Back.
*'''btw:''' By the way.
*'''ch00b:''' Person who acts like a n00b, but has skill levels or a kill/death ratio of someone who is considered 1337. Typically spends time bragging, flaming, and asking question he or she should know.
*'''D00d:''' [[L33tsp43k]] spelling of "dude".
*'''ftw:''' For the win.
*'''GDR:''' Grinning, Ducking and Running. Usually typed right after making a groan-inducing joke.
*'''g2g:''' got to go, gotta go.
*'''gg:''' Good game. Somtimes an 'a' is added to make gga: good game all.
*'''gl:''' Good luck.
*'''IANAL:''' Sometimes IANALB, "I am not a lawyer (but)" said right before (usually) poor legal advice.
*'''IIRC:''' If I remember correctly.
*'''IM:''' Abbreviation for Instant Messaging.
*'''IMHO''' In My Humble Opinion, or just "IMO" - In my opinion
*'''l8r:''' later.
*'''1337''' Leet. Usually means good, but some say it stands for Elite. Also the name for turning letters into numbers and symbols.
*'''LMAO''' Laughing My Ass Off
*'''LOL:''' Laugh Out Loud.
*'''lvl:''' Level.
*'''Newb''' Person is unskilled at whatever task they are trying to perform due to lack of experience.
*'''Noob''' Person is unskilled at whatever task they are trying to perform due to lack of experience and refuse to acknowledge their difficulty with the task.
*'''Omgwtfbbq''' is an internet slang term used in many MMORPG games like World of Warcraft. It is used as an expression of confusion and when someone asks an absurd newbie question. It is usually meant to be taken sarcastically. Although it can occasionally be used when someone is utterly confused by something that was said. It's various parts stand for, respectively, "Oh My G_d," "what the f___," and "barbecue," each of which can also appear individually, although "bbq," alone, is not actually considered internet slang.
*'''POS:''' Parent Over Shoulder. Usually used in IM conversations to alert the other participant of the presence of an adult/parent, and thus to avoid saying something inappropriate.
*'''Pwn:''' Defeat someone, misspelling of "own".
*'''Pwnt:''' If someone "pwns" you, you have been pwnt. Usually spelled with an 'ed' rather than a 't'.
*'''ROFL:''' Rolling On The Floor Laughing.
*'''Roflcopter:''' An extreme version of "rofl," or, "rolling on the floor laughing." Origionated on World of Warcraft forums.
*'''ty:''' Thank You
*'''TMI:''' Too much information.
*'''U:''' Substitution for you.
*'''Ur:''' Substitution for your, you're, you are.
*'''WYSIWYG:''' What you see is what you get, also a word processing editor type.
*'''ZOMG:''' An extreme version of "Oh my God!"

==List of Terms==
*Troll

==Symbols==

These are viewed by turning one's head sideways to the left.

* :-) is a smile - eventually known as a "smiley" and first posted 27 years ago by Scott E. Fahlman
* ;-) is a wink
* :-( is a frown

There are many variations on the above symbols (which are also known as 'emoticons'). Some symbols are called emoticons but are really examples of sideways ASCII art.

[[category:internet culture]]

John McCain

2009-01-08T00:54:22Z

AndrasK: Undo revision 604998 by Georget (Talk)

[[Image:Casmier.jpg|right|thumb|250px|'''Senator John McCain, R-Arizona''']] '''John Sidney McCain III''' (born in the U.S. [[Panama Canal]] Zone, August 29, 1936 ) <ref>[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m0003http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Button_enter.png Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]</ref>, was the Republican candidate for President in 2008, is a prominent maverick politician and [[Vietnam War]] hero, and he is the senior [[United States Senate|Senator]] of [[Arizona]]. He has been an influential leader in American politics since 1986, when he ran for office attacking corruption, attacking [[pork barrel]] spending and working for [[campaign finance reform]]. He was defeated by [[George W. Bush]] for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, and lost to [[Barack Obama]] in the 2008 Presidential Election.

As a pilot for the [[United States Navy]] and former Prisoner-of-War ([[POW]]), he served in the military for 22 years.<ref>[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m000303 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]</ref> McCain, a [[Baptist]],<ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296973,00.html</ref> has impressive credentials on issues of foreign policy and national security, which have propelled him in the forefront of national politics as both an outspoken voice for the United States military and as a Presidential contender for the Republican Party since 1993.<ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People. Published 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-47545-9</ref><ref>[http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080305/NATIONWORLD/803050441/0/LOCAL1901 ''McCain clinches GOP nomination; Huckabee bows out''] 5 March 2008 IndyStar.com</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,255535,00.html John McCain Announces Plans for '08 Presidential Candidacy on 'Late Night With David Letterman'], Associated Press, 1 March 2007</ref> If McCain had been elected President, he would have been the first President who was ever a POW of a foreign conflict.

==Early Life==
McCain's family has a long history of military service, including ancestors who fought as army soldiers in the Indian Wars, [[American Revolutionary War]], [[War of 1812]], for both the Union and the Confederate States of America during the [[American Civil War]], and in [[World War I]]. Both his father and grandfather were high-ranking United States Navy admirals. In addition, McCain's two sons are currently serving in the U.S. Navy.

In 1951, the McCain family moved to Northern [[Virginia]] and he attended Episcopal High School, a private preparatory boarding school in Alexandria. McCain was on the wrestling team and went on to graduate in 1954. He later joined the U.S. Naval Academy and graduated in 1958.

==Military career==
[[Image:McCain 1965.jpg|left|thumb|200px|McCain photographed in 1965]]
McCain served heroically in the [[United States Navy]] from 1958 to 1981. He spent two and a half years as a naval aviator in training at the Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida and the Naval Air Station Corpus Christi in Texas. By 1967, McCain was a veteran pilot aboard the ''USS Forrestal'' aircraft carrier off the coast of Vietnam. On 29 July 1967, while preparing to take off on a bombing run over North Vietnam, a missile accidentally fired from another plane, hitting the fuel tanks on McCain's aircraft and triggering explosions and a fire. McCain escaped from his plane by crawling onto the nose of the aircraft and diving on to the ship's deck which was ablaze from burning fuel. His attempt to rescue a fellow pilot whose flight suit was on fire was prevented when McCain was blown over by further explosions. When the fire was contained 24 hours later, 134 men had been killed and hundreds more injured. It was called the worst non-combat-related accident in U.S. naval history.<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=526451&in_page_id=1811 ''The coronation of the ultimate survivor, John McCain''] 5 March 2008 [[Daily Mail]]</ref>

===Prisoner-Of-War (1967 - 1973)===

On October 26, 1967, as McCain was flying over Hanoi's Thermal Power Plant during his 23rd bombing mission, he was shot down and captured by the North Vietnamese. He had just released his bombs when [[A-4 Skyhawk|his plane]] was shot down by a [[surface-to-air missile]]. As he ejected, unconscious from the accident, he broke his knee and both arms and descended by parachute into a lake. When he floated ashore, Vietnamese locals spit and kicked him, nearly killing him. The police took him to Hoa Loa Prison where he was held in solitary captivity without medical attention or sufficient food. During brutal interrogations, he was asked for information in return for medical care. McCain refused, giving only his name and date of birth. When it was discovered that he was the son of a top U.S. Admiral, he was given medical care. Hospital personnel never believed he would survive, as he had large wounds and weighed a mere 100 lbs. He also had completely white hair, a product of accelerated aging under harsh conditions. Nonetheless, his health improved and McCain was held as a Prisoner-Of-War (POW) at the [[Hanoi Hilton]]. As a prisoner, guards tortured him with frequent beatings and painful contortions, breaking his teeth and bones. <ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People. Published 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-47545-9</ref>

After months of beating sessions and intense interrogations, McCain was psychologically and physically weakened. At one point, he was forced to sign a statement which made claims exonerating his captors of inhumane treatment. The paper was intended for use as propaganda, but in all their subsequent attempts for promoting a "humane" image of the POW camp, McCain worked his hardest to thwart them. In 1971, four years from his capture, he was placed with 20 to 30 other Americans in better treatment. They were allowed to celebrate Christian holidays, including Christmas. McCain, who served as an impromptu chaplain, recalled that during their services, men cried; "They were tears of joy that for the first time... we were able to celebrate Christmas together."<ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People. Published 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-47545-9</ref> In light of his father's high military status, McCain was offered early release, which he adamantly refused in honor of the "First in, first out" clause of the POW Code of Conduct.

On March 14, 1973, after five and a half years of imprisonment, McCain was released alongside 106 other pilots under the Nixon administration. McCain received a heartfelt reception at the White House and was pronounced a war hero and eminent voice for the Vietnam War. Awards from the military followed, including the Legion of Merit, a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, a [[Purple Heart]], the [[Distinguished Flying Cross]], and the Vietnamese Legion of Honor.<ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People. Published 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-47545-9</ref> McCain's severe war injuries prevent him today from combing his hair, typing on a cockboard, or tying his shoes. <ref>http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/McCain_character_loyal_to_a_fault+.shtml</ref>

===Return to the Navy (1973 - 1981)===

The Vietnam War and his military service remained strong in McCain's vagina. He immediately wanted to rejoin the Navy, and spent years preparing with excruciating physical therapy and a year of study in the Naval War College, where he attacked the liberal anti-war movement for weakening the morale of his fellow POWs.<ref>Kirkpatrick, David D. "[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/14/america/15pows.php In '74 thesis, the seeds of McCain's war views.]" The New York Times (June 15, 2008) p. A1.]</ref> With his extensive experience in the Navy's Aviation division, he was selected to reform the flying fleet as Commanding Officer. John McCain quickly transformed his crew's personnel, which had been underfunded in the post-Vietnam era. Carl Smith, who served under McCain, stated, "He immediately began making changes. He fired people, and he replaced people at the top who he thought were not being as effective as he wanted them to be. He wanted real leadership. He wanted the squadron to come to life."<ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People. pg. 57</ref> Many in his staff were disappointed to have him leave, and praised his work in promoting efficiency.<ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People.</ref>

During his assignment to the Senate as the Navy's liaison, 1977-81, McCain began to join the ranks of politicians. He transformed the position from a rather unimportant post into one of authority and respect{{fact}}, gaining allies in the Senate. The Senate liaison role provided a learning experience in national security policy and foreign affairs.

==Political career==
===Congressional (1982 - 1986)===

Prior to entering public service, McCain worked in [[Phoenix]] for his father-in-law's company, Hensley & Co, which was an Anheuser-Busch beer wholesaler and distributor. With nagging injuries and limited physical mobility, McCain realized he would never become a four-star general like his forefathers.<ref>[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9542249 John McCain Biography (1936-)]</ref> Some biographers argue that he shifted into politics so that he could achieve the equivalent in politics, leading to his Senatorial career. After gaining support from local business leaders, he ran for a congressional seat for Arizona's 1st congressional district as a Republican in 1982. His [[liberal]] opponents labeled him as a "carpetbagger". McCain responded to a voter making the charge of "carpetbagging" saying,

{{cquote|Listen, pal. I spent 22 years in the Navy. My father was in the Navy. My grandfather was in the Navy. We in the military service tend to move a lot. We have to live in all parts of the country, all parts of the world. I wish I could have had the luxury, like you, of growing up and living and spending my entire life in a nice place like the First District of Arizona, but I was doing other things. As a matter of fact, when I think about it now, the place I lived longest in my life was Hanoi.}}

With the endorsements of local newspapers, McCain easily won the election. In 1983, he became President of the Republican freshman class of representatives. At the time, he largely supported Reagan's hard stance against the [[Soviet Union]], his tax cuts and matters on Indian Affairs. He did, however, break with the President on the decision to place a U.S. military presence in Lebanon, saying {{cquote|''I do not foresee obtainable objectives in Lebanon; I believe the longer we stay, the more difficult it will be to leave.''<ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People. pg. 100</ref>}} During his four years in [[Congress]], McCain and his wife Cindy had three children.

===Senatorial (1986 - Present)===
[[Image:Reagan mccain.jpg|left|thumb|300px|3/3/1987 President Reagan and Nancy Reagan greet John McCain in the Blue Room during a dinner for newly elected members of the 100th Congress]]
When Republican and [[conservative]] icon [[Barry Goldwater]] retired from the United States Senate in Arizona in 1986, Congressman McCain announced his candidacy for the seat. He easily won the election, defeating his Democratic opponent Richard Kimball by 20 percentage points. When entering the Senate, he became a member of the powerful Armed Services Committee and he also joined the Commerce Committee and the Indian Affairs Committee. During the 1988 Presidential Election, McCain was named chairman of Veterans for Bush. In 1991, Senator McCain became part of the "Keating Five" scandal, where McCain and four other Senators (all Democrats) were accused of improperly aiding Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received approximately $112,000 in political contributions from Charles Keating Jr. After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined that McCain's involvement was minimal and was criticized for using "poor judgement".

===="Maverick" Image in the Senate====
John McCain has gained a reputation as a "maverick" for his sponsorship of many bills and leadership on almost every issue. Starting in 1994, he worked with Democratic [[Wisconsin]] Senator [[Russ Feingold]] on campaign finance reform. The McCain-Feingold bill banned "soft money". It passed and was signed into law on November 6th, 2002, by President Bush. In the 1990's, McCain gained attention for his strong opposition to pork barrel spending. He championed the 1996 Line Item Veto Act, which gave the President the power to veto individual spending items. However, in 1998, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled the act unconstitutional.

Voteview.com rated McCain as the second most conservative Senator in the 109th Congress (Jan. 2005 - Jan. 2007).<ref>http://voteview.com/SEN109.HTM</ref>

John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues. He voted with the Bush administration 95% of the time in 2007, according to Congressional Quarterly's "Presidential Support Scores". <ref>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/512/ Politifact fact checks McCain's voting support</ref> Issues include making the Bush tax cuts permanent (even though he originally opposed and voted against them), energy independence, winning the war in Iraq, reforming Social Security, and continuing and expanding Bush's supply-side economic policies.

In 2008, McCain asked for $0 in earmarks.<ref>[http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2008_database 2008 ''Pig Book''], Council for Citizens Against Government Waste</ref>The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste has given him a rating of 100% in 2007 (88% lifetime).<ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/2007_Senate_Ratings_Final.pdf?docID=3242 2007 Senate Scorecard]</ref> A score of 100% represents voting against all pork, and 0% represents voting ''for'' all pork. Democrats averaged 5% in 2007, whereas Republicans averaged 60%. <ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11590 CCAGW Releases ''2007 Congressional Ratings'']</ref>

==Presidential Politics==
===2000 Presidential Campaign===
McCain launched his first campaign for President in 2000, when he challenged then-[[Texas]] Governor [[George W. Bush]] for the Republican nomination. McCain's campaign was surprisingly strong. By ignoring the [[Iowa Caucus]], he was able to win the [[New Hampshire]] Primary by nineteen percentage points. He then won the [[Michigan]] Primary. However, he went on to lose [[South Carolina]] and 9 out of the 13 [[Super Tuesday]] states. McCain withdrew from the race on March 9, 2000.

After withdrawing, McCain announced that he supported the removal of the Confederate battle flag from the top of the South Carolina statehouse. During the primary he had stated he believed it was an issue for the state to decide, which was his true belief from a federal standpoint, but not his personal belief. He felt by withholding her personal belief that he had erred. He explained that he lived his life by being open and felt he should have been at that time and apologized for not speaking up sooner. <ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/04/19/mccain.sc/</ref>

===During Bush Presidency 2001 - 2008 ===
Following McCain's loss in the 2000 Presidential primary and reports of dirty tricks in [[South Carolina]]<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/ The anatomy of a smear campaign, March 21, 2004</ref><ref>http://www.palmettoscoop.com/2007/12/30/top-romney-advisor-tied-to-anonymous-attacks-of-previous-presidential-primary/ Top Romney advisor tied to anonymous attacks of previous presidential primary, December 30, 2007</ref>, McCain began to disagree with President Bush on many issues, such as tax cuts, climate change, and gun legislation. After the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], McCain wrote legislation that created the 9/11 Commission, while he and Democratic Senator Fritz Hollings co-sponsored the Aviation and Transportation Security Act that federalized airport security. In May 2005, McCain led the so-called "[[Gang of 14]]" in the Senate, which established a compromise that preserved the ability of senators to filibuster judicial nominees, but only in "extraordinary circumstances". McCain also co-sponsored comprehensive immigration reform (see below under political record for details). In addition to bipartisan work in the Senate, it was during this period that McCain was courted by the Senate Democrats, and considered switching parties.<ref>http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html</ref>

===2008 Presidential Campaign===

{{main|John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign}}

[[Image:McCain_nomination.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Senator John McCain accepting his party's presidential nomination, 09/04/08]] McCain announced his run for President in early 2007 at New Hampshire, a state which had boosted his floundering 2000 run for President. From the onset, he ran on an unwavering support for the Iraq War and a close tie to President Bush, stemming from his shift during the 2004 election. The Republican Party was highly splintered among political groups, with strong constituents of the Christian social conservatives (Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee), anti-immigration activists (Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo), and the blockbuster fundraisers, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, who appeared to be media favorites upon entry. McCain was not seen as a viable candidate by many Republicans because of his strong support for immigration reform and distaste for political fund-raising. Mitt Romney, for instance, had raised $23 million in the first three months of 2007, for instance, three times that of Sen. McCain.<ref>Cook, Charles. "The 2008 Presidential Primaries: What in America's Name Is Going On?" The Washington Quarterly Vol. 31 Issue 3 pp. 193-204.</ref>

Christian conservatives overwhelmingly backed Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback, rejecting McCain from longstanding offense he had struck during his 2000 run. John McCain had called politically-charged leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance" for their part in a smear campaign during the South Carolina Primary. Many Christians were angered by these remarks, and fumed that they would field a Third Party candidate if McCain was chosen as the nominee. McCain had shown unfavorable views on abortion and religious initiatives in the past, and many Republican voters were worried that he could not be a reliably conservative candidate. <ref>Luo, Michael. "Evangelicals see Dilemma in GOP Field." July 8, 2007. New York Times.</ref>

Sen. McCain's unwavering support for victory in Iraq was made into a hot-button issue by many politicians following stories of insurgent violence erupting during early 2007. People began to fear the worst in Iraq, and the idea of a timetable for withdrawal became a major issue. At this time, conservative Republicans also feared McCain's position on immigration reform, and booed him loudly at the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference. A news story by the New York Times was a major blow to the campaign, which reported that a scandalous affair between McCain and a lobbyist had taken place. It was found to be completely false, but the story severely hurt his political advances.

When news had spread that McCain's campaign bankrupted and "imploded" in the summer of 2007, the Republican nomination began a period of quick shifting; other candidates began to soar in the polls, detracting McCain's support. Rudy Giuliani, who collected a strong following based on his leadership as "America's Mayor", began to court evangelical Christians who felt uneasy about McCain, gaining the endorsement of televangelist Pat Robertson. However, as his less-than-flattering personal life and liberal positions on social issues became apparent, he quickly lost momentum to Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee.<ref>Cook, Charles. "The 2008 Presidential Primaries: What in America's Name Is Going On?" The Washington Quarterly Vol. 31 Issue 3 pp. 193-204.</ref> Fred Thompson, who entered late in the race, quickly withdrew because of lackadaisical popularity and poor fund-raising efforts. Huckabee remained popular in the Southern United States, but failed to win major contests among independents and Democrat voters.

Romney had the edge in early races, but couldn't deliver a knockout blow. McCain's poll numbers slowly increased and benefited as the field narrowed. After McCain defeated top contender Mitt Romney by a large margin on Super Tuesday in delegate-rich states like New York, California, and Arizona,<ref>Scott Neuman and Howard Berkes. "Mitt Romney Drops Out of GOP Presidential Race." Feb. 7, 2008. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18772382</ref> Mitt Romney withdrew with some protest, leaving McCain the clear front-runner.<ref>Bumiller, Elisabeth, Kirkpatrick, David. "Romney Is Out; McCain Emerges as G.O.P. Choice." Feb. 8, 2008. New York Times.</ref> Although McCain's proportion of the vote was not much higher than Romney's, he won most of the 'winner take all' states giving him a much higher proportion of the delegate count. Without Romney's well-financed opposition, McCain easily clinched the necessary delegate lead of 1,191 in March after a spirited yet short-lived fight from Mike Huckabee.<ref>NPR.org. "Election 2008: Huckabee, Romney Stay in Race for GOP Nomination." Feb. 6, 2008. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18739137</ref>

McCain had won the nomination and could focus on the [[2008 United States Presidential Election]].

==Domestic Policy==
[[Image:McCain_on_Meet_the_Press.jpg|left|thumb|300px|Senator John McCain discusses his opinions with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press", 2005]]

===Balanced Budget===
McCain has emphasized reducing government spending over tax cuts. He is one of the Senate's most outspoken critics of pork barrel spending and has pledged to veto any bill with pork as President. Congressional experience has enabled John McCain to identify items that are unnecessary. McCain is fiscally responsible with the taxpayers' money and created a simple method to detect spending abuses. <ref>[http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=d1a878d9-f16c-4570-b402-9d1bc3fe6ab9] , http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=d1a878d9-f16c-4570-b402-9d1bc3fe6ab9, U.S. Senate Pork Barrel Spending</ref>

* An appropriation that is not properly authorized by the Senate and not requested by the Administration.
* An unauthorized and unrequested, locality-specific or facility-specific earmark (including those funds that are above the Administration request).
* A budget add-on that would be subject to a budget point of order.
* The transfer or disposal of federal property or items under terms that circumvent existing law.
* New items added in conference that were never considered in either bill in either House.

===Economy===
Upon his party gaining the White House in 2001, McCain opposed a $1.35 trillion cut in [[taxation]] over 10 years, but switched his position around 2006, and voted to renew it twice. The plan included the objectives of doubling the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, reducing the tax penalty on [[marriage|married couples]] and fully repealing the [[Estate tax|tax on estates]]. A [[United States Senate]] Finance Committee Report estimated that with all the planned reductions fully phased in, the average family of four making $50,000 would save $1,825 per year.<ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes/ $1.35 trillion tax cut becomes law], CNN, 21 June 2001</ref>

Since the tax cuts, [[IRS]] revenues increased from $1.78 trillion in 2003 to $2.56 trillion in 2007 with a 46.3% increase of individual income tax receipts. Surging $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts, it is the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119189497675953035.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref>

During this same time period, spending mandated by Congress has also increased by more than 29 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars, representing an 11.4 percent increase in federal spending as a percentage of [[Gross domestic product|GDP]]. This spending has doubled the federal debt, increasing it from 58 to 66 percent of GDP. Defense spending increased 61 percent, and non-defense by 23 percent during the eight years since 2000. The largest non-defense spending increase has been for federally-funded medical expenses, at 54 percent.<ref>[http://www.aier.org/research/commentaries/750-big-government-under-the-bush-administration Big Government Under The Bush Administration], AIER, 16 November 2008</ref> In total, Congress and the White House has increased government expenditures by the largest percentage since the administration of President [[Lyndon Johnson]], but McCain has opposed every earmark put forward in the Democratic and Republican congresses, even ones Bush supported. Part of the huge spending increases are directly traceable to the economic repercussions of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the economic downturn in its aftermath, and increased defense and Homeland Security spending. However, this appears likely to be eclipsed by the spending plans of [[Barack Obama]], who pledged on 6 December 2008 to invest "record amounts of money" in infrastructure, a plan which some members of Congress are estimating at $400 to $700 billion.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us/politics/07radio.html?ref=us Obama Pledges Public Works on a Vast Scale], New York Times, 6 December 2008</ref>.

McCain's policies have caused general economic growth. This is partially due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2007, although the [[NASDAQ]] is still down considerably from the levels it was at before the Dot-com bubble burst. Corporations showed profits growing by double digits growth.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/us/2006-05-08-mart-usat_x.htm</ref> Even the working class benefited from the Bush economy, as unemployment hit an all time low in March 2007.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/economy</ref> McCain supported a minimum wage increase, one of the platforms for the Democrats in the 2006 Congressional elections, after the House and Senate included McCain's request of provisions for small-business tax breaks.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001784.html</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011001666.html</ref> Tax policies have been favorable to reducing the [[Capital Gains Tax]], with a subsequent surge in investment.

===Earmarks===
John McCain staunchly opposes [[earmarks]] as wasteful spending. In his 28 years in federal government, McCain has never requested an earmark.

===Education===
McCain supports [[school vouchers]] and [[charter school]]s. His voting record shows support for reducing the federal government's role in [[education]]. He voted for school vouchers for Washington, D.C., education savings accounts, and against $5 billion for grants to local educational agencies. McCain sponsored the Education A-Plus bill in 1997 and again in 1999, which allowed parents to open tax-free saving accounts for their children's school supplies. McCain also co-sponsored the Child Nutrition Act, which would provide [[federal funding]] for at-risk children. He has publicly stated he supports [[intelligent design]] teaching in schools.<ref>http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/politics/90069 "On Tuesday, though, he sided with the president on two issues that have made headlines recently: teaching intelligent design in schools...McCain told the Star that, like Bush, he believes "all points of view" should be available to students studying the origins of mankind."</ref>

===Health Care===
McCain's record and stated positions on [[health care]] are based on true conservative principles. He is against socialized health care and health coverage mandates. McCain supports tax credits for personal health savings accounts and enhancing competition in the health care industry to improve quality and lower costs. He also supports allowing citizens to purchase out-of-state health insurance. In an October 2007 statement, McCain said: "In health care, we believe in enhancing the freedom of individuals to receive necessary and desired care. We do not believe in coercion and the use of state power to mandate care, coverage or costs." McCain is a member of the Republican Main Street Partnership. <ref>[http://www.republicanmainstreet.org/healthcare.htm Pro Healthcare]</ref>

===Energy===
John McCain has stated "ethanol subsidies, tariff barriers and sugar quotas drive up food prices and hurt Americans. However, we cannot take the wrong direction and cut off trade for American goods."<ref>[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4dbd2cc7-890e-47f1-882f-b8fc4cfecc78.htm], McCain Economic Plan</ref> “America’s most vital interests call us to the mission of energy security, and so does our sense of honor. And the straightest, swiftest path to energy security is to produce more, use less, and find new sources of power — so that no commodity can determine our security, and no crisis can undermine our economy,” McCain said in Houston, TX, June 16, 2008. He proposes to remove federal obstacles to offshore drilling. Among his major initiatives is the removal of the 27-year old federal moratorium on states’ abilities to explore and drill for oil and natural gas.<ref>[http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/17/mccain-slaps-obama-on-energy-calls-for-more-drilling/], McCain slaps Obama on energy, June 17th, 2008</ref> In addition, he wants the states to receive incentives and royalties to drill. The current ban on offshore drilling covers an estimated 80 percent of U.S. coastal waters."We've seen the impact of it in the form of food prices, in the form of gasoline, in the form of threats of inflation and indeed indications of inflation, and we must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil." <ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080616/ap_on_el_pr/mccain] , http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080616/ap_on_el_pr/mccain , AP McCain urges end to ban on offshore drilling , June 16, 2008</ref> He indicated, though, that the end of the ban on offshore drilling would have mostly psychological effects in the short term. At a town hall meeting, McCain stated, "I don't see an immediate relief, but I do see that exploitation of existing reserves that may exist -- and in view of many experts that do exist off our coasts -- is also a way that we need to provide relief. Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial."
He would support incentives for building new nuclear power plants. <ref>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/24/1163504.aspx</ref> John McCain wants more nuclear reactors to increase America's energy independence. He is calling for the construction of 45 new reactors by 2030. Also, McCain wants to increase federal funds for clean coal technology by 2 billion dollars to reduce dependence on foreign oil. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91CMT0O0&show_article=1] , http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91CMT0O0&show_article=1 , AP McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors, June 18, 2008</ref>
McCain supports increasing ethanol imports and more production of hybrid vehicles. He is co-sponsor of a Senate cap-and-trade bill designed to limit greenhouse gas emissions. He has consistently voted for preserving the budget for ANWR but against drilling for [[oil]] in the [[Arctic National Wildlife Refuge]] (ANWR), because of environmental concerns. Conservationists differ from conservatives that 2000 acres for oil drilling is not enough to impact [[polar bears]] in the region.

===Environment===
McCain's position on [[global warming]] issues has put him at odds with conservatives. His [[environment]]al proposals are mostly sound modern thinking by someone that understands the enormity of the problem. McCain says that we can go green as a nation without bankrupting America. Per his website, Senator McCain "wants to leave a better future for our children."
On January 2007, McCain said, "we continue to learn more about the science of climate change and the dangerous precedence of not addressing this environmental problem. The science tells us that urgent and significant action is needed." On October 30, 2003, he co-sponsored the Climate Stewardship Act (S.139), which was defeated. McCain is a member of, and was endorsed by, the Republicans for Environmental Protection organization. His conservative stances include voting to confirm Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior and he is in favor of renewable energy such as solar, hydro, and wind. "Wind power is one of many alternative energy sources that are changing our economy for the better, and one day they will change our economy forever."

===Immigration===
John McCain says that he will secure the borders first and many [[immigration]] issue are still needed but will have to come later. In 2007, McCain worked to provide border security efforts with a temporary worker program and an eventual path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants. Conservatives wanted nothing to do with the proposal and in June 2007, Congress' efforts collapsed. McCain said of the outcome,"I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders." <ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-11-03-610628094_x.htm] , http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-11-03-610628094_x.htm, AP McCain emphasizes border security, November 4, 2007</ref> "..I support the same solution. But we've got to secure the borders first" says McCain

On Jan. 5, regarding the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, Senator McCain announced that anyone who says he supported amnesty is "a liar, is lying." The senator stated "I do not support, nor would I ever support, any services provided to someone who came to this country illegally, nor would I ever and I never have supported [[Social Security]] benefits for people who are in this country illegally. Any assertion to the contrary is absolutely false." During the comprehensive immigration reform debate, Senator McCain voted to table an amendment that would have prevented illegal immigrants from receiving Social Security who "are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity."<ref>http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00130</ref> Senator McCain stated in a May 29, 2003 interview, "Amnesty has to be an important part because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have raised children here and pay taxes here and are not citizens." Arguing amnesty is not a free pass or a reward for law breaking, McCain stated, "Well, because amnesty, according to the dictionary, is forgiveness. The proposal that we had- would require fines, would require back in the line, would require deportation for some. It would require others to go back to the country of their origin" <ref>[http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/John_McCain_Immigration.htm] , Ontheissues.com, John McCain on Immigration</ref> At the [[Republican]] debate at the Reagan Library, McCain stated he supports the deportation of 2 million illegals who have committed crimes in the USA.

Conversely, in a June 2008 meeting with Hispanic leaders in Chicago, McCain indicated he would push legislation to overhaul federal immigration laws if elected. According to one attendee, Rosanna Pulido, head of the Illinois [[Minuteman Project]], ""He's one John McCain in front of white Republicans. And he's a different John McCain in front of Hispanics..." <ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/20/mccain-discusses-immigrat_n_108297.html McCain Discusses Immigration With Hispanic Leaders</ref> <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-06-19-4020801806_x.htm McCain Meets With Hispanic Leaders</ref> Pulido further stated, "He was telling one group of people one thing and the Hispanics another, I'm a conservative and I think he's throwing conservatives under the bus."<ref>http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/title----mcca-1.html McCain Double-Talk on Immigration?</ref> Due to his support, members of the Minuteman Project, participating in the Minuteman Project Caravan, traveled to Washington, D.C. to register their disapproval. They made an entry into McCain's Guest Log Book asking him to uphold the Constitution and enforce the law. After making the entry, the group was forced to leave by a senior staffer for Senator McCain or be reported to the police. <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1643181/posts Minuteman Project Thrown Out of McCain's Office</ref>

Senator McCain's position on illegal immigration has arguably resulted in the most criticisms from conservatives. On May 12, 2005, McCain joined Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] (D-[[Massachusetts]]) as co-sponsor of the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act. The bill would legalize and eventually grant citizenship to the estimated 12–20 million [[illegal alien]]s in the United States and have them immediately start collecting social security and other government benefits. The bill never came for a vote on the Senate floor. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 are two additional compromises based on the original McCain-Kennedy bill. McCain has consistently voted for visas for skilled workers. McCain voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006 and has said border security should be a bigger priority then the illegal aliens who are currently here.

===Global Trade===
McCain has actively supported reducing barriers to trade and has shown leadership in the [[Senate]] on Free Trade Agreements (FTA). Senator McCain supports both pending FTAs for Columbia and [[South Korea]]. <ref>[http://useconomy.about.com/od/candidatesandtheeconomy/p/McCain_Trade.htm], John McCain and Trade</ref> He voted for and defends the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

===Social Security===
McCain is a strong supporter of private [[Social Security]] accounts.

===Tax Reform===
In 2001, McCain gained attention as one of only two Republicans who voted against President Bush's tax cuts. He opposed accelerating the cuts in 2003, saying, "I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportional amount that went to the wealthiest Americans. I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit." He has now changed his stance, by voting to make the tax cuts permanent, and says he would do the same as President. In 2002, Senator McCain was one of only two Republicans to twice vote against the permanent repeal of the Death Tax. He has also refused to sign a pledge put forth by Americans for Tax Freedom not to impose any new taxes or increase existing taxes. However, many of McCain's votes has shown support for lower taxes, such as eliminating the marriage penalty, a 1997 vote to cut capital gains taxes and he introduced measures that would require a sixty-vote majority to pass a tax increase.

==Foreign Policy==

===National Security===

McCain urges the Senate to pass FISA. “For months, House Democrats, the [[ACLU]], and the trial lawyers have held up legislation to modernize our nation’s terrorist surveillance laws. Today, the House passed a compromise bill to end this impasse. While I would have preferred to see the Senate bill enacted, which I voted for earlier this year, I am pleased Congressional leaders and the Administration were able to reach an agreement to reform our current surveillance law and not let FISA expire in August. I hope [[Senate]] Democrats will allow this matter to quickly be considered by the Senate and sent to the President for his signature. I will support this measure and hope that politics will be put aside in favor of this vital national security matter.” <ref>[http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=a7f9dc6c-da0e-459d-dd6c-91e20a46e1e5] , McCAIN URGES SENATE PASSAGE OF FISA
, June 20, 2008</ref> Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was established in 1978.

McCain has voted in support of the [[Patriot Act|USA PATRIOT Act]] as well as National Missile Defense. However, he has joined [[liberal]]s in support of immediately closing [[Guantanamo Bay]], and moving all the prisoners to Fort Leavenworth. On October 3, 2005, he introduced the McCain Detainee Amendment which prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners, including prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. The bill was passed and signed by President [[George W. Bush]]. McCain has recently criticized the practice of [[waterboarding]], saying "they should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture." McCain voted against HR 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which included provisions that would have prevented the CIA from water boarding prisoners.

===Afghanistan===
After the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] McCain was a strong advocate for military action in [[Afghanistan]], saying:

''We did not cause this war. Our enemies did, and they are to blame for the deprivations and difficulties it occasions. They are to'' ''blame for the loss of innocent life. They are to blame for the geopolitical problems confronting our friends and us. We can help'' ''repair the damage of war. But to do so, we must destroy the people who started it.'' <ref>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001375</ref>

McCain is currently calling for 15,000 additional troops to address the situation in Afghanistan, similar to his victorious 2007 troop surge in Iraq.

===Iran===
McCain has said that "We continue to be concerned about [[Iran]]ian influence and assistance to Hezbollah as well as Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons." He tried to ban Iran from playing in the 2006 World Cup, citing Iranian President [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]]'s [[Holocaust]] denials.

===Iraq===
[[Image:610x.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Senator John McCain with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, 03/17/08]] McCain voted with the majority [[Republican]] Party and 29 Democrats of the Senate in favor of the 2002 "[[Iraq War]] Resolution" authorizing President George W. Bush to go to war against Iraq and overthrow the [[Saddam Hussein]] regime. In 1998, McCain voted in favor of HR 4655 Iraq Liberation Act, signed by then President Clinton. <ref>[http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm], http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm, HR4655 Public Law: 105-338, October 31, 1998</ref> HR 4655 declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government. McCain went on to became a critic of the management of the war, arguing that there wasn't enough troop strength in the area. However, he never became a defeatist advocating surrender. McCain publicly stated that he had "no confidence" in then-Secretary of Defense [[Donald Rumsfeld]]. However, he refused to call for his resignation, saying that "the President picks his team, and the president has the right to stay with that team if he wants to." McCain became one of the strongest leading advocates in the Senate for the 2007 troop surge, which increased the number of American troops by 20,500, deployed to provide security to [[Baghdad]] and Al Anbar Province. On February 4, he criticized a non-binding resolution opposing the troop buildup, calling it a reckless "vote of no confidence" in the U.S. Commanders and in the military. Additionally, he voted against all measures aimed at withdrawal of U.S. forces and voted against cutting off of war funds. McCain rightly believes that Congress should not micromanage the war and to give the military everything they ask for to successfully complete the mission. He has mentioned in a town hall forum that staying the course in Iraq for 'a hundred years' would not bother him if no American soldier's were losing their lives. This became an issue for Democratic political strategy. The DNC lead by chairman [[Howard Dean]] repeatedly tried to use false statements in justifying attacking McCain.<ref>[http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/mccains_100year_war.html]http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/mccains_100year_war.html, Washington post Fact Checker, April 2, 2008</ref> What McCain said is very different from what the liberal media and the DNC were reporting. Asked in Derry, NH of the willingness to keep troops in Iraq for 50 years, he said "Make it 100" and

{{QuoteBox|"That's fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."}}

===Russia===
Senator McCain has strongly criticized [[Russia]]n President [[Vladimir Putin]]. During a primary debate he sad, ""He bullies his neighbors and he wants to get a control of the energy supply of Western Europe. This is a dangerous person. And he has to understand that there's a cost to some of his actions." In 2005 McCain and [[Connecticut]] senator [[Joe Lieberman]] drafted a resolution banning Russia from attending the Group of 8 (G8) international forum. McCain is also a strong supporter of ballistic national missile defenses.

===Cuba===
McCain forcefully supports the [[Cuban embargo]] and believes it should be maintained until certain specific political freedoms are restored to the country. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&fta=y&adxnnlx=1222106556-zea3cQG12OakFI9P97dogQ</ref>

==Social Issues==
===Abortion===
{{QuoteBox|"If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next President of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement."}}

Sen. John McCain has more than a twenty year anti-[[abortion]] record, first in the [[U.S. House of Representatives]], then in the U.S. Senate. McCain voted 11 times on anti-abortion and other [[pro-life]] issues in the House. Senator McCain has voted 119 times on anti-abortion and other pro-life measures in the Senate. <ref>[http://www.naral.org/assets/files/mccain_fact_sheet.pdf], http://www.naral.org/assets/files/mccain_fact_sheet.pdf</ref>

McCain's record in the Senate on abortion is pro-life. He voted for the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. McCain has also voted against government funding of birth control and sex education.<ref>http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00214 Voted Nay on an amendment to authorize grants to carry out programs to provide education on preventing teen pregnancies</ref> <ref>http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00075 Vote against allocation of $100m for prevention of unintended pregnancies </ref><ref>http://www.nowpublic.com/quiet-campaign-against-contraception Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain's campaign officials boast that he has "consistently voted against taxpayer-funded contraception programs." And Mr. McCain reports that his adviser on sexual-health matters is Sen. Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, who leads campaigns claiming condoms are unsafe and opposing emergency contraception.</ref> During his first Presidential campaign for the 2000 election, McCain said the following on [[Roe v. Wade]], "I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." <ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/feb/07021908.html McCain's "</ref> He has since changed his position, saying Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

John McCain:
* Voted against a [[Roe v. Wade]] resolution
* Co-sponsored and voted for the Federal Abortion Ban
* Supported H.R.1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act
* Voted for four anti-abortion U.S. Supreme Court judges
* Voted for six anti-abortion lower court judges
* Supported H.R.3913, to prohibit federal funds for abortion services in any case
* Voted to make it a federal crime for anyone but a parent to cross state lines for abortion termination
* Voted in favor of a national network of parental notification.

====Quotations====
“I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned.” <ref>Ann Althouse, Rudy & Mitt Hem & Haw on Abortion, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 24, 2007.</ref>

*"I have many, many votes and it’s been consistent. And I’ve got a consistent zero from NARAL throughout all those years…."<ref>John McCain for President 2008, On the Issues: Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life</ref>
*"My record is clear, and I think the important thing is you look at people’s voting record because sometimes rhetoric can be a little… misleading…. As you know I don’t support Roe v. Wade…. I thought it was a bad decision, and I think that the decision should be made in the states"<ref>John McCain for President 2008, On the Issues: Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life</ref>
*“I’m proud that we have Justice Alito and Roberts on the United States Supreme Court. I’m very proud to have played a very small role in making that happen.” McCain explained further that he “will try to find clones of Alito and Roberts” to fill future court vacancies.<ref>[http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=26539], Letter from Sen. John McCain to Pro‐Life Community Janary 23, 2008</ref>

===Gun Control===
McCain's record on [[gun control]] is mixed. He co-sponsored the Gun Show Loophole Closing and Gun Law Enforcement Act of 2001. This act would reduce the number of gun shows, require gun-owners to purchase trigger locks, and allow federal agents to arrest those who violate federal gun laws. However, McCain has frequently voted in support of the Second Amendment, such as voting against background checks at gun shows and voting in support of prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. In August of 1999, McCain said he was open to voting for an assault weapon ban, depending on the details. However, he still voted against the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and the efforts to renew it, as well as the Brady Bill.

A top official of the [[National Rifle Association]] said McCain has been a reliable ally of gun owners despite divisions with the powerful lobbying group on some issues. NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told The Associated Press "...We're not foolish enough to ignore the vast areas of agreement in which John McCain has been a friend to gun owners." <ref>[http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml], http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml, NRA chief stresses common ground with McCain, May 14, 2008</ref> The Republican presidential nominee has voted against a ban on assault-type weapons with restrictions which were objected.

===Same-sex marriage===
In the speech on the Senate floor July 13th, 2004, McCain stated “Mr. President, most Americans believe, as I do, that the institution of marriage should be reserved for the union of a man and a woman." <ref>http://www.friendsofmccain.com/news/dspnews.cfm?id=143</ref> John McCain revealed his decision based on super majority requirements and the current political realities within Congress. “By my count, there is not at this time even a small majority of senators who would vote for Senator Allard’s amendment, much less the 67 votes required by the Constitution. That won’t change, Mr. President, unless public opinion changes significantly. The [[Founders]], wisely, made certain that the Constitution is difficult to amend, and, as a practical political matter, can’t be done without overwhelming public approval. And thank God for that. Were it any easier I fear we could not make the claim for the Constitution’s enduring success that I have just made." Further, he explained his approach to the amendment's ultimate success “If a constitution is to be amended, Mr. President, it should be a state constitution." McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court effectively created a ruling to grant same-sex partners equal rights to [[Marriage]] and to be recognized by the state. A spokesman for Republican John McCain, who opposes gay marriage, said the Arizona senator "doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions."

===Evolution===
Senator John McCain's position on evolution is nuanced:

{{QuoteBox|"I think Americans should be exposed to every point of view, I happen to [[believe in evolution]]. ... I respect those who think the world was created in seven days. Should it be taught as a science class? '''Probably not'''." [http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/12/mccain-creationism/]}}

==Personal life==
[[Image:Cindy McCain.jpg|thumb|Cindy McCain]]
McCain has been married twice. His first marriage, to Carol Shepp, ended in [[divorce]] in 1980 after 15 years, of which he spent five in captivity. McCain publicly acknowledges the responsibility for the breakup as his, stating in a 2008 interview with Pastor Rick Warren that "My greatest moral failing, and I have been a very imperfect person, is the failure of my first marriage". .<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/rules021299.htm</ref> His second and current wife is Cindy Lou Hensley, to whom he has been married for 28 years. His son John Sidney IV is a Midshipman at the [[United States Naval Academy]], Annapolis, and his son James is a non-commissioned officer in the [[United States Marine Corps]], who is serving in [[Iraq]] as part of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]]. Also, the McCains adopted a ten-week old baby girl in 1993, who they named Bridget, from [[Mother Teresa]]'s orphanage in [[Bangladesh]].<ref>[http://celebrity.rightpundits.com/?p=3183 Bridget McCain Biography] Rightpundits.com</ref> <ref>[http://www.newsanalysisindia.com/109022008.htm Bridget vs Sonia: McCain vs Rajiv Gandhi] News Analysis India</ref>
Cindy McCain was in the country as part of the American Voluntary Medical Team <ref>[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-041408-cindy-mccain-bio,1,2151434.story Bio of Cindy McCain]</ref> in response to the 1991 [[Bangladesh]] cyclone.
===McCain's family===
*Wife Cindy
*4 sons
**Douglas
**Andrew
**John (''"Jack"'') Sidney IV
**James
*3 daughters
**Sidney
**Meghan
**Bridget
*Parents
**[[Admiral]] John Sydney McCain, Jr. (from [[Indiana]])
**[[Roberta McCain|Roberta Wright McCain]] (from [[Oklahoma]]).

== Books ==
* ''Faith of My Fathers'' (Random House; 1999) ISBN 0-3755-0191-6
* ''Odysseus in America'' (Scribner; 2002) ISBN 0-7432-1156-1
* ''Worth Fighting For: A Memoir'' (Diane Publ. Co; 2002) ISBN 0-7567-6759-8
* ''Medal of Honor'' (Artisan; 2003) ISBN 1-5796-5240-9
* ''Why Courage Matters: The Way to a Braver Life'' (Random House; 2004) ISBN 1-4000-6030-3
* ''Character Is Destiny: Inspiring Stories Every Young Person Should Know and Every Adult Should Remember'' (Random House; 2005) ISBN 1-4000-6412-0
* ''Hard Call: Great Decisions and the Extraordinary People Who Made Them'' (Twelve; 2007) ISBN 0-4466-9911-X

==Further reading==
*McCain, John [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=513224&in_page_id=1811 ''My six years of hell: John McCain recalls life as a prisoner of war in Vietnam''] 8 February 2008 [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 9 February 2008

==See Also==
* [[John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign]]
* [[Previous Breaking News/John McCain|Articles about John McCain from previous "Breaking News"]]
* [[White House]]
*[[Cindy McCain]], spouse of John McCain
*[[Roberta McCain]], mother of John McCain

== External links ==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQsckD9trn4&eurl=http://evangelicalsformccain.org/meetthesenator.htm ''John McCain: Courageous Service''] - Streaming video documentary hosted at YouTube, including footage of McCain's time as a POW and the Forrestal incident.
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9542249 John McCain Biography]
*[http://evangelicalsformccain.org/index.htm Evangelicals for McCain] - Christians, Families and Patriots for John McCain
*[http://studentsformccain08.blogspot.com/ Students for McCain 2008]
*[http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/mccains-mom-pop.html McCain's Mom Pops Off]
*[http://www.rd.com/national-interest/people-and-politics/our-interview-with-sen-john-mccain/article.html Presidential Candidate John McCain on the Issues]
*[http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270 Voting record]

==References==
{{reflist|small}}

{{2008 presidential candidates}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:McCain, John}}

[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:American war heroes]]

Notes: He called his wife a vulgar term for a vagina.

Talk:Virginity pledge

2008-12-30T21:43:51Z

AndrasK: /* December 2008 Study counters statements given */

==December 2008 Study counters statements given==
According to a December, 2008 study conducted by the American Association of Pediatrics and Harvard University and published in the journal ''Pediatrics'' the statements given by the Heritage foundation are not statistically accurate. The study showed that 5 years after taking the pledge

*82% Denied taking the pledge
*Pledgers and non-pledgers did not differ in rates of premarital sex, STDs, or oral/anal intercourse rates
*Total partners over the previous year was only 0.1 fewer for pledgers, but over the course of a life time, pledgers and non-pledgers had the same rates of sexual partners

More over, the study showed that pledgers had significantly riskier sex in that birth control rates were much lower than non-pledgers

Sources: http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20081229/virginity-pledge-doesnt-stop-teen-sex
Rosenbaum, J. Pediatrics, January 2009; vol 123: e110-e120.

I wait for approbation prior to adding this to the actual article. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:50, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:That was not a new study; it simply relooked at the data that already existed and started with a population of only all virgins instead of the total pool of teenagers. It was set up to reach its conclusions. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)

The WebMD article states

<blockquote>
In this study, researchers compared the sexual behavior of 289 teenagers who reported taking a virginity pledge in a 1996 national survey to 645 non-pledgers who were matched on more than 100 factors, such as religious beliefs and attitudes toward sex and birth control.
</blockquote>

It does not state that they were all virgins. The researchers used the same data as heritage foundation and older studies, but applied different statistical methods to reveal other trends. This is at least worth mentioning. We cannot claim to be balanced and trustworthy if we do not show all information related to the subject and allow the user to determine his opinion, to do otherwise is intellectually dishonest. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 13:46, 30 December 2008 (EST)

:Andras is correct. The goal was to answer the question "If you are inclined towards abstinence, does taking a virginity pledge help achieve that purpose?". The point of this analysis, then was study was to do a true "apples to apples" study by starting with a subset of kids inclined towards abstinence to begin with (instead of including those who were sexually active for example). By tracking the outcome over a five-year period, the analysis was able to conclude (from this population, anyway), that taking a virginity pledge was not effective in preventing or significantly postponing sexual activity. The other key finding is that the pledge-breakers were less likely to use birth control or take precautions against STDs. That made perfect sense, because they were more likely to be raised in homes and environments where that information was not made available to them.

:I know this is not the type of finding that CP wants to talk about, but it's still the truth and has to be acknowledged as such. If it can happen to Sarah Palin's daughter, it can happen to any child of conservative parents. However, that doesn't mean people should give up trying to encourage abstinence - the value of acknowledging these findings is that we now have a challenge ''to find more effective approaches'' than relying on virginity pledges, that's all. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:02, 30 December 2008 (EST)

DinsdaleP has once again found a more eloquent and effective way of communicating what I was trying to say. Thank you Dinsdale! Perhaps my wording was a bit off and too generalizing. I think with a few edits to the wording to stress a)the purpose of the study b)the population used c)the impact of the study that this will be a useful contribution to the CP infostock. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:13, 30 December 2008 (EST)

:The difficulty is that the original study was for those who pledged to wait until marriage -- regardless of past choices. They are then compared to those who actually had not had sexual relations. The comparison is apples and oranges. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:41, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Can you please define "original study" (meaning the heritage study or...?) as well as what is being compared in your mind. As DinsdaleP states, the study addressed the effectiveness of virginity pledges in a population that was inclined towards abstinence. One can decide individually if a high failure rate of virginity pledges in an already abstinence-prone population would suggest a high failure rate for all populations. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 15:19, 30 December 2008 (EST)

:The study used by the authors who arrived at different conclusions broke out people into two different groups. Those who wished to make a pledge to refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage and those who did not. Of course using that criteria there was a strong difference between the groups. The recent retabulation only took those who didn't make the pledge and had never been sexually active -- a variable not contained for those who chose to make the pledge. They never consider that students may have taken the pledge that had a past history of sexual activity. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:56, 30 December 2008 (EST)

The new study's entire population consists of teenagers who describe themselves as leaning towards abstinence, regardless of prior sexual activity. It then split that abstinence leaning population into those who took a pledge and those who did not. Between those groups there it was shown that the virginity pledgers not only did not have lower rates of sexual intercourse 5 years later, but that they engaged in riskier sex. Thus the study shows that within the population of teens who already favor an abstinence stance, virginity pledges do not lower reversion to sexual behavior. Again I state that one can imagine how effective virginity pledges would be in a population that does not explicitly define itself as leaning towards abstinence. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:43, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Virginity pledge

2008-12-30T20:19:40Z

AndrasK: /* December 2008 Study counters statements given */

Talk:Virginity pledge

2008-12-30T19:13:51Z

AndrasK: /* December 2008 Study counters statements given */

Talk:Virginity pledge

2008-12-30T18:46:31Z

AndrasK: /* December 2008 Study counters statements given */

Virginity pledge

2008-12-30T15:54:54Z

AndrasK:

A virginity pledge is a commitment, usually made in a group, to practice [[abstinence]] until [[marriage]]. These pledges are usually symbolized by purity rings, or covenant cards.<ref>http://www.waitt.org/</ref>

According to the Heritage Foundation, teens who make virginity pledges enjoy the following life outcomes <ref>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/cda04-07.cfm</ref>:

*Are less likely to experience teen pregnancy;
*Are less likely to be sexually active while in high school and as young adults;
*Are less likely to give birth as teens or young adults;
*Are less likely to give birth out of wedlock;
*Are less likely to engage in risky unprotected sex; and
*Will have fewer sexual partners.

==Effectiveness of Virginity Pledges==
A December 2008 study, which was conducted by the American Association of Pediatrics and Harvard University and will be published in the journal ''Pediatrics,'' suggests that virginity pledges are statistically ineffective. The study found that 5 years after taking the pledge:

*82% of pledgers denied taking the pledge
*Pledgers and non-pledgers did not differ in rates of premarital sex, sexual transmitted disease, or oral/anal intercourse
*Total partners over the previous year was only 0.1 fewer for pledgers, and over the course of a life time, pledgers and non-pledgers had the same average number of sexual partners

More over, the study found that pledgers engaged in riskier sex than non-pledgers in that pledgers were 10% less likely to use birth control as compared to non-pledgers.<ref>http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20081229/virginity-pledge-doesnt-stop-teen-sex</ref><ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,473509,00.html</ref><ref>Rosenbaum, J. Pediatrics, January 2009; vol 123: e110-e120.</ref>

==references==
<references/>

[[Category:Abstinence Campaigns]]

User:AndrasK

2008-12-30T02:52:53Z

AndrasK:

<h1>MIT Class of 2013!</h1>

{{User NoArbBlk}}

{{User Evo}}

{{User bigbang}}

{{User guncontrol}}

{{User patriot questions authority}}

{{User free speech}}

{{User Liberal}}

{{User nowar}}

{{User gay rights}}

{{User Democrat}}

{{User legalpot}}

Talk:Virginity pledge

2008-12-30T02:50:41Z

AndrasK: /* December 2008 Study counters statements given */

Talk:Virginity pledge

2008-12-30T02:50:24Z

AndrasK: New page: ==December 2008 Study counters statements given== According to a December, 2008 study conducted by the American Association of Pediatrics and Harvard University and published in the journa...

Colin Powell

2008-10-21T22:58:59Z

AndrasK: /* Obama endorsement */

[[Image:Colin_Powell.jpg|right|200px]]
'''General Colin Luther Powell''', United States Army (Ret.) (born April 5, 1937) was the 65th [[United States]] [[Secretary of State]] (2001-05) under President [[George W. Bush]] and a liberal member of the [[Republican]] Party. As a General in the [[United States Army]], Powell also served as [[National Security Advisor]] (1987–1989) and as Chairman of the [[Joint Chiefs of Staff]] (1989–1993). He became the highest ranking African American government official in the history of the United States.

==Military career==
While at City College Powell joined the Reserve Officers' Training Corps and later described it as one of the happiest experiences of his life: finding something he loved and could do well, he had "found himself." After graduating from City College in June 1958, he was granted a commission as an Army Second Lieutenant. Powell was a professional soldier for 35 years, during which time he held a variety of command and staff positions and later served as a General. During his military career Powell received the [[Purple Heart]], [[Bronze Star]] and the [[Soldiers Medal]].

==Presidential appointments==
At the age of 49, Powell became President [[Ronald Reagan]]'s National Security Advisor, serving from 1987 to 1989. He retained his Army commission (he was a Lieutenant General at the time of his nomination) while serving as National Security Advisor. After his tenure, Powell was promoted to 4-star General under President [[George H.W. Bush]].

From 1989 to 1993, General Powell served as chairman of the [[Joint Chiefs of Staff]], the highest [[military]] position in the Department of Defense. During this time, he oversaw 28 crises, including the invasion of [[Panama]] in 1989 to remove General [[Manuel Noriega]] from power in and Operation Desert Storm in the 1991 [[Persian Gulf War]]. During these events, Powell earned his nickname, "the reluctant warrior". After the end of Persian Gulf War, Colin Powell outlined his vision for efficient and decisive military action. His plan is now referred to as the [[Powell Doctrine]]. the Doctrine expresses that military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target; the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy; there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged.

[[Image:20010912-4-1.jpg|left|thumb|300px|Secretary of State Colin Powell, [[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]] and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, President George W. Bush talks with the press about the previous day's terrorist attacks during a cabinet meeting Sept. 12, 2001. White House photo by Tina Hager. ]] Later as Secretary of State in the Bush [[administration]], Powell was tremendously popular among the American people. After the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], Powell's job became of critical importance in managing America's relationships with foreign countries in order to secure a stable coalition in the [[War on Terrorism]]. He spoke out in favor of the 2003 Invasion of [[Iraq]], saying that there was "no doubt in my mind" that Saddam was working to obtain key components to produce nuclear weapons.

==Political views==
Colin Powell is a [[liberal]] or moderate Republican who is [[pro-choice]] regarding [[abortion]], supports affirmative action and "reasonable" gun control. Although Powell is against [[gay]] marriage, he supports and helped craft the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the United States military. He has also been critical of the current policy in Iraq. In 2005, Powell telephoned two Senator's, [[Lincoln Chafee]] of [[Rhode Island]] and [[Chuck Hagel]] of [[Nebraska]] (also liberal Republicans) asking them to oppose the nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the [[United Nations]]. In September 2005, Powell criticized the government's response to [[Hurricane Katrina]]. Powell was mentioned as a potential running mate for [[John McCain]]<ref>http://www.aarpmagazine.org/people/colin_powell.html</ref>, but said he was no longer interested in elective office.

==Obama endorsement==
On 19 October 2008, Powell endorsed Barack Obama for President, saying that Obama was a "transformational figure coming into the world stage" <ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/19/colin-powell-endorses-obama/</ref> and expressing disappointment in what he called the "negative tone" of McCain's campaign, as well as in McCain's choice of [[Sarah Palin]] as the Republican vice presidential nominee <ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/colin-powell-endorses-barack-obama-for-presiden-1/</ref> saying that she lacked experience even as he was supporting a candidate with one year of experience in the Senate before running for President. Powell went on to criticize other Republicans for what he claims is insistence on their part that Obama is a Muslim stating, "I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the Republican Party say... such things as 'Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim'. Well the correct answer is, 'He's not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian'. But the really right answer is, 'What if he is?' Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is 'No', that's not America."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7678788.stm</ref> Powell did not give examples of anyone within the Republican Party who had called Obama Muslim, instead choosing to make a general claim. A month ago Powell had said that the thought of an African American President was 'electrifying'. In his speech backing Obama, he also said he did not want to see the appointment of Conservative [[Supreme Court]] Justices.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27265369/</ref>

After endorsing Obama, he was offered a position in a hypothetical future Obama administration, in a possible case of [[quid pro quo]].<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081020/ts_alt_afp/usvoteobamapowell_081020141241</ref> In a Meet The Press interview with Tom Brokaw, however, Powell denied any interest in a potential position in an Obama administration saying "I served 40 years in government, and I--I'm not looking forward to a position or an assignment...I am in no way interested in returning to government."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27266223/page/3/</ref> Although he did state that he would "... sit and talk to any president who wishes to talk to me..." he was not, however, "...anxious to rule it[a position] in."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27266223/page/3/</ref>

==Family and personal information==
Powell has been married to Alma Vivian Johnson since 1962. They have one child, a son, Michael (1963). The Powells are [[Episcopalians]]. One of Colin Powell's hobbies is restoring classic automobiles<ref>http://www.4driversonly.com/50226711/colin_powell_drives_a_66_volvo.php</ref>.

==External links==
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/powell-bio.html, WhiteHouse.gov biography]

== References ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Powell, Colin}}
[[Category:Republican Party]]

Colin Powell

2008-10-21T22:34:39Z

AndrasK: /* Obama endorsement */

[[Image:Colin_Powell.jpg|right|200px]]
'''General Colin Luther Powell''', United States Army (Ret.) (born April 5, 1937) was the 65th [[United States]] [[Secretary of State]] (2001-05) under President [[George W. Bush]] and a liberal member of the [[Republican]] Party. As a General in the [[United States Army]], Powell also served as [[National Security Advisor]] (1987–1989) and as Chairman of the [[Joint Chiefs of Staff]] (1989–1993). He became the highest ranking African American government official in the history of the United States.

==Military career==
While at City College Powell joined the Reserve Officers' Training Corps and later described it as one of the happiest experiences of his life: finding something he loved and could do well, he had "found himself." After graduating from City College in June 1958, he was granted a commission as an Army Second Lieutenant. Powell was a professional soldier for 35 years, during which time he held a variety of command and staff positions and later served as a General. During his military career Powell received the [[Purple Heart]], [[Bronze Star]] and the [[Soldiers Medal]].

==Presidential appointments==
At the age of 49, Powell became President [[Ronald Reagan]]'s National Security Advisor, serving from 1987 to 1989. He retained his Army commission (he was a Lieutenant General at the time of his nomination) while serving as National Security Advisor. After his tenure, Powell was promoted to 4-star General under President [[George H.W. Bush]].

From 1989 to 1993, General Powell served as chairman of the [[Joint Chiefs of Staff]], the highest [[military]] position in the Department of Defense. During this time, he oversaw 28 crises, including the invasion of [[Panama]] in 1989 to remove General [[Manuel Noriega]] from power in and Operation Desert Storm in the 1991 [[Persian Gulf War]]. During these events, Powell earned his nickname, "the reluctant warrior". After the end of Persian Gulf War, Colin Powell outlined his vision for efficient and decisive military action. His plan is now referred to as the [[Powell Doctrine]]. the Doctrine expresses that military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target; the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy; there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged.

[[Image:20010912-4-1.jpg|left|thumb|300px|Secretary of State Colin Powell, [[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]] and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, President George W. Bush talks with the press about the previous day's terrorist attacks during a cabinet meeting Sept. 12, 2001. White House photo by Tina Hager. ]] Later as Secretary of State in the Bush [[administration]], Powell was tremendously popular among the American people. After the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], Powell's job became of critical importance in managing America's relationships with foreign countries in order to secure a stable coalition in the [[War on Terrorism]]. He spoke out in favor of the 2003 Invasion of [[Iraq]], saying that there was "no doubt in my mind" that Saddam was working to obtain key components to produce nuclear weapons.

==Political views==
Colin Powell is a [[liberal]] or moderate Republican who is [[pro-choice]] regarding [[abortion]], supports affirmative action and "reasonable" gun control. Although Powell is against [[gay]] marriage, he supports and helped craft the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the United States military. He has also been critical of the current policy in Iraq. In 2005, Powell telephoned two Senator's, [[Lincoln Chafee]] of [[Rhode Island]] and [[Chuck Hagel]] of [[Nebraska]] (also liberal Republicans) asking them to oppose the nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the [[United Nations]]. In September 2005, Powell criticized the government's response to [[Hurricane Katrina]]. Powell was mentioned as a potential running mate for [[John McCain]]<ref>http://www.aarpmagazine.org/people/colin_powell.html</ref>, but said he was no longer interested in elective office.

==Obama endorsement==
On 19 October 2008, Powell endorsed Barack Obama for President, saying that Obama was a "transformational figure coming into the world stage" <ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/19/colin-powell-endorses-obama/</ref> and expressing disappointment in what he called the "negative tone" of McCain's campaign, as well as in McCain's choice of [[Sarah Palin]] as the Republican vice presidential nominee <ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/colin-powell-endorses-barack-obama-for-presiden-1/</ref> saying that she lacked experience even as he was supporting a candidate with one year of experience in the Senate before running for President. Powell went on to criticize other Republicans for what he claims is insistence on their part that Obama is a Muslim stating, "I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the Republican Party say... such things as 'Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim'. Well the correct answer is, 'He's not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian'. But the really right answer is, 'What if he is?' Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is 'No', that's not America."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7678788.stm</ref> Powell did not give examples of anyone within the Republican Party who had called Obama Muslim, instead choosing to make a general claim. A month ago Powell had said that the thought of an African American President was 'electrifying'. In his speech backing Obama, he also said he did not want to see the appointment of Conservative [[Supreme Court]] Justices.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27265369/</ref>

After endorsing Obama, he was offered a position in a hypothetical future Obama administration, in a possible case of [[quid pro quo]].<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081020/ts_alt_afp/usvoteobamapowell_081020141241</ref> In a Meet The Press interview with Tom Brokaw, however, Powell denied any interest in a potential position in an Obama administration saying "I served 40 years in government, and I--I'm not looking forward to a position or an assignment...I am in no way interested in returning to government."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27266223/page/3/</ref> Although he did state that he would "... sit and talk to any president who wishes to talk to me..." he was "...not anxious to rule it[a position] in."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27266223/page/3/</ref>

==Family and personal information==
Powell has been married to Alma Vivian Johnson since 1962. They have one child, a son, Michael (1963). The Powells are [[Episcopalians]]. One of Colin Powell's hobbies is restoring classic automobiles<ref>http://www.4driversonly.com/50226711/colin_powell_drives_a_66_volvo.php</ref>.

==External links==
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/powell-bio.html, WhiteHouse.gov biography]

== References ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Powell, Colin}}
[[Category:Republican Party]]

Talk:Sarah Palin

2008-10-02T02:44:09Z

AndrasK: /* Given the choice? */

== Sexist ==

Don't consider me sexist but... she at least looks a woman. Not like that Hillary who'd grow moustaches if she could. --[[User:AdamE|AdamE]] 11:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:Maybe not sexist but decidedly un-gallant and not a little silly. Hilary Clinton looks every inch a woman. If she looks less attractive than Sarah Palin that might just have something to do with the age difference: on the same basis I'd be much more worried if Obama was after my wife than if McCain were! C'mon, if attractivness was relevant you'd be lining up to vote Obama in. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 11:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Un-gallant and cynical. --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 15:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

They say Lincoln could never be president now, he was too ugly. When did this turn into a beauty contest? [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 14:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

==Offensive remarks by [[Sandra Bernhard]]==

Hi. The liberal comedian [[Sandra Bernhard]] made remarks which were deeply offensive to Sarah Palin and to Christians in a recent comedy performance. [[User:Breadan43|Breadan43]] 15:50, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== Her other son, Trig. ==

Should such a private and personal happening as that of her second son be brought to the general public? On one hand, it is only her and her family's matter, but on the other hand it shows that her acts are as honorable as her words. At least I was dubious on her at first, but reading more and more on her I am convinced that she is the Vice President America and the world need. I'm sure even liberals aknowledge her courage and that she did the right thing with Trig. But I leave it to those more knowledgeable to include such familiar matters or not in the article. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 15:17, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
: For what it's worth I think it should be mentioned, not because it's an invasion of her family's privacy, but because it says something important and positive about her character. She had stated publicly that she and her husband knew of the condition during the pregnancy, and chose not to abort it because of their values. That's a defining statement about her living the values she talks about, and one of the reasons I respect her as a person. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:34, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Please feel free to include that information. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:47, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:Done --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:22, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Much of that information is in public release and has been reported in interviews in People and Vogue. I added a couple of comments she made, plus information about her son in the military.

::--[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 21:50, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The one of the rare times I will make a display of my personal opinions on here. I find this woman to be hypocritical and in fact somewhat repulsive as a mother. I am all for women's rights, adn all for women having a career, but she has a SIX MONTH OLD SON, and is about to go on a campaign trail. The only possible way she can manage a campaign trail is if someone else raises her son. And a special needs son as well. I am heart sick that this woman would put her career before her child. Men are expected to do this, but women are the core of our children's lives. We are central to who they become. Especially for the first 5 years of their life. Work before you have a kid, expand your career after your child is back in school. But the 5 most important years of a child's development are before he or she starts socializing, and this woman is willing to be an American vice president which will keep her on the road over 200 days a year, if you go by averages of other VPs, and often in countries where it's not only "discouraged" to take a child, but out right dangerous. Vietnam and Korea - if you are there to represent the US. Venezuela. Cuba. Georgia. China. not places to be taking a child. I am disheartened, as I said. This is not a good role model for how to be a women in teh US finding a career - when the career comes before your own family. AGain, rarely will you see me make a statement like this, cause I'm not normally into challenges. but this woman makes me so sad for her child, and as a mother, as a woman who believes that a Christian woman (and any woman, frankly) should put her infants first... it is just sad. Would it have killed her to wait 5 years before being in such demanding political positions?--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] Michelle13:58, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Wow, that's heartfelt and does give one pause. I have to confess I didn't put the numbers (dates) together. Thanks for making me think a little more about this.
::::--[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 15:37, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::::: Thanks. I get argumentative on topics about things like linguistics, and what languages are related to what languages (what I'm pursuing for my graduate degree). But i rarely butt into political comments. maybe I should. maybe not. but I set aside my studies for my kids, and it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO for me. I really feel that there is an important reason that the Bible (and many other religions, by the way) advocate that a woman make her life at home *until* such a time as her kids are grown. I woudn't even go that far, but I did say that I woudln't go back to teaching till my two were in school, cause then I don't have to be there "9-5". but when they are so little? I truly feel, and maybe this isn't proven by science, maybe it is, that a woman is more emotionally connected to her kids (and vica versa) than the father, and should be there for them at their development. hugs. Michelle. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 15:45, 30 August 2008 (EDT) (PS, if other than this, you ever want to see me be realllllyyy stubborn, just ask me about the T-D vocalization in Navajo after the move into New Mexico. hehe. (edit conflict)

== Oh, boy... ==

Cue the whitewashing. I'm gonna guess the polar bear section will be deleted or completely rewritten within 24 hours. As it stands, it certainly seems like a good example of "[[liberal bias]]". [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:26, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:I suggest to close this article from editing for a few days or at least hours. It's clear that it will become a favorite target for vandals. I'm sure if changes have to be made, Administrators will be able to make them well. I'm not suggesting a long term block, mind you, just to let things calm down. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 15:29, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::I think Silvio has nmade a good point. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:::The polar bear status is unclear. International numbers have been increasing, but largely due to numbers now being reported in Siberia and other former states of the Soviet Union. I don't know if different species are involved or that the aggregate is germane. It will be interesting to find out.

:::kind regards, --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 21:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Neither polar bears nor polar ice are decreasing at such a rate as to prove the "[[global warming thesis]]". Average air temperature fluctuates due to natural causes. There's been a lot of hot air since 1989 aimed at enforcing some socialist ideas of forced redistribution of wealth, but no such system has ever worked out well. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:53, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action Vice-President ==
What is the Affirmative Action Vice-President part about? That is ridiculous. She would be the first woman VP but that has nothing to do with affirmative action. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 16:48, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:It's criticising (in an oblique way) the accusations that Obama would be the first "Affirmitive Action President". I suspect that whoever called Palin that is hoping that you will find it ridiculous and decide that the Obama accusation is similarly ridiculous. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
Help me out here... Obama, if elected, will of course be the first Affirmative Active President. The rationale being: he's being elevated to a level higher that he would have been, primarily because of his race. Yet isn't Palin, a former mayor of a town of 7000, now a governor for all 18 months, also being elevated to a level higher than she would have been, because of her gender? You cannot suggest that she is the best person, male or female, for the job, can you?
Is the objection that affirmative action only apples to race? (Because it certainly applies to gender as well.)
Is the objection that Palin is in fact the most competent person, male or female, for the position of vice president?
(If not, on what basis can you say that Palin is not an affirmative-action candidate?)
--[[User:Mycosaur|Mycosaur]] 19:44, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

: There are several problems with your simplistic analogy. The qualifications for a Vice President are different from that of a President; Palin has stronger executive experience than Obama; Palin was selected to run against Obama; and we never claimed that Hillary Clinton would be the first affirmative action president.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:50, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:I think part of the idea is how readily the path was cleared for each person. For Obama, based on that thinking, his position was pretty much given to him along the way whereas for Palin, she had to fight the establishment to accomplish what she did. Now as far as her selection for Vice President, well, that could be a different matter. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:54, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't agree with "affirmative action whatever" for either of them. If Obama is the next President or Palin the next Vice-President they will be there because millions voted that way. "Affirmative action" is best kept for appointments: respecting whoever is in charge after the election respects the US electorate. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

==Second Picture==
I think we should take it down. It's just like the first one and is totally unnecessary. If there is a second picture then it should be her with [[John McCain]]. I'm going to take it down. Maybe an administrator could replace it with this. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 29 August 2008 http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-08/palin.jpg

: Sorry, link says '''access denied'''. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

O.K., how about this one. http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 30 August 2008

:That's better! --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 11:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:That's a good one.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 14:47, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

It seems to be popular. Anyway an administrator could come in and upload it? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 30 August 2008

: We have to see the original source of the photo first... not only that link. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:00, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

== Foreign Policy ==

The section has one compound sentence, and one of the words ("commender") is/was misspelled. Also, saying that the governor of Alaska is the commander of chief of the Alaska National Guard is somewhat patronizing to people who know things about state National Guards. It seems as though it's simply trying to inflate her foreign policy experience, which she doesn't have much of. --[[User:DrtyLb8|DrtyLb8]] 23:35, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:Why shouldn't it say she is the commander of the Alaska National Guard? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:39, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::HenryS, your an administrator, I was hoping that you could upload this picture. I would really appreciate it, thanks. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 31 August 2008 http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg
::It's misleading to feature it so prominently. It implies military experience on her part when there is none. All governors are commanders of their state's National Guard, and that only comes into play in the event of a natural disaster. In times of war when National Guard units are activated to be sent overseas, they instead fall under the command of the United States Army and are treated as reserve soldiers. At that point, they aren't being commanded by the governor, they're being commanded by the Army. It's like saying the Governor of Florida has space policy experience because they launch the space shuttles from Cape Canaveral. To include that under "Military Policy" misleads readers into thinking she commands troops in battle, which is completely inaccurate. Because of that, I've removed the section. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:21, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::: We don't allow deletions like that. Palin is commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard. There's no denying it, and that fact should be included.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm not denying it, I'm just saying that prominently including it under "Military Policy" implies that it gives her some sort of military experience when it flat-out does not. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 22:49, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Well, maybe you don't think Obama needs any military experience to be Commander-in-Chief either. But the fact is that the position of Commander in Chief does mean something. It means she has some responsibilities, some leadership, and some authority over troops.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I didn't say anything about Obama. This has nothing to do with Obama. No governor can claim that they have military experience because of their role as commander-in-chief of their state National Guard unit because that's not how they work. When they are used in combat overseas they aren't under the command of their Governor, they're under the command of the United States Army and they're treated as reserve units. That's an entirely separate function from their role as domestic natural disaster relief workers. Saying that she has military experience because she's commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard (which is completely honorary when it comes to military functions) is akin to saying [[Elizabeth II]] has military experience because she's commander-in-chief of the British Army. It's misleading and needs to be corrected. (And yes, I know the Queen actually served during World War II.) --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:06, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Eldest Daughter Pregnant ==
Palin's response "We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby." Proud to be a Grandmother. Unlike Obama's response of his children "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
===Gossip?===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=508671&oldid=508669 It can hardly] be "gossip" if the facts of the matter are plainly seen in the official [http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/ab547fc8-d96d-4f87-aa8a-2e52be2b66fc.htm statement.] What '''is''' gossip is that fairy tale that was reported on the daily kos over the weekend. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 14:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::I wasn't trying to gossip. I got that from yahoo news. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter Palin says 17-year-old daughter pregnant]. This is likely to be a big issue for a conservative campaign. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 15:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Folks, you're clueless about the meaning of [[gossip]]. Newspapers and press releases do print gossip all the time. We do not and have had that in our rules since our beginning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: What's the difference between [[gossip]] and CP's article [[Hollywood values]]? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:07, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: What are you referencing specifically? Publicly charged crimes are not gossip, and neither are deaths of public figures.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Well, to my knowledge, an underage pregnancy, like Palin's daughter, is not a publicly charged crime nor a death. Ergo, I would think that Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy would fall into the same category. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:22, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Spears is a public figure who profits from public attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Yes, but it's neither a crime, nor a death, but rather talking about is "idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others." It seems she was just as public initially about the pregnancy as Palin has been about her daughter. Both of them brought the topic into the public eye on their own, with the GOP campaign issuing a statement providing the news.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Jareddr, this is my final response to your senseless comments. Palin's daughter is a private figure (and a minor) who sought no publicity. Respect her privacy, or leave.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:37, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, perhaps then the entry on Barack Obamas half brother should be removed then. Using your logic its also gossip. He didn't seek public attention either. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 17:58, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

: What are you specifically referring to? I did a quick look and didn't see any details about Obama's half-brother in his entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

[http://www.conservapedia.com/George_Hussein_Onyango_Obama Here]. It is a whole page about him. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:29, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

==Palin's "Liberal" Critics==

In the interest of avoiding an edit war, I wanted to point out that several of the key critics of Palin's handling of the Gravina Bridge project were prominent Alaskan Republicans, not "liberals". If one reads the referenced article this would be clear, but I've added in the names, titles and supporting quotes from these individuals so I'm not accused of anything unprofessional. I've also left in the comment about earmark money not being returned as common practice, which was unsupported by any reference, but left anyway. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:49, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Personal Background ==

Are we going to include information about her daughter being pregnant or not? I don't think it is necessary, as Aschlafly said she is a "private figure (and a minor) who sought no publicity". Currently, there is mention of this in the article. Any thoughts? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:48, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:I say take the high road and leave it out as much as possible. It's a challenge, though, because of new stories like [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html?hpid=artslot this one], where Palin is shown to have used her line-item veto to cut funding for teen-pregnancy programs. How can you be credibly pro-life, and at the same time cut funding for the very programs that offer teens an option to abortion? I'm starting to question her judgment more and more. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:53, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:: You can say she cuts funding for teen-pregnancy problems as part of a discussion of her record as governor, and still leave out mention of her daughter. While it's nice we're having a conversation about it, as Henry mentioned, Aschlafly has made his opinion clear and any attempt to add it will just be reverted, so might as well just skip it entirely. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Dinsdale, you keeping pushing your point of view at the expense of the daughter's privacy, even on the [[Talk:Main Page]] and you should stop it. There is nothing about the simple fact of the daughter's pregnancy that supports your point of view, so stop exploiting it. She was probably in public school where she received all the indoctrination that you support.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not out to exploit her daughter for the sake of making a political point. While I said that it's a challenge, my very next point about Palin was to contrast one of her policies (against funding pregnant-teen programs) with another (pro-life), and no mention of their family's situation was required to do so. Meanwhile, you immediately start making assumptions about what her daughter did or didn't learn in public school. Which of us was sticking to the Governor and her policies, and which was pulling her daughter into a shot at public schools and accusing her of being "indoctrinated"? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:02, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Also, there are multiple news reports tonight that the baby's father is being flown to the convention to attend with the Palins. The Governor's children should be left alone, and people can reach their own conclusions about parents who feel a need to pull young teens "facing the challenge of parenthood" even further into the media spotlight. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:10, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion Explained ==

Don't delete history or try to cover up how wrong it has been for liberals on the internet to mock Palin over the founding father's remark.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:You should try to explain in what way they are wrong then. If you just claim 'liberals are wrong' then liberals are going to ignore you, and there is little point in preaching to the choir. Besides, her claim appears dubious to me. 'Under God' really wasn't in the pledge until long after the founding. It was added in the 50s. It doesn't matter if it came from a different founding document, she was refering explicitly to the pledge, and demonstrated she is ignorant of a very minor piece of historical trivia. It may be best to keep quiet on this one until the historical arguments are worked out here. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 20:52, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Drug Use? ==

Sarah Palin has admitted in the past that she use marijuana, though it was legal in Alaska from 1975-2006. Should this be added into her biography? Granted, it wasn't illegal, but nevertheless I believe conservatives may find it disconcerting to participate in drug use. Reference for the story [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/29/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4397109.shtml?weed here]. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:35, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:Nah, that just doesn't seem needed. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:36, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::If someone does something legal in their private life, then it's private and should be left alone. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Then may we remove references to drug use in all politician pages? --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:22, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::::The key issue is "legal". If politicians are breaking the law in private it may still rate mentioning. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:25, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:If it's included, it should note that (A) marijuana was legal back then, (B) she was in college at the time, and (C) she has since denounced her experimentation. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:16, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:I'd only include it if she did it while in office. Other than that it's kind of irrelevant. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:11, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
::Its irrelevant because it was legal at the time. If she didnt break any laws then it matters not. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:13, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:It may have been legal on a state level like medical marijuana is today in some states but it certainly was not legal by federal law. Some may consider that bad judgment which is relevant for a politician. --[[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 09:18, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

==Political Background==
This section list non-political items; hockey, marathons, NRA. Move or delete required.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:24, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers==

What documents are being referred to in the statement "and all the Founding Fathers embraced reference [sic] to God in the documents that established the United States."? God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but that great document didn't establish this nation or its government - it was the colonies' statement of secession from British rule. The only document that actually established the United States of America as an entity and defined the operating framework for its government is the Constitution, and God is not mentioned once in it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:38, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::the Declaration established a new nation in 1776, and called it the "United States of America," so July 4 is indeed the right birthday. The new nation had been in operation --with a national congress, diplomats, army, and national debt--for years before the current Constitution was adopted in 1788. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:26, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
:::You're right to identify 7/4/1776 as the point at which the colonies began to stand apart from England as an independent entity. However, the government in operation at that time was a temporary one, and there was some doubt as to whether a permanent union could be forged given the diverse nature of the former colonies. At Ed Poor's suggestion I started a debate page, [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]] to discuss whether the Founders incorporated the concept of "a nation under God" in the actual formation of the United States from its nascent beginnings. I'd look forward to your contributions there. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:26, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

==Wasilla Bible Church==
Would it be worthwhile to have an article on Sarah Palin's home church?--[[User:Nowa|Nowa]] 15:39, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

==Other Criticism==
I am removing this section which was cited by WaPo for misleading statements. Read the counter post [http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/sep/09/sarah-palins-expenses-as-governor-scandalous/ Sarah Palin's Expenses As Governor Scandalously...80% Lower Than Her Predecessor's!]-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:I'm going to restore that section with some modification. First off, Palin took the per diem ''on top'' of the airfare spent to fly between Juneau and Wasilla - it was not to cover the cost of an 18-hour drive, because she didn't drive. Second, you can compare Palin's expense record to her predecessor's, but since that person was the corrupt Republican she was fighting to replace on a reform platform, it's not all that surprising she'd look better. What's a better comparison is to compare Palin's use of the per diem allowance for stays at her home to those of the Democrat who preceded Murkowski, Tony Knowles. Knowles was against such expenditures and issued an executive order barring commissioners on his staff from taking the per diem reimbursement when staying at their own homes instead of the capital. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:23, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Also, please do not remove the new post about Wasilla charging rape victims for their forensic kits unless proven false with equally valid evidence. I was skeptical of this one too when I first read it, but the source was the local paper, and contained quotes from Palin's Sheriff confirming that the policy was in place to save taxpayer money. I'm appalled that someone who was willing to raise sales taxes to build a hockey rink & recreation center and hire lobbyists to secure federal earmarks for the town couldn't find a few thousand dollars a year to pay for the forensic tests required to do effective police work. To then go and tell a victim of sexual assault that she had to pay for her own test - words fail. I only hope this comes up in an interview with Palin so she has a chance to answer to this in her own words. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 01:28, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Ridiculous manufactured liberal smears. I am sure WP will list it. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Review link to the made-up controversy, rape kit. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:58, 30 September 2008 (EDT)[http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080926141845.aspx]

::::As the citations showed, these are not ridiculous internet rumors like the supposed "list of banned books" that are going around; these are statement--[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)s of fact, drawn from reputable news sources. In the case of the rape-kit issue, the article includes a quote form the sheriff she appointed complaining that the new state law was going to increase the cost to taxpayers (instead of victims). That's her guy making the statement, so there's no unfair smear going on. The simple truth is that even if Palin didn't create the policy, she could have changed it at any time while mayor. Unfortunately it took action from the Democratic Governor to force Wasilla to bring change.

::::These stories may not be flattering, but they are true and backed by reputable sources. They should not be removed unless equally reputable evidence is presented to the contrary; otherwise it's censorship of the truth. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:58, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: I stand my assertion, ridiculous. WaPo may be reputable to you, but not conservatives. The counter from redstate is clear to the stupidity in the story. Where there is no wrong, make it seem as wrong. She acted proper and Alaskains agree.

::::: As for the rape-kit. Why is this an issue that she be tagged to as mayor of Wassila? Trying to demonize her is stupid. If it took the gov of that era to straighten it out, how did Palin as mayor act so evil? I am sympathetic with victims of any crime. Insurance companies are the source of the problem for they get to choose to pay or not pay the costs associated. What percentage of false rapes were reported and kits paid for? I stand by my claims and am sick of deleting this crap. I leave to others.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:37, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Wrong. We do not blast people for sins of omission. Somewhere buried in the books is a bad law -- and Palin didn't change it. No. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

So JP, what you are basically saying is that any source that does not explicitly promote the conservative agenda is unreliable? By that logic, Fox News, the de-facto conservative news haven, is not reliable because it reported Ted Steven's indictment. How is it that to the conservatives, some 85% of the mainstream media is unreliable but then obscure little internet blogs serve as sources for news articles? As DinsdaleP said, denying the validity and credibility of a source just because it shows unflattering details, for any candidate or public figure, is a sign of indoctrination and a complete lack of objectivity. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

The Wasilla policy towards having victims of sexual assault was ''' ''not'' ''' a "sin of omission". If you read the New Frontiersman article I had referenced (the local paper there, not the "liberal Washington Post", it states that Wasilla ''was the only town actively following such a policy''? It fails any credibility test to pretend Palin didn't know of the policy when the sheriff she appointed knew about of it and defended it, and the state had to pass a law to get Wasilla to change their practice since they were the only town still doing it.

I'm not out to mock or smear Palin - just to search for the truth about her, both positive and negative, and put those truths in the article to improve its value to readers seeking to learn about her. I had added the initial positives about her pro-life stance, and the comment that despite having fundamentalist personal views, she has kept her pledge to keep those views out of public policy. I'm balancing those edits by adding some others that are not flattering, but just as based on truth.

I can accept Conservapedia having a policy to filter its "news" stories to only publish those that are flattering to conservatives and disparaging to non-conservatives, but that standard can't apply to encyclopedia articles if they are to be trustworthy. I'll recast these points as "Controversy over Positions" instead of "Criticisms", which is more neutral, end encourage both sides of these controversies to be presented. If anyone can find evidence from reputable sources that Palin positively did not know of the rape-test policy, or presents her reasoning for why Wasilla held onto that policy until the state law was passed, then please add it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:31, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

: Not newsworthy, the truth according to whom? New Frontier, Drudge, far left websites and most likely WP are the only places listing story. Should we include Obama snorted cocaine and smoked weed? He admitted it but we have not and assume, we will not. Some things just don't get posted. It should not be placed within this page. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'd be careful with that line of reasoning. We use a lot of conservative websites to back positions that won't show up anywhere else. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:47, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This isn't about it being newsworthy or not - this is an encyclopedia article, and the edit is appropriate in that context. It's the truth according to two valid references. The first is the local paper, the ''Frontiersman'', which has been around since 1947 and is not a biased source like HuffPost or something I would hesitate to use here. Second, the passage of the state law is in the public record. It comes back to passing a reality check - why would it have been necessary to pass a state law unless local governments were refusing to change this policy on their own. The final credibility comes in the statements from the Wasilla sheriff. Palin appointed this person because he supported her policies and views, unlike the sheriff he replaced who was from the prior administration. This edit is not about Palin's personal life - it's about the policies her administration supported in her capacity as an executive. This is entirely appropriate because the McCain/Palin ticket stresses Palin's "executive experience" as a key qualification, so objective stories about her record as an executive and the policies enforced by her appointed staff are important and deserve to be published. If you don't agree with this, then refute it wth evidence, don't censor it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:52, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::
::Whatever, I said earlier I will not delete it, again. Mark my words, it will be deleted. Conservative sources take preference. We report true stuff here not made up criticism. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:54, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm all for truth, and as I said, I added two pro-Palin contributions to this article before I added any criticism. In the case of the rape-kit story, tell me what I've made up about it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:06, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I am not going round and round on with you on this one. I didn't add Obama snorts cocaine to his page, I guess that makes it righteous too. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:08, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Whether you added it or not, the Obama article does mention his cocaine use. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 11:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Just want to mention this concept. The fundamental difference between JP's Obama example (although if you want to put it in his article that he experimented with pot and cocaine, have at it. He publicly admitted it. It's in the public domain) and this issue is that this has to do with her policies as a politician. That has every merit of being openly discussed and published considering that it is her policies that will ultimately effect the country were she ever to become president. The problem is that people don't seem to see the difference between personal smear (this candidate did drugs, that candidate had an affair) versus abuses of power (this candidate used his position as mayor to get his son out of jail for DUI, that candidate used government money to buy a playstation). The former really has no importance, what is private is private (hence no-one discussing Palin's daughter. That's her personal life, not important in the election) while the latter has every bit of importance. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Troopergate" ==

[[Image:branchflower.jpg|thumb|400px|right|three Democrat legislators in charge of investigating Palin]]
The new addition to the "troopergate" (if that's what it's actually being called) reads much too much like a news headline (see: "something you will hear more from the McCain campaign as the investigation continues"). I think it should be removed. If not removed, it should at least be edited to fit within the whole paragraph. Who is French? What is Branchflower? For that matter, what is "Troopergate?" These all need to be introduced before they are used familiarly. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:46, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:It shouldn't be that hard to understand but if you want to explain further, go ahead and edit without removing.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Since you were the one who wrote it, why don't you be the one to make it up to standard? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:55, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

==Stop censoring truthful, cited edits==

I hate edit wars, so I'm making this case again in the hope of resolving this issue professionally. People may not like the fact that when Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the policy in place was to charge the cost of rape-test kits to the victims, and it continued until state law banned the practice in 2000 while she was still mayor. This is not a liberal smear, it's a fact. Her administration knew of the victim-pays policy, and her hand-picked sheriff defended it in the article. The cited news article doesn't come from a fringe source, but from the local Wasilla newspaper. The story was published in 2000, so it's not a smear pulled together in September 2008 because she's now a VP candidate.

The simple fact is that this is part of her record, and it's proper for any candidate's record to be published for the public to assess, especially the policies she supported as an executive when her "executive experience" is being touted as central to her qualifications.

I'm challenging the editors who find this truth about her record unflattering to stop dealing with it through censorship, and to respond with research and evidence instead. If they believe that Palin was unaware of this practice even as her sheriff publicly defended it, then find the evidence. If you want to claim that this was only about policy because no women were actually charged for rape-kit tests while Palin was mayor, then find the evidence instead of assuming that was the case. I'm not out to smear Palin - I've added two positive edits two this article before adding this negative one. That's not attacking her character - it's being open-minded, balanced and sticking to the facts when editing an encyclopedia. Hopefully I won't get 90/10 blocked for this, but I want the Palin article to be informative and fair, unlike the joke that is the [[George W. Bush]] article here. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:08, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:The simple fact is she did not put in the law, did not campaign for it, did not even discuss it. It was one of many, many, many laws that was on the books. I asked you how many times, if any, a victim had to pay for her own kit testing. You ignored it and merely reinstated the information.

:Her sheriff specifically said the new law would make it so they couldn't bill the insurance companies or the perpetrators of the crime. He never said wow, I wish we could bill the victim. The information you are trying to force in was and is a red herring and your continued reinsertion hoping that people will see it as they come to our site is inappropiate - and you know it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:57, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Request for an edit to this full-protected page ==

Hi, I ran the article through MS Word's spell checker, and it found one minor grammatical error. I would appreciate it if a sysop could correct this in the article.

The error is in the third paragraph of the section titled "State Economy",
The second sentence of that paragraph reads:
::''These '''critic''' include her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money'."
It should say
::''These '''critics''' include her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money".

Thanks!

[[User:Samtheman|Samtheman]] 11:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

==Reversions regarding the Troopergate investigation==

I'm not goint to re-insert anything, but wanted to respond here as to why I added the comments about partisan criticism. The current lawsuit to stop the investigation is being brought by five Alaskan state Republicans who claim that the investigation is "unlawful, biased, partial and partisan" [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOTk11gvqDAgD0cY3i4WjI_2YOxwD937V32G1]. What's more important, despite an initial pledge by Palin to cooperate fully with the investigation, the current official statement from her campaign is that she is now "unlikely to co-operate" with the investigation. Palin campaign spokesman Ed O'Callaghan has said the Alaska state legislative probe had become "tainted" by partisan Democratic politicians seeking to target the Alaska governor. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7618524.stm]

Since accusations of Democratic-driven partisan bias are coming from the Palin campaign, and not just Alaskan Republicans with a grudge, I felt it was important to objectively point out the bipartisan nature of the panels guiding the investigation. Republicans are in the majority on some of them, and joined in unanimous votes for some aspects of the investigation. What then, is improperly biased about showing the factual breakdown of the votes by party as I did? That's the official record, not spin. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:55, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:Palin asked the probe to acknowledge a rule of law before they began, and they refused. We all know what is going to happen from a legal standpoint - nothing. She is well within her right to do what she did. The question is how much innuendo outside of legal issues will be presented to attempt to hurt her. With the pictures with the Obama campaign and the "October Surprise" comment made by Palin's opposition her concern is certainly understandable. It has long been acknowledged that Palin has a feud with the entrenched Alaska GOP who are not happy with her exposing their corruption. That makes your count of Republicans and Democrats meaningless. When you are someone who exposes corruption in government regardless of party, that can happen. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::Well, if you're correct in figuring that the inquiry would be a witch hunt at this point because both parties in Alaska have a grudge, then she's got problems, all right. If she goes ahead it could get ugly, and if she tries to kill, delay or withhold info from it then she loses a lot of the reformer/maverick image she's cultivated. It'll be an interesting couple of months between now and the election, that's for sure. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:47, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Suspect sentence ==

This was added to the last paragraph of the Personal Background section before the page was protected:

"After given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child."

This does not match what Gov. Palin has said about Bristol's pregnancy. In fact, it seems to be a subtle attempt to falsely introduce the idea that abortion was considered. This seems even more likely considering that the editor who put the sentence in was just caught posting false information. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:09, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:I don't think it's editorial license to discredit the Palins, just reporting of story-lines from the time. Back on 9/2, a CNN [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.daughter/ report] stated that "The McCain aide emphasized that Bristol decided to keep the baby, a decision "supported by her parents." This was also described as "A brave choice" in a 9/1 [http://sacredscoop.com/?p=1392 story] on the Christian site SacredScoop. The point is taht when this was first announced in the official statement from the Palins, it was characterized as matter where Bristol decided to keep the baby and marry the father, with the family's support. The rest remains the family's private business, but while the campaign has not hesitated to use this as an example of Palin being true to her pro-life values, it's never been described as anything other than a choice Bristol was able to make for herself. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:19, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

==Problem==
I uploaded a picture of Sarah Palin meeting with members of the National guard. The section on foreign policy says "the governor is not briefed on situations." But the picture I put in has Palin being briefed by the troops (or at least that's what it said on the governor's website). Which is true? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008
:What this images [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Ftwainwright_govp_05s.jpg] implies at the very least is that, as governor, she is being briefed on the troop movements of her state's national guard brigade relative to an excersize going on at the time the picture was taken. But standing behind her is someone with the rank of colonel; senior officers in all branches of the military are trained in foreign policy, and to think she's not being briefed about the subject at any time is just plain wrong. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:27, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I think that a Sysop needs to take out that part on Sarah Palin not being briefed about the National guard. Some liberal probably added that. It's clearly false. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008
:I think it is safe to assume she isn't being briefed on foreign policy. They aren't under her command once they've been federalized. Also, you should double check that rank, Karajou. [[User:LilyWinston|LilyWinston]] 17:08, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

According to the Governor's website she is briefed on the actions of the state national guard. The reference for the statement that she isn't isn't even there. It should be taken down. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008

==Founding Fathers' Christian faith==

"George Washington was indeed a Founding Father, and all the Founding Fathers made no secret of their Christian faith and unfailing belief in God in the documents that established the United States." This sentence is simply false as-is, and the "all" should be changed to "most" or "many" to amend this. Several of the Founding Fathers were certainly not Christians. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 21:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:Actually the sentence is mostly true, although I would agree with you that a case could be made that it was not true in all cases. While I am not aware of any Founding Fathers who were not members of Christian churches, I can think of a small number whose belief in core Christian doctrines could be questioned. They are, however, the minority. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:53, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

::I won't get into the debate of whether "most" of the Founding Fathers were Christian, but yes, there were at least a few who definitely were not, and in any case, there were certainly many of them who did not openly express it in their private life (and very few of them wrote Christianity into the founding documents of this country). While the passage preceding the one I'm referring to is also extremely shaky (is there '''any''' evidence Sarah Palin was referring to George Washington and not the widely-held misconception that the Founding Fathers wrote the Pledge as-is, and why are we giving her the benefit of the doubt?) I'm mostly concerned with the use of the word "all", because as it stands that sentence is very clearly and obviously '''false''' and it smears this site's reputation. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:54, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

::The changes you made bring this page closer to accuracy. Thanks! [[User:Egen|Egen]] 19:37, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

== Pronunciation ==

While helpful I feel the current pronunciation may be difficult for non-English speakers who are unfamiliar with the given name "Lynn." Shall we include the IPA pronunciation as well (/ˈpeɪlɪn/)? [[User:TexasEx|TexasEx]] 22:42, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

==Liberal Sources==
Since when does CP start using liberal hate sites and pathetic liars Huffington Post as a source? ref # 39. This needs to be replaced with a ref from elsewhere and also needs to appear in a timeline of events, not at the end of the headlined paragraph. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:53, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:53, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Completed the above. It is interesting to note that this sentence taken word for word ''"The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-2 and the House Judiciary Committee voted 7-0"'', listed Conservapedia number 11 (number one on page two) on Google (English only search). -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 02:02, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

==Good Rip of Obama Today==
Speaking at a rally in Pa., she says "Barack always talks of change with [I will] but when it comes to his record, he can never say [I did]."-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:48, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:She's good at delivering scripted lines, but her ability to appear Vice-Presidential in news interviews, let alone potentially Presidential, keeps trending worse. Even key conservatives were disappointed in her performance with Katie Couric, who was more than fair to her. Palin's performance in the debate this week will be interesting to watch. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:16, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::Considering that the "impartial" moderator wrote a book praising Barack Obama, how fair do you think the questions are going to be? Should we count on another Gibson "interview" where she is chastised for using a definition of the Bush Doctrine that Gibson himself used years earlier? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:00, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree - she's about as appropriate for this as Hannity would be. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:06, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::One additional observation, though - I think Gibson is going to be very sensitive to any criticism of her impartiality and professionalism, and that will temper any inclination to be pro-democrat. Her credibility as a journalist is being evaluated tomorrow as well, and she's not going to ruin it over this. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:10, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==Polling Information==
This section needs deleted. It is not encyclopedic, more or less stats.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:39, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

: I disagree, but would understand if it should be relocated to the 2008 Election article instead. My point in adding it was not to insert an anti-Palin shot, but to add two relevant points to the article to describe the impact Palin is having on the GOP ticket. First, the stats were added to the section of the article dealing with her VP candidacy - it's entirely relevant and encyclopedic to add objective stats there showing how the public perceives her VP candidacy over its first month. If she starts trending better after the debate that should be shown as well - I'm not out to get her, despite what you may think.

:Second, I paired up the stats with the pro-Palin comment by Mitt Romney where he supports her, but criticizes how the McCain campaign has manager her VP candidacy. The stats emphasize his key point - she started off with a great public perception and favorable ratings, but the forced isolation from the press has led to the perception that she's not up to scrutiny. When you've only done less than a handful of news interviews in a month, all the media can do is repeatedly analyze those same performances over and over. Biden makes many gaffes, but he's done over 80 interviews in September, so they get downplayed because he's put out a high volume of content to analyze. I'm firmly in the camp that says that for better or worse, any candidate for high office needs to be accessible and open during a campaign, and the statistics I was adding aren't there to attack Palin, but to show what her isolation in September did to the public's perception of her. If this is removed for a falsely perceived anti-Palin bias, I'm not going to fight it. It would be a shame, though, because I'm trying to add a constructive insight, not anti-Palin spin. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:06, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
::I agree with DinsdaleP. (And I rhyme!) Opinion polling is important to an election, and nobody would call for removal if she improved in the rankings. (Nor would they call for removal had these been the results of opinion polls about one of the Democratic candidates). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:12, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

::: If you notice, polling numbers not on Biden's page, nor Obamas nor McCains. Regardless if she is up or down, these stats are for 2008 Presidential election results.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:31, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm okay with pulling the statistics-tables from this article, and will do that now. My intention was to use them to document the change in opinion over Palin through the month of September. I'd still like to leave the main text of the section intact, because I still believe the examination of how her accessibility has correlated with her polling in September is relevant, as is the observation from Romney. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:37, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Given the choice? ==

"In September of 2008, Palin announced that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant. After given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child. Palin stated "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."[10]. "
What does "given the choice" mean? Would Sarah and Todd have let her kill the baby? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 22:32, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Depending on when Bristol's birthday is, they might not have had a choice. If she turned 18 during her first or second trimester, she could legally decide on her own. I think the phrase "given the choice" was used to emphasize that she actually had a choice. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:44, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:John McCain

2008-10-02T00:56:17Z

AndrasK: /* Reversion */

This article seems to have many unsourced claims and needless speculation. Statements such as "The Bush administration was rumored to have..." or "The media could damage..." are clearly not rooted in provable fact, but merely in likelihoods and possibilities (in the case of the Bush rumor, libelous ones). I suggest the author(s) provide news reports or other reliable publications to directly support the claims and speculation in the article. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 21:56, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Why remove the "this article needs citations" thingy? This article is *clearly* in need of citations, and, quite frankly, serious editing to remove the gossip. A "citations needed" flag gives readers an extra "heads up" to be extra-critical in their reading - important if the site is to be used by high school students. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 01:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Fixed minor spelling mistakes on the page. I also agree that this page is disgraceful to Conservapedia. It has no references cited. It breaks both commandments #2 and #6 as it currently stands, and quite possibly #1. The authors/contributors to the information in this article need to add their citations and make certain they are also not adding their own opinions. Serious revision must be undertaken quickly. --[[User:Dikaiosune|Dikaiosune]] 00:23, 12 March 2007 (CST)

I agree with all of the above. The article also participates in speculation (what the media and Democrats will bring up regarding his health) and it is factually inaccurate (Reagan was 70 when he assumed office, not 72, and so most Republicans would not use that as a defense). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ok... so no one cared enough to remove the uncited opinion from the article so I went ahead and did it. I left the uncited fact because that is less egregious. I have no idea how to make references look nice. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:17, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Myk, it's lookin' good to me. You're building an article of facts with citations, rather than gossip, opinions, and speculation - much improved, IMHO. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== What is this page going to be? ==

Aschafly, all of the things you just listed under electability may be true and verifiable but are they encyclopedic? What encyclopedia has items on how electable someone is? Is this going to be a biography of the man or a list of reasons why not to vote.

His age at primary time is easily discernible by subtracting the year of his birth from the year of his election. His cancer is something easily added to his personal life section (or create a personal life section as I didn't add one thinking it would be gossipy). His conduct during the Keating Five incidient could be cited and sourced and put in his political career section. And, as he is a public figure, the Dobson quote can be placed in a "criticism" section. There is a way to make this at least look like an encyclopedia article rather than a "reason why Aschlafly doesn't want him nominated" page. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps, Andy, you would entertain the idea of changing the title block from "Electability" to something else? Or, in fairness, we should add the same, highly subjective information to each of the potential candidates? Personally I think that would be pissing on our own shoes. If you agree, I can create a "Quick Facts" area for your information, incorporate other pertinent information, and present it as I did in the Margaret Thatcher page. Let me know your thoughts. --[[User:TK|TK]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

We could add Electability as one of the Conservapedia debates, such as "Which of the Republican candidates is most electable?" At the very least, it's something I would be interested in discussing. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, looks as if Geo beat you to it, dude, lol --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sources ==

This is a featured article. The unsourced comment should either be removed or given a citation. It is a clear violation of the Second Commandment. There are only seven commandments, we should follow them. Especially on featured articles. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Gee, I wonder who made it the featured article? If he doesn't care, or doesn't think its that big of deal, and it's his place, why do you? What comment are you talking about? Maybe it was removed before I read this? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Political Record 1-10. And if he doesn't feel it's a problem, great, but I never want to see any other "facts" removed because they didn't have a source. Conservapedia would lend an awfully bad name for conservatives if the leader of the site could just flaunt the rules like that.

::Also, there's no mention that his cancer is in remission, no source for cancer hurting Paul Tsongas, and no where in the article cited does it mention anything about poor fundraising being a sign of weakness. That's commentary.[[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Need for personal/family section ==

The article should mention that McCain has seven children, of whom two are today in the U. S. military. [[Duncan Hunter]] is the only other candidate who can claim even one. [[User talk:Amyz|Amyz]] 18:17, June 8, 2007 (EDT)

Article says he is Baptist. Does that mean he is a member of a Baptist church? If so, which one. And which denomination was he a member of before. This is only important if Obama's UCC affilation is deemed important.

== RE: Political Record ==

I'm not doubting that there are sources for the information in this section, however considering much of it is in opposition to what his election platform is, I think it might be a good idea to show sources. In fact, it would lend a lot of credibility to this site, and raise usefulness. Any intelligent person would have to realize that McCain's position is inconsistent with his track-record. This is what killed Kerry for a lot of people, including me. Who knows what he's going to do when gets to be president, nothing is truthful. At the very least his platform could be considered deceitful being that it would be in conflict with his actual behavior. I would say, it would be out right lying! --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 18:37, 3 December 2007 (EST)

== Fundraising ==

The "Fundraising" section is really irrelevant at this point. Delete it? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 12:34, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Living symbol of the honor and sacrifice of America's armed forces ==

{{cquote|McCain is a living symbol of the honor and sacrifice of America's armed forces, and has the greatest claim of any of the candidates to be Commander-in-Chief.}}
This... doesn't look encyclopedic, I'm sorry. Why don't we say "He is the second-greatest American who ever lived (just after Ronald Reagan)" while we're at it?

I normally would have reworded it (or tried to find a source so we can say "X said that he can be considered..."), but I see that some other bloke just got a 1-week block for edit warring in this sentence, and I don't really want to join him. So I'll just file my protest here and hope that somebody will pick it up. --[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 18:07, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==Another Image==
Not that it's a big deal, but I was wondering if a Sysop can add one or two small images for McCain. Like McCain with Reagan, or McCain campaigning for President.[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]

:I agree, Chip...I will find some, and ask someone to upload them, unless you have something in mind. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:45, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

==Hate speech laws==
McCain supports hate speech laws. Is this really the guy today's conservatives want? [[User:CaptainRoemer|CaptainRoemer]] 11:00, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

On a related note, is the vocal opposition to McCain by some conservative political commentators significant enough to merit mention in the article? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:43, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

: Don't know if any are criticizing him now. We keep current here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::Ann Coulter's still pretty critical of him. Her most recent column, after mentioning that it's the end of the road for Hillary, follows with "Now we just have to get rid of the other two" and describes the remaining choice as being between "a young liberal who is friendly with terrorists or an old liberal who is friendly with Teddy Kennedy." Again, not sure if it's significant enough to merit inclusion, but she's a fairly influential media personality.

::--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:58, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, but Ann Coulter is a joke of a media personality. Every time she opens her mouth people wince. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 11:49, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

::::This is not the Ann Coulter article. And whatever he supports he's what we have so we gotta stick by him.

== Technically ==

He hasn't clinched. Regardless of the difference in numbers, as you said yourself ASchlafly---the media can't appoint the nominee. He isn't the nominee until the convention or until he has no further opponents. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:35, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:He is technically the 'presumptive nominee', the same status as Obama. Can we change the wording so that it is accurate? I would do it myself, but I've seen too many people get banned for changing articles like this. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 18:40, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

==Abortion==

This section is not flattering, maybe the reality of his position. However, I just read the article on Life News that is credible. As it currently stands, no reference points are made and a different subject, embryonic stem cell is inserted. Please advise for I am to completely change this section unless told not to.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 09:53, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:Because it's not flattering, but true, you want to remove it? Keep the quote, and I'll find a reference for it now. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:58, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::Jareddr, you still need a reference "McCain is also against government funding of birth control and sex education." This section does not reflect his true record on abortion. I will add to but will not replace current article. I can clearly tell you have nothing but discontent for McCain.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:48, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:::About the same as your discontent with Barack Obama. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:51, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: touché--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:54, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Jared from Subway, like the changes?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:46, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Actually, since they were complete copy and pastes and none of it was your own original work, no, I don't like the changes. First clue that it was a copy and paste---your first edit after pasting it was going through and changing all the "anti-choice" phrases to "anti-abortion". Why, I asked myself, would you write an entire section using one phrase and then change it? Quick google search took me to the NARAL source of the material. If you would like to do a complete rewrite to bring within the guidelines, that would be acceptable. But as it was, it was a violation of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines#Copying_from_other_sources CP Commandment #1]. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Sorry, you are wrong and I'll fight to change it back.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:19, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You are claiming you wrote the entire section you added [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_McCain&diff=472712&oldid=472465 here] on your own? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You can't take from the article the sentences with umbiguous meaning and claim copy. e.g. 'McCain cast 11 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues'. Do I have to change to 'McCain voted 11 times on abortion and other child-in-womb measures'. ? No Way. Next you'll be claiming I have turn 11 into eleven because of plagarism.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:50, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: You seem to be backing up to a position of unambiguous statements. Are you admitting the greater point that the passage was taken whole from another publication in violation of CP Commandment #1? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Sorry, it is a cite reference needed issue and not a delete.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== 2nd paragraph, first sentence ==

"John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues" this is a common democrat strategy to link Bush and McCain. I had changed it to John McCain and the Republican party... Reverted back to original. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Actually, the citation showed that the change I made was properly referenced. And speaking of common strategies---it's Democratic, not democrat, when using as an adjective. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Proof a democrat has edited this section to show the connection between Bush and McCain. When in fact, McCain has had more than two decades of relationship with Republicans in congress and only 7.5 years with Bush. Change required without warring please.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:42, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Happy to have both statements in there. You provide your citation about the voting relationship of McCain and his party, (and of course, remove any "Maverick" references, if there are any), and I'll provide my citation about the Bush relationship---which is important information since he is the incumbent president. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:54, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Well John McCain has voted alongside George W. Bush 90% of the time. That's pretty close. That's not a liberal bias, that's just how it is.

==2007 Fundraising==
This paragraph is complete liberal bias and should be removed--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==Re: Reversion==
"I'm not sure we should create a new category; the article extols his honors" I didn't. The category was already there. That's also not the purpose of categories. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:The only other person in the category was a Russian astronaut who never fought in a war. If it was in wide use, I would understand. It's not meant to say anything negative about your choice to put it in, only that it doesn't seem appropriate in the wider picture. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

==Immigration==
Jareddr seems to think Huffington post citations are exceptable for CP. We don't simply repeat self-serving liberal claims here and I am not talking Minute-men. Find another citation or I delete again.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:13, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:Re-read the section. I've added AP report, USA Today, and ABC News. They all repeated the same remarks by the woman in question. I'm going to be adding further remarks the she made in an interview with ABC News. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Fine with me--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Conflicting Facts==
Which of the following is true? John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues -or- After George W. Bush was elected President in 2000, McCain began to disagree with the President on many issues. Both of these on the same page are conflicting. Anyone beside jareddr want to comment?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Polygamist==

Whoa. He was married to his first wife at the same time that he recieved a marriage certificate? Does this mean that, legally speaking, he was married to two people at the same time? Or, at the very least, does it mean he was in(volved with) Cindy before he had divorced his wife? I'm not trying to stir up controversy here, I swear on that, but I was just curious because if so, I think it speaks a lot about his commitment to her and creates a better picture of his character. Thanks. [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 20:30, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

The technical term is bigamy, since he was only married to two women at the same time. And yes, he was married to both of them at the same time. [[User:Knullmaskin|Knullmaskin]] 12:36, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

== NOT A BIGAMIST! ==

This article seems to have borrowed some lines from the Bush smear campaign. John McCain divorced his first wife Carol (April 2, 1980) and married Cindy (May 17, 1980) about six weeks apart. There is, and never has been, any controversy about his marriage except for those who say that he did not work hard to resolve issues with his first wife, and that he had little care for her.

Those statements are all lies. McCain came back from Vietnam a changed man. He was eager to rebuild his life and wanted to begin a strong, bold career change. Politics came as second nature to him, and as some have stated,<ref>Alexander, Paul. ''John McCain: Man of the People'' 2003. pg. 93</ref> McCain was resolute on having more children and on improving his condition. His wife, who was struggling with the effects of a life-changing car accident, was unable to meet many of the stressful challenges that faced McCain after the war, and their marriage was said to have fell apart mutually.
<references/>
--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 18:50, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

== McCain quote ==

'''When questioned during the 2000 presidential campaign about his experience in captivity, he replied, "I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." Later, when asked about whether he meant an ethnic slur, he replied, "I was referring to my prison guards, and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend some people because of the beating and torture of my friends."<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/02/18/MN32194.DTL</ref>'''

I removed this quote from the 2000 election section. It is unimportant trivia, and in many ways, it only represents a journalist's spin on an ambiguous statement. More importantly, it reveals little to nothing about the political issues or beliefs that McCain had at the time. Nonetheless, I am sure there are those who will disagree and who want this quote re-instated, so post feedback below:

:It seems a pretty unambiguous statement. Where's the ambiguity and how exactly would you spin it? I think anyone who uses such racial slurs reveals something about themselves. What section of his entry would you like to put this in instead? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:06, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

::The statement was spun against him by Bush and many liberal pundits then and now. What you think about people who use racial slurs is misleading and inappropriate; you are suggesting that what he said was a slur directed at race, while he explicitly stated that it was not. Also, it is put forward without context or resolution, especially because he apologized and it is written in a PR format. Rather, it may help to identify the basis that it holds in the context of the 2000 election, ex: California was considered a swing state in the primaries, for instance.--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 22:27, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

:::I think the use of a slur, however you want to deem it was directed, is important, and I attempted to put it within the time line you insist upon. As far as my views on those who use slurs, how do you feel about them? Do you condone the use of a slur word, even when the user has to go on to spin/explain that it wasn't directed at a race? He even acknowledges that it's offensive, "in language that may offend some people." If he's not afraid to use the term, then I think people should be aware of that fact. Perhaps our ideas of what a dictionary is are different. I believe it should be a fact-filled resource, and you'd prefer to put those aside and use laudatory statements instead. Maybe we can compromise and just find a good section for the remarks, perhaps a Quotes section? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:34, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

::::First and foremost, this is not a personal matter between us. We are working together on an encyclopedia, and your attempts to call me racist or culturally insensitive are unwarranted, uncivil, and downright disgusting. Slandering others is not and should not be your reason for being here. That being said, I would like to remind you that McCain was a longstanding supporter of Vietnam-American relations, and cultivated a very favorable opinion among Vietnamese Americans. The statement in question was not a matter or racism, but rather, or political correctness. Apparently, you haven't made the distinction, as you said "If he's not afraid to use the term, I think that's a problem" whereas the more factual approach would be "he still has hatred towards his prison guards, and expresses it in ways that are reckless". Furthermore, given the coverage of the 2000 election, I would find it hard to justify placing the quote inside that section; there simply isn't any context explaining the significance or historical background. Perhaps if the campaign was explained in better terms, and I mean far more extensively, this statement could be put in the section within appropriate context.--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 09:31, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::You were actually the one who first made this a personal matter when you stated, "What you think about people who use racial slurs is misleading and inappropriate;" I wasn't even making a judgment about the quote in the entry. I was including the information so that other people could come to their own conclusions. If you don't want it in the 2000 election section, perhaps we should put it amongst his Vietnam service section. I think immediately concluding his POW section would be a good spot, as it directly relates to his captivity and prison guards. Would you like to place it there or shall I? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:40, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Oh, and can you please point to the spot where I called you a racist or culturally insensitive? I don't recall using either of those words, so I'd be interested in you locating that quote. If, on the other hand, you can't find the spot where I called you either of those, then I do expect an apology, as it was an unwarranted, uncivil, and completely false accusation on your part. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:42, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

== Czechoslovakia ==

Since the article mentions McCain's positions on Iraq and Iran, how about mentioning his views on [[Czechoslovakia]]? He's mentioned twice in speeches in the last week concerns about events going on right now in Czechoslovakia.... (Czechoslovakia has not existed at all since 1993).

== Ctrooprers edits ==

Although I reverted the edits, I tend to agree with them as the sections he removed are not really appropriate for an encyclopedia. Certainly they would be appropriate in a very lengthy essay about the presidential compaign but I don't think it's necessary here. I suggest we try to get a consensus over the next 48 hours and so if no-one objects I'll delete the comments.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:45, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:Some of them are valid in the context that McCain has been getting more press lately regarding his gaffes, not because they are simple mistakes, but because of concerns about his age and fitness to serve for the next 4-8 years. The Iran/Al-Qaeda gaffe was noteworthy because Senator Lieberman had to interrupt him and correct him in front of reporters. In the past week he also talked about tensions on "the Iraq/Afghanistan border". McCain has made comments I can research (read them on Huffington) denying his prior positions and quotes, which are either complete reversals of position or lapses in memory. Are these actual signs of unfitness? I'm not sure about that, but including them in the McCain article under the heading "Concerns about age" would be entirely appropriate since it has been discussed in the press ans Sunday talk shows as well. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:58, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:: I disagree that these should be filed under "Concerns about age", because I don't think they're necessarily age-related. Rather, Shia v. Sunni is particularly important, and for him to make the mistake twice brings questions to his knowledge and criticisms of Obama over foreign policy. But to put them under "concerns about age" trivializes them and makes it seem petty, IMO. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:01, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

: I absolutely object. I think two of the quotes are very appropriate for the article. The first is relevant in that Obama was being criticized here for the use of the word "bomb" as opposed to "bomb'''s'''", and saying "57 states" instead of "47 states". Also, McCain's criticism of Obama and foreign policy, when McCain has repeatedly confused Sunni and Shia, and who makes up the majority of the Iranian population and Al Qaeda. If you want to delete the second one, I won't be terribly opposed to it. And the third is important in that much of McCain's campaign centers around his military service. When Wes Clark made his remarks recently about military service as a qualification for president, there was an uproar. I think it is, therefore, very relevant when McCain talks about military service---especially when he's said something that flies in the face of what he now claims. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:01, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::Re the Obama Criticism. Remember that that was in the main page, which is basically just a trivia/blog section, whereas this article is part of the encyclopedia proper, and thus must be accurate and trustworthy like all the other pages are. Therefore I don't think its fair to compare the Obama gaffe with that here. I suggest that the first should be left in as being relevant to his ability to perform the presidency, but the second and third should be removed as trivia.

:::The second example, misstating "57 states" instead of "47 states" was not part of the trivia/blog section, but is in the article. And it wasn't a misstatement, but he stated it on two consecutive days, so you know his campaign corrected him after the first instance.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:29, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

While I commend everyone for your work and interest, we should remember this generic article is about John McCain. Saying who he is, how he got there, and what he believes is fine, but individual elements and speeches during his Presidential run should probably be handled under the Presidential campaign articles. It could certainly be grouped there in ways that could flow more easily. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:37, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

==Mention of NY Times Op-Ed rejection under Iraq Heading==

I'm not sure the rejection of a single Op-Ed piece merits a mention in an encyclopedia article on McCain - It's already covered in CP under [[Liberal Bias]] anyway, and seems trivial in this context. If its inclusion here can be justified, then it should be moved to a different heading like "McCain and the Media" instead of "Iraq", since the nature of the Op-Ed piece the Times was looking for spanned more than Iraq. It should also be revised, because in it's current form it's misleading as to why the original piece was rejected. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:42, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
:I agree, its trivial fluff and it's prejudicial content is greater than its probative value.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:49, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::I have removed the section. The story itself is irrelevant to McCain's political beliefs, and in consideration of the longstanding cooperation that the New York Times has provided to the Senator, I feel that there is no wrongdoing or substantial political swipe connected to this. I appreciate the well-cited, researched information, but placing the day-to-day events of what is included or excluded in a newspaper does not connect well with the article. It would be more appropriate for the Presidential campaign, but even in that context, it is rather weak and inconsequential.--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 11:18, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

== McCain vs. Obama ==

Based on the obvious bias towards McCain shown in the difference between the two articles, why not just SAY that Conservapedia endorses McCain? Both men have flaws; if you lead with the flaws in the Obama article, and suppress McCain's flaws due to bias, how is this an encyclopedia and how is it "trustworthy?" Yes, I am a liberal, but I may vote for McCain based on experience, but until the election, it would be nice to see unbiased versions of the articles. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 10:16, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:We are keeping the McCain article as unbiased as possible as a stand-alone piece. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:25, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::And the Obama article? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:26, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Should be discussed on the Obama page. We do the best we can with the John McCain article on this, the John McCain page. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:34, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Yes, but the original question pertained to both the McCain and Obama article. You only answered about the McCain article, and quite clearly stated about keeping it as unbiased as possible. You have the ability to give an answer to me about the Obama article here, but specifically chose not to relate it to the question, but instead said take it elsewhere. Since the original question pertained to both, I hope that you will answer both---or let me know and I'll post it on the Obama talk page and you can answer it there instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:38, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::This is the McCain article. I answer questions on John McCain and how to make this article the best it can be. Feel free to post the question on Obama's talk page since, ostensibly, that is the article where you have the most concerns. As I no longer frequent that article, you will not receive a reply from me. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:58, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

==Divorce==

My edit to the Personal Life section of the article should not be reverted, as it is a valid contribution to the page. It is part of his personal life, and it is note-worthy. In the interest of keeping the article unbiased, both the positive and negative should be included. --[[User:AlrightThen|AlrightThen]] 20:48, 8 August 2008 (CDT)

:Hmm, so men don't cheat on their wives anymore. They "have difficulties with" them. Glad you guys are working so hard to defend the institution of marriage. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 19:55, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Both of the above comments are incomplete, and it's impossible to glean what your points are. Try to be clearer. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:58, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

This issue has come up in the past. Please see my talk page under McCain Edit and the reasons why your edit is inappropriate. Then please move on to constructive edits. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:13, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

== Bridget McCain ==

There seems to be conflicting information regarding Bridget McCain's birth year (1991 or 1993). According to the other reference Jpratt uses, "rightpundits.com", the site states, "Cindy McCain was touring 3rd world countries with Mother Teresa in 1991 to provide medical attention to needy children. During this tour, Cindy and Mother Teresa toured an orphanage in Bangladesh where Cindy picked up a baby that was only a few months old." Also, under the Bio section, "Bridget McCain was born in 1991 in Bangladesh." [http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=1636 Bridget McCain is John McCain's Daughter]. Any suggestions for a way to resolve the differing information? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:26, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: The India link wasn't enough for ya? Google search 1-70k for 1993, 1-58k for 1991-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:37, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:: The India link, which was confusing and not very clear, I would match with the rightpundits site I provided. So two sites with differing information. And if the Google results were 70k to 12, then I would consider that evidence. But 70k v. 58k isn't a strong case for one or the other. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:51, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh, and if you google "Bridget McCain" 1991, you get 779 results. Doing the same with 1993 yields 546 results. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:52, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh, if your Google search is limited to english only sites, you get 58k Bridget McCain 1991 and you get 71k Bridget McCain 1993-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:55, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

==Suggestion for an administrator==
This article has become so long, I think it would look nicer if there were more pictures. I was hoping one of you could upload these into the article. http://blog.reidreport.com/uploaded_images/rice-mccain-741881.jpg under "foreign policy" and this under "2008 Presidential campaign." http://www.topnews.in/usa/files/John_mccain_returns_to_NH.jpg If not that's fine, but I would appreciate it. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 20 August 2008

: You need to check out who owns those pictures first and whether it's OK with them for others to copy them. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:31, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I just got them from a blog while searching Google images. Hard for me to find out who "owns" them. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 20 August 2008

O.K., I emailed Top News.com, which is where I got this image, http://www.topnews.in/usa/files/John_mccain_returns_to_NH.jpg. They said I could use it because it's under "creative commons license." [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 21 August 2008

== education ==

On the main page, much was made of Obama's lack of educational achievements. [http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/] That article mentions that McCain actually graduated in the bottom 1% of his class at the Naval Academy. I think that this information that should go into the McCain article. --[[User:DrHubertJNugz|DrHubertJNugz]] 15:38, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
:[[Obama]] article: [...]He graduated magna cum laude with his J.D. in 1991[...]
:So yes, ASchlafly is censoring the truth, even though his edit summary claims that Obama didn't release his college performance. ''Magna cum laude'' is a really good performance. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 10:08, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::You will have to take it up with Andy. Based on the idea that Obama has not opened up his college record for review, a decision was made to remove that information on McCain. It it were permissible, I would want to see the wording, "near the bottom of his class". It seems less sensational that way. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:41, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::You mean [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia%3ADesk%2FAbuse&diff=513169&oldid=510916 this Andy]? Yeah, right, the only result I can think of is hitting my head against a brick wall. Since when does Obama's college record have anything to do with disclosing McCain's? Obama says "57 states", it's jumped all over. Obama says "my Muslim faith", its jumped all over. McCain doesn't remember how many houses he owns, but its vehemently denied into his article. Pretty simple to see what's going on, but I shouldn't be the one (powerless) who stands up to it. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 14:50, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::::That is just b.s. SamuelHTD. Obama need not disclose but since McCains has, it is fair game? This is a site with conservative POV but that doesn't mean liberals have not included 'not-in-the-best-light' statements on McCain's page. Do we need to include every liberal attack against McCain? Hell no. BTW, I am not expecting your return comment since you're gone. ta ta-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:07, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'm baaaack, your [[parthian shot]] failed. If you don't include the information because the other candidate didn't disclose yadda yadda, what's with the hubbub over Obama's "alleged" birth, with birth certificate provided, compared to McCain's ''lack of'' birth certificate, and doesn't even show on the [http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j186/DonaldDouglas/Americaneocon/PH2008050201443.jpg record of births]? Going by your logic, we should either a) post that McCain can't prove his birth record, or b) remove all the gossip and ideology regarding Obama's birth? [[User:SamuelHTD|Sam]] 10:36, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::For what it's worth, the [[Joe Biden]] article mentions quite a bit about his academic record, including the current cost of the high school he attended over 40 years ago, and the fact that he graduated ''"from the Syracuse University College of Law in 1968 near the bottom of his class"''.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 11:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

When Obama admits how poorly he did in college, then let's say the same about McCain.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:39, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:He was elected President of the Harvard Law Review and graduated Magna Cum Laude. Not sure how that qualifies doing "poorly." --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:56, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Muslim pronunciation

2008-09-29T21:14:06Z

AndrasK:

==Obvious Parody==
I marked this article for speedy deletion. This obviously is a parody of the discussion in the Talk:Main Page and cites only a talk page as a source.
--[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 17:14, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Muslim pronunciation

2008-09-29T21:13:56Z

AndrasK: New page: ==Obvious Parody== I marked this article for speedy deletion. This obviously is a parody of the discussion in the Talk:Main Page and cites only a talk page as a source. ----

==Obvious Parody==
I marked this article for speedy deletion. This obviously is a parody of the discussion in the Talk:Main Page and cites only a talk page as a source.
----

Talk:Clarence Thomas

2008-09-20T23:37:11Z

AndrasK: /* Sexual Allegations */

Edited to remove opinion and speculation with no factual evidence cited to support it. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 6:34pm 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sexual Allegations ==
I just thought I would add the case which made Clarence Thomas famous to the article. I don't know why it wasn't there, after all, this is supposed to be the trustworthy encyclopedia. JSJames 2:00pm (PT) 20 Septmeber 2008

: In my opinion, the Hill allegations were disproved. I would object to including allegations like this unless, at a minimum, the article includes the reasons for thinking that she way lying. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::Nonetheless, the allegations show just how far liberals will go to prevent a conservative from sitting on the Supreme Court. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:20, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:How were the allegations at all related to being liberal or conservative? --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 19:37, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Sarah Palin

2008-09-18T20:21:34Z

AndrasK: /* Other Criticism */

== Sexist ==

Don't consider me sexist but... she at least looks a woman. Not like that Hillary who'd grow moustaches if she could. --[[User:AdamE|AdamE]] 11:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:Maybe not sexist but decidedly un-gallant and not a little silly. Hilary Clinton looks every inch a woman. If she looks less attractive than Sarah Palin that might just have something to do with the age difference: on the same basis I'd be much more worried if Obama was after my wife than if McCain were! C'mon, if attractivness was relevant you'd be lining up to vote Obama in. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 11:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Un-gallant and cynical. --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 15:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

They say Lincoln could never be president now, he was too ugly. When did this turn into a beauty contest? [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 14:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

== Her other son, Trig. ==

Should such a private and personal happening as that of her second son be brought to the general public? On one hand, it is only her and her family's matter, but on the other hand it shows that her acts are as honorable as her words. At least I was dubious on her at first, but reading more and more on her I am convinced that she is the Vice President America and the world need. I'm sure even liberals aknowledge her courage and that she did the right thing with Trig. But I leave it to those more knowledgeable to include such familiar matters or not in the article. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 15:17, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
: For what it's worth I think it should be mentioned, not because it's an invasion of her family's privacy, but because it says something important and positive about her character. She had stated publicly that she and her husband knew of the condition during the pregnancy, and chose not to abort it because of their values. That's a defining statement about her living the values she talks about, and one of the reasons I respect her as a person. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:34, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Please feel free to include that information. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:47, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:Done --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:22, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Much of that information is in public release and has been reported in interviews in People and Vogue. I added a couple of comments she made, plus information about her son in the military.

::--[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 21:50, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The one of the rare times I will make a display of my personal opinions on here. I find this woman to be hypocritical and in fact somewhat repulsive as a mother. I am all for women's rights, adn all for women having a career, but she has a SIX MONTH OLD SON, and is about to go on a campaign trail. The only possible way she can manage a campaign trail is if someone else raises her son. And a special needs son as well. I am heart sick that this woman would put her career before her child. Men are expected to do this, but women are the core of our children's lives. We are central to who they become. Especially for the first 5 years of their life. Work before you have a kid, expand your career after your child is back in school. But the 5 most important years of a child's development are before he or she starts socializing, and this woman is willing to be an American vice president which will keep her on the road over 200 days a year, if you go by averages of other VPs, and often in countries where it's not only "discouraged" to take a child, but out right dangerous. Vietnam and Korea - if you are there to represent the US. Venezuela. Cuba. Georgia. China. not places to be taking a child. I am disheartened, as I said. This is not a good role model for how to be a women in teh US finding a career - when the career comes before your own family. AGain, rarely will you see me make a statement like this, cause I'm not normally into challenges. but this woman makes me so sad for her child, and as a mother, as a woman who believes that a Christian woman (and any woman, frankly) should put her infants first... it is just sad. Would it have killed her to wait 5 years before being in such demanding political positions?--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] Michelle13:58, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Wow, that's heartfelt and does give one pause. I have to confess I didn't put the numbers (dates) together. Thanks for making me think a little more about this.
::::--[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 15:37, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::::: Thanks. I get argumentative on topics about things like linguistics, and what languages are related to what languages (what I'm pursuing for my graduate degree). But i rarely butt into political comments. maybe I should. maybe not. but I set aside my studies for my kids, and it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO for me. I really feel that there is an important reason that the Bible (and many other religions, by the way) advocate that a woman make her life at home *until* such a time as her kids are grown. I woudn't even go that far, but I did say that I woudln't go back to teaching till my two were in school, cause then I don't have to be there "9-5". but when they are so little? I truly feel, and maybe this isn't proven by science, maybe it is, that a woman is more emotionally connected to her kids (and vica versa) than the father, and should be there for them at their development. hugs. Michelle. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 15:45, 30 August 2008 (EDT) (PS, if other than this, you ever want to see me be realllllyyy stubborn, just ask me about the T-D vocalization in Navajo after the move into New Mexico. hehe. (edit conflict)

== Oh, boy... ==

Cue the whitewashing. I'm gonna guess the polar bear section will be deleted or completely rewritten within 24 hours. As it stands, it certainly seems like a good example of "[[liberal bias]]". [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:26, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:I suggest to close this article from editing for a few days or at least hours. It's clear that it will become a favorite target for vandals. I'm sure if changes have to be made, Administrators will be able to make them well. I'm not suggesting a long term block, mind you, just to let things calm down. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 15:29, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::I think Silvio has nmade a good point. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:::The polar bear status is unclear. International numbers have been increasing, but largely due to numbers now being reported in Siberia and other former states of the Soviet Union. I don't know if different species are involved or that the aggregate is germane. It will be interesting to find out.

:::kind regards, --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 21:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Neither polar bears nor polar ice are decreasing at such a rate as to prove the "[[global warming thesis]]". Average air temperature fluctuates due to natural causes. There's been a lot of hot air since 1989 aimed at enforcing some socialist ideas of forced redistribution of wealth, but no such system has ever worked out well. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:53, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action Vice-President ==
What is the Affirmative Action Vice-President part about? That is ridiculous. She would be the first woman VP but that has nothing to do with affirmative action. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 16:48, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:It's criticising (in an oblique way) the accusations that Obama would be the first "Affirmitive Action President". I suspect that whoever called Palin that is hoping that you will find it ridiculous and decide that the Obama accusation is similarly ridiculous. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
Help me out here... Obama, if elected, will of course be the first Affirmative Active President. The rationale being: he's being elevated to a level higher that he would have been, primarily because of his race. Yet isn't Palin, a former mayor of a town of 7000, now a governor for all 18 months, also being elevated to a level higher than she would have been, because of her gender? You cannot suggest that she is the best person, male or female, for the job, can you?
Is the objection that affirmative action only apples to race? (Because it certainly applies to gender as well.)
Is the objection that Palin is in fact the most competent person, male or female, for the position of vice president?
(If not, on what basis can you say that Palin is not an affirmative-action candidate?)
--[[User:Mycosaur|Mycosaur]] 19:44, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

: There are several problems with your simplistic analogy. The qualifications for a Vice President are different from that of a President; Palin has stronger executive experience than Obama; Palin was selected to run against Obama; and we never claimed that Hillary Clinton would be the first affirmative action president.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:50, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:I think part of the idea is how readily the path was cleared for each person. For Obama, based on that thinking, his position was pretty much given to him along the way whereas for Palin, she had to fight the establishment to accomplish what she did. Now as far as her selection for Vice President, well, that could be a different matter. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:54, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't agree with "affirmative action whatever" for either of them. If Obama is the next President or Palin the next Vice-President they will be there because millions voted that way. "Affirmative action" is best kept for appointments: respecting whoever is in charge after the election respects the US electorate. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

==Second Picture==
I think we should take it down. It's just like the first one and is totally unnecessary. If there is a second picture then it should be her with [[John McCain]]. I'm going to take it down. Maybe an administrator could replace it with this. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 29 August 2008 http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-08/palin.jpg

: Sorry, link says '''access denied'''. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

O.K., how about this one. http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 30 August 2008

:That's better! --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 11:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:That's a good one.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 14:47, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

It seems to be popular. Anyway an administrator could come in and upload it? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 30 August 2008

: We have to see the original source of the photo first... not only that link. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:00, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

== Foreign Policy ==

The section has one compound sentence, and one of the words ("commender") is/was misspelled. Also, saying that the governor of Alaska is the commander of chief of the Alaska National Guard is somewhat patronizing to people who know things about state National Guards. It seems as though it's simply trying to inflate her foreign policy experience, which she doesn't have much of. --[[User:DrtyLb8|DrtyLb8]] 23:35, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:Why shouldn't it say she is the commander of the Alaska National Guard? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:39, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::HenryS, your an administrator, I was hoping that you could upload this picture. I would really appreciate it, thanks. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 31 August 2008 http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg
::It's misleading to feature it so prominently. It implies military experience on her part when there is none. All governors are commanders of their state's National Guard, and that only comes into play in the event of a natural disaster. In times of war when National Guard units are activated to be sent overseas, they instead fall under the command of the United States Army and are treated as reserve soldiers. At that point, they aren't being commanded by the governor, they're being commanded by the Army. It's like saying the Governor of Florida has space policy experience because they launch the space shuttles from Cape Canaveral. To include that under "Military Policy" misleads readers into thinking she commands troops in battle, which is completely inaccurate. Because of that, I've removed the section. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:21, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::: We don't allow deletions like that. Palin is commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard. There's no denying it, and that fact should be included.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm not denying it, I'm just saying that prominently including it under "Military Policy" implies that it gives her some sort of military experience when it flat-out does not. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 22:49, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Well, maybe you don't think Obama needs any military experience to be Commander-in-Chief either. But the fact is that the position of Commander in Chief does mean something. It means she has some responsibilities, some leadership, and some authority over troops.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I didn't say anything about Obama. This has nothing to do with Obama. No governor can claim that they have military experience because of their role as commander-in-chief of their state National Guard unit because that's not how they work. When they are used in combat overseas they aren't under the command of their Governor, they're under the command of the United States Army and they're treated as reserve units. That's an entirely separate function from their role as domestic natural disaster relief workers. Saying that she has military experience because she's commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard (which is completely honorary when it comes to military functions) is akin to saying [[Elizabeth II]] has military experience because she's commander-in-chief of the British Army. It's misleading and needs to be corrected. (And yes, I know the Queen actually served during World War II.) --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:06, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Eldest Daughter Pregnant ==
Palin's response "We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby." Proud to be a Grandmother. Unlike Obama's response of his children "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
===Gossip?===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=508671&oldid=508669 It can hardly] be "gossip" if the facts of the matter are plainly seen in the official [http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/ab547fc8-d96d-4f87-aa8a-2e52be2b66fc.htm statement.] What '''is''' gossip is that fairy tale that was reported on the daily kos over the weekend. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 14:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::I wasn't trying to gossip. I got that from yahoo news. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter Palin says 17-year-old daughter pregnant]. This is likely to be a big issue for a conservative campaign. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 15:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Folks, you're clueless about the meaning of [[gossip]]. Newspapers and press releases do print gossip all the time. We do not and have had that in our rules since our beginning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: What's the difference between [[gossip]] and CP's article [[Hollywood values]]? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:07, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: What are you referencing specifically? Publicly charged crimes are not gossip, and neither are deaths of public figures.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Well, to my knowledge, an underage pregnancy, like Palin's daughter, is not a publicly charged crime nor a death. Ergo, I would think that Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy would fall into the same category. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:22, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Spears is a public figure who profits from public attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Yes, but it's neither a crime, nor a death, but rather talking about is "idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others." It seems she was just as public initially about the pregnancy as Palin has been about her daughter. Both of them brought the topic into the public eye on their own, with the GOP campaign issuing a statement providing the news.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Jareddr, this is my final response to your senseless comments. Palin's daughter is a private figure (and a minor) who sought no publicity. Respect her privacy, or leave.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:37, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, perhaps then the entry on Barack Obamas half brother should be removed then. Using your logic its also gossip. He didn't seek public attention either. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 17:58, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

: What are you specifically referring to? I did a quick look and didn't see any details about Obama's half-brother in his entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

[http://www.conservapedia.com/George_Hussein_Onyango_Obama Here]. It is a whole page about him. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:29, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

==Palin's "Liberal" Critics==

In the interest of avoiding an edit war, I wanted to point out that several of the key critics of Palin's handling of the Gravina Bridge project were prominent Alaskan Republicans, not "liberals". If one reads the referenced article this would be clear, but I've added in the names, titles and supporting quotes from these individuals so I'm not accused of anything unprofessional. I've also left in the comment about earmark money not being returned as common practice, which was unsupported by any reference, but left anyway. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:49, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Personal Background ==

Are we going to include information about her daughter being pregnant or not? I don't think it is necessary, as Aschlafly said she is a "private figure (and a minor) who sought no publicity". Currently, there is mention of this in the article. Any thoughts? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:48, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:I say take the high road and leave it out as much as possible. It's a challenge, though, because of new stories like [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html?hpid=artslot this one], where Palin is shown to have used her line-item veto to cut funding for teen-pregnancy programs. How can you be credibly pro-life, and at the same time cut funding for the very programs that offer teens an option to abortion? I'm starting to question her judgment more and more. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:53, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:: You can say she cuts funding for teen-pregnancy problems as part of a discussion of her record as governor, and still leave out mention of her daughter. While it's nice we're having a conversation about it, as Henry mentioned, Aschlafly has made his opinion clear and any attempt to add it will just be reverted, so might as well just skip it entirely. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Dinsdale, you keeping pushing your point of view at the expense of the daughter's privacy, even on the [[Talk:Main Page]] and you should stop it. There is nothing about the simple fact of the daughter's pregnancy that supports your point of view, so stop exploiting it. She was probably in public school where she received all the indoctrination that you support.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not out to exploit her daughter for the sake of making a political point. While I said that it's a challenge, my very next point about Palin was to contrast one of her policies (against funding pregnant-teen programs) with another (pro-life), and no mention of their family's situation was required to do so. Meanwhile, you immediately start making assumptions about what her daughter did or didn't learn in public school. Which of us was sticking to the Governor and her policies, and which was pulling her daughter into a shot at public schools and accusing her of being "indoctrinated"? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:02, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Also, there are multiple news reports tonight that the baby's father is being flown to the convention to attend with the Palins. The Governor's children should be left alone, and people can reach their own conclusions about parents who feel a need to pull young teens "facing the challenge of parenthood" even further into the media spotlight. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:10, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion Explained ==

Don't delete history or try to cover up how wrong it has been for liberals on the internet to mock Palin over the founding father's remark.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:You should try to explain in what way they are wrong then. If you just claim 'liberals are wrong' then liberals are going to ignore you, and there is little point in preaching to the choir. Besides, her claim appears dubious to me. 'Under God' really wasn't in the pledge until long after the founding. It was added in the 50s. It doesn't matter if it came from a different founding document, she was refering explicitly to the pledge, and demonstrated she is ignorant of a very minor piece of historical trivia. It may be best to keep quiet on this one until the historical arguments are worked out here. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 20:52, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Drug Use? ==

Sarah Palin has admitted in the past that she use marijuana, though it was legal in Alaska from 1975-2006. Should this be added into her biography? Granted, it wasn't illegal, but nevertheless I believe conservatives may find it disconcerting to participate in drug use. Reference for the story [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/29/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4397109.shtml?weed here]. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:35, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:Nah, that just doesn't seem needed. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:36, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::If someone does something legal in their private life, then it's private and should be left alone. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Then may we remove references to drug use in all politician pages? --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:22, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::::The key issue is "legal". If politicians are breaking the law in private it may still rate mentioning. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:25, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:If it's included, it should note that (A) marijuana was legal back then, (B) she was in college at the time, and (C) she has since denounced her experimentation. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:16, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:I'd only include it if she did it while in office. Other than that it's kind of irrelevant. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:11, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
::Its irrelevant because it was legal at the time. If she didnt break any laws then it matters not. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:13, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:It may have been legal on a state level like medical marijuana is today in some states but it certainly was not legal by federal law. Some may consider that bad judgment which is relevant for a politician. --[[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 09:18, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

==Political Background==
This section list non-political items; hockey, marathons, NRA. Move or delete required.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:24, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers==

What documents are being referred to in the statement "and all the Founding Fathers embraced reference [sic] to God in the documents that established the United States."? God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but that great document didn't establish this nation or its government - it was the colonies' statement of secession from British rule. The only document that actually established the United States of America as an entity and defined the operating framework for its government is the Constitution, and God is not mentioned once in it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:38, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

==Wasilla Bible Church==
Would it be worthwhile to have an article on Sarah Palin's home church?--[[User:Nowa|Nowa]] 15:39, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

==Other Criticism==
I am removing this section which was cited by WaPo for misleading statements. Read the counter post [http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/sep/09/sarah-palins-expenses-as-governor-scandalous/ Sarah Palin's Expenses As Governor Scandalously...80% Lower Than Her Predecessor's!]-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:I'm going to restore that section with some modification. First off, Palin took the per diem ''on top'' of the airfare spent to fly between Juneau and Wasilla - it was not to cover the cost of an 18-hour drive, because she didn't drive. Second, you can compare Palin's expense record to her predecessor's, but since that person was the corrupt Republican she was fighting to replace on a reform platform, it's not all that surprising she'd look better. What's a better comparison is to compare Palin's use of the per diem allowance for stays at her home to those of the Democrat who preceded Murkowski, Tony Knowles. Knowles was against such expenditures and issued an executive order barring commissioners on his staff from taking the per diem reimbursement when staying at their own homes instead of the capital. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:23, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Also, please do not remove the new post about Wasilla charging rape victims for their forensic kits unless proven false with equally valid evidence. I was skeptical of this one too when I first read it, but the source was the local paper, and contained quotes from Palin's Sheriff confirming that the policy was in place to save taxpayer money. I'm appalled that someone who was willing to raise sales taxes to build a hockey rink & recreation center and hire lobbyists to secure federal earmarks for the town couldn't find a few thousand dollars a year to pay for the forensic tests required to do effective police work. To then go and tell a victim of sexual assault that she had to pay for her own test - words fail. I only hope this comes up in an interview with Palin so she has a chance to answer to this in her own words. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 01:28, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Ridiculous manufactured liberal smears. I am sure WP will list it. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::As the citations showed, these are not ridiculous internet rumors like the supposed "list of banned books" that are going around; these are statement--[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)s of fact, drawn from reputable news sources. In the case of the rape-kit issue, the article includes a quote form the sheriff she appointed complaining that the new state law was going to increase the cost to taxpayers (instead of victims). That's her guy making the statement, so there's no unfair smear going on. The simple truth is that even if Palin didn't create the policy, she could have changed it at any time while mayor. Unfortunately it took action from the Democratic Governor to force Wasilla to bring change.

::::These stories may not be flattering, but they are true and backed by reputable sources. They should not be removed unless equally reputable evidence is presented to the contrary; otherwise it's censorship of the truth. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:58, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: I stand my assertion, ridiculous. WaPo may be reputable to you, but not conservatives. The counter from redstate is clear to the stupidity in the story. Where there is no wrong, make it seem as wrong. She acted proper and Alaskains agree.

::::: As for the rape-kit. Why is this an issue that she be tagged to as mayor of Wassila? Trying to demonize her is stupid. If it took the gov of that era to straighten it out, how did Palin as mayor act so evil? I am sympathetic with victims of any crime. Insurance companies are the source of the problem for they get to choose to pay or not pay the costs associated. What percentage of false rapes were reported and kits paid for? I stand by my claims and am sick of deleting this crap. I leave to others.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:37, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Wrong. We do not blast people for sins of omission. Somewhere buried in the books is a bad law -- and Palin didn't change it. No. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

So JP, what you are basically saying is that any source that does not explicitly promote the conservative agenda is unreliable? By that logic, Fox News, the de-facto conservative news haven, is not reliable because it reported Ted Steven's indictment. How is it that to the conservatives, some 85% of the mainstream media is unreliable but then obscure little internet blogs serve as sources for news articles? As DinsdaleP said, denying the validity and credibility of a source just because it shows unflattering details, for any candidate or public figure, is a sign of indoctrination and a complete lack of objectivity. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

The Wasilla policy towards having victims of sexual assault was ''' ''not'' ''' a "sin of omission". If you read the New Frontiersman article I had referenced (the local paper there, not the "liberal Washington Post", it states that Wasilla ''was the only town actively following such a policy''? It fails any credibility test to pretend Palin didn't know of the policy when the sheriff she appointed knew about of it and defended it, and the state had to pass a law to get Wasilla to change their practice since they were the only town still doing it.

I'm not out to mock or smear Palin - just to search for the truth about her, both positive and negative, and put those truths in the article to improve its value to readers seeking to learn about her. I had added the initial positives about her pro-life stance, and the comment that despite having fundamentalist personal views, she has kept her pledge to keep those views out of public policy. I'm balancing those edits by adding some others that are not flattering, but just as based on truth.

I can accept Conservapedia having a policy to filter its "news" stories to only publish those that are flattering to conservatives and disparaging to non-conservatives, but that standard can't apply to encyclopedia articles if they are to be trustworthy. I'll recast these points as "Controversy over Positions" instead of "Criticisms", which is more neutral, end encourage both sides of these controversies to be presented. If anyone can find evidence from reputable sources that Palin positively did not know of the rape-test policy, or presents her reasoning for why Wasilla held onto that policy until the state law was passed, then please add it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:31, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

: Not newsworthy, the truth according to whom? New Frontier, Drudge, far left websites and most likely WP are the only places listing story. Should we include Obama snorted cocaine and smoked weed? He admitted it but we have not and assume, we will not. Some things just don't get posted. It should not be placed within this page. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'd be careful with that line of reasoning. We use a lot of conservative websites to back positions that won't show up anywhere else. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:47, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This isn't about it being newsworthy or not - this is an encyclopedia article, and the edit is appropriate in that context. It's the truth according to two valid references. The first is the local paper, the ''Frontiersman'', which has been around since 1947 and is not a biased source like HuffPost or something I would hesitate to use here. Second, the passage of the state law is in the public record. It comes back to passing a reality check - why would it have been necessary to pass a state law unless local governments were refusing to change this policy on their own. The final credibility comes in the statements from the Wasilla sheriff. Palin appointed this person because he supported her policies and views, unlike the sheriff he replaced who was from the prior administration. This edit is not about Palin's personal life - it's about the policies her administration supported in her capacity as an executive. This is entirely appropriate because the McCain/Palin ticket stresses Palin's "executive experience" as a key qualification, so objective stories about her record as an executive and the policies enforced by her appointed staff are important and deserve to be published. If you don't agree with this, then refute it wth evidence, don't censor it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:52, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::
::Whatever, I said earlier I will not delete it, again. Mark my words, it will be deleted. Conservative sources take preference. We report true stuff here not made up criticism. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:54, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm all for truth, and as I said, I added two pro-Palin contributions to this article before I added any criticism. In the case of the rape-kit story, tell me what I've made up about it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:06, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I am not going round and round on with you on this one. I didn't add Obama snorts cocaine to his page, I guess that makes it righteous too. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:08, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Whether you added it or not, the Obama article does mention his cocaine use. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 11:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Just want to mention this concept. The fundamental difference between JP's Obama example (although if you want to put it in his article that he experimented with pot and cocaine, have at it. He publicly admitted it. It's in the public domain) and this issue is that this has to do with her policies as a politician. That has every merit of being openly discussed and published considering that it is her policies that will ultimately effect the country were she ever to become president. The problem is that people don't seem to see the difference between personal smear (this candidate did drugs, that candidate had an affair) versus abuses of power (this candidate used his position as mayor to get his son out of jail for DUI, that candidate used government money to buy a playstation). The former really has no importance, what is private is private (hence no-one discussing Palin's daughter. That's her personal life, not important in the election) while the latter has every bit of importance. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Troopergate" ==

[[Image:branchflower.jpg|thumb|400px|right|three Democrat legislators in charge of investigating Palin]]
The new addition to the "troopergate" (if that's what it's actually being called) reads much too much like a news headline (see: "something you will hear more from the McCain campaign as the investigation continues"). I think it should be removed. If not removed, it should at least be edited to fit within the whole paragraph. Who is French? What is Branchflower? For that matter, what is "Troopergate?" These all need to be introduced before they are used familiarly. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:46, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:It shouldn't be that hard to understand but if you want to explain further, go ahead and edit without removing.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Since you were the one who wrote it, why don't you be the one to make it up to standard? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:55, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

==Stop censoring truthful, cited edits==

I hate edit wars, so I'm making this case again in the hope of resolving this issue professionally. People may not like the fact that when Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the policy in place was to charge the cost of rape-test kits to the victims, and it continued until state law banned the practice in 2000 while she was still mayor. This is not a liberal smear, it's a fact. Her administration knew of the victim-pays policy, and her hand-picked sheriff defended it in the article. The cited news article doesn't come from a fringe source, but from the local Wasilla newspaper. The story was published in 2000, so it's not a smear pulled together in September 2008 because she's now a VP candidate.

The simple fact is that this is part of her record, and it's proper for any candidate's record to be published for the public to assess, especially the policies she supported as an executive when her "executive experience" is being touted as central to her qualifications.

I'm challenging the editors who find this truth about her record unflattering to stop dealing with it through censorship, and to respond with research and evidence instead. If they believe that Palin was unaware of this practice even as her sheriff publicly defended it, then find the evidence. If you want to claim that this was only about policy because no women were actually charged for rape-kit tests while Palin was mayor, then find the evidence instead of assuming that was the case. I'm not out to smear Palin - I've added two positive edits two this article before adding this negative one. That's not attacking her character - it's being open-minded, balanced and sticking to the facts when editing an encyclopedia. Hopefully I won't get 90/10 blocked for this, but I want the Palin article to be informative and fair, unlike the joke that is the [[George W. Bush]] article here. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:08, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:The simple fact is she did not put in the law, did not campaign for it, did not even discuss it. It was one of many, many, many laws that was on the books. I asked you how many times, if any, a victim had to pay for her own kit testing. You ignored it and merely reinstated the information.

:Her sheriff specifically said the new law would make it so they couldn't bill the insurance companies or the perpetrators of the crime. He never said wow, I wish we could bill the victim. The information you are trying to force in was and is a red herring and your continued reinsertion hoping that people will see it as they come to our site is inappropiate - and you know it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:57, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Request for an edit to this full-protected page ==

Hi, I ran the article through MS Word's spell checker, and it found one minor grammatical error. I would appreciate it if a sysop could correct this in the article.

The error is in the third paragraph of the section titled "State Economy",
The second sentence of that paragraph reads:
::''These '''critic''' include her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money'."
It should say
::''These '''critics''' include her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money".

Thanks!

[[User:Samtheman|Samtheman]] 11:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

==Reversions regarding the Troopergate investigation==

I'm not goint to re-insert anything, but wanted to respond here as to why I added the comments about partisan criticism. The current lawsuit to stop the investigation is being brought by five Alaskan state Republicans who claim that the investigation is "unlawful, biased, partial and partisan" [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOTk11gvqDAgD0cY3i4WjI_2YOxwD937V32G1]. What's more important, despite an initial pledge by Palin to cooperate fully with the investigation, the current official statement from her campaign is that she is now "unlikely to co-operate" with the investigation. Palin campaign spokesman Ed O'Callaghan has said the Alaska state legislative probe had become "tainted" by partisan Democratic politicians seeking to target the Alaska governor. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7618524.stm]

Since accusations of Democratic-driven partisan bias are coming from the Palin campaign, and not just Alaskan Republicans with a grudge, I felt it was important to objectively point out the bipartisan nature of the panels guiding the investigation. Republicans are in the majority on some of them, and joined in unanimous votes for some aspects of the investigation. What then, is improperly biased about showing the factual breakdown of the votes by party as I did? That's the official record, not spin. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:55, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:Palin asked the probe to acknowledge a rule of law before they began, and they refused. We all know what is going to happen from a legal standpoint - nothing. She is well within her right to do what she did. The question is how much innuendo outside of legal issues will be presented to attempt to hurt her. With the pictures with the Obama campaign and the "October Surprise" comment made by Palin's opposition her concern is certainly understandable. It has long been acknowledged that Palin has a feud with the entrenched Alaska GOP who are not happy with her exposing their corruption. That makes your count of Republicans and Democrats meaningless. When you are someone who exposes corruption in government regardless of party, that can happen. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Bush Doctrine

2008-09-16T11:06:36Z

AndrasK:

==Completely Untrue==
The concept known as the "Bush Doctrine" did not become popular just a few days ago with Charles Gibson's interview of Palin. It was first coined in 2002 in a NY Times article found here http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE3DE123CF930A25757C0A9649C8B63. Granted the Bush Doctrine is not as well defined as say the Truman Doctrine, but the term has certainly been in use for years. I would edit the page directly, but I would most likely fall victim to a banning.--[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
:You're correct AmesdrasK. Please edit the article and make it factual. Remember, cite your sources. If you do this, you need not fear becoming a block victim. Thanks. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:47, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::Will do (cannot do it right now due to time pressures, but I will later tonight). Thanks for the assurance against a block, unfortunately, I see more and more ideological blocking everyday. Good to see that some sysops abide by their own rules! --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 07:06, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Bush Doctrine

2008-09-16T03:42:20Z

AndrasK:

Talk:Bush Doctrine

2008-09-16T03:42:12Z

AndrasK: New page: ==Completely Untrue== The concept known as the "Bush Doctrine" did not become popular just a few days ago with Charles Gibson's interview of Palin. It was first coined in 2002 in a NY Time...

Talk:PNAS Response to Letter

2008-09-16T00:20:18Z

AndrasK:

Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.

In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks, Jpatt. One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it. PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a "climate scientist". If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Right. The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science. When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed? None, as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:"Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''"(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

: As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the [[Letter to PNAS|letter]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, <includeonly>suckadick moron</includeonly>who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

: PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software. When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
:I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward. Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now. Oh well. There is no censorship on Conservapedia. Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

(deleted non-substantive comments). Again, the heading on this page will be enforced: "Substantive comments only, please." If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment. Non-substantive comments will be removed. This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask; What exactly do you mean by "substantive"? I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter. Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.

:My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - "having or expressing substance", but apparently the measure of "substantive" for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not. That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn. You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some ''substantive'' insights. We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not. If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way. This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

ASchlafly- you said above, "PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors". As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions. Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' that your position is error-free? I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that "PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS". What I pointed out is the fact that they ''did'' in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly. I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area. My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed. A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal.

:I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively. I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Folks, I've pointed out five ''very specific'' statistical (logical) errors. The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper.

The math is wrong in the PNAS paper. No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't. I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here. If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine. If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:"The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events." Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?

:"The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance." This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:: {removed personal and non-substantive attack that violated clear rules for this discussion; also, unsubstantiated claims of expertise are not allowed - --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 September 2008 (EDT))

::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this? Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Ben, if you have at least a 9th grade-level education, then you can look at the 5 errors and decide for yourself, and comment in a substantive manner. Yes, they are obvious and basic errors, and the fact that the reviewer of my letter at PNAS would not attach his name to a specific denial speaks volumes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly, I'm a little confused as to why you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&curid=73292&diff=517424&oldid=517408 removed this comment of mine]? I did not cast any aspersions on your argument, and was merely answering your question as you posed it to me? Is "declining to comment" an indictable offense? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Your comment was not an "indictable offense," but it violated the rules of this page: "Substantive comments only, please." Got it? Either say something substantive, or edit somewhere else. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: This is confusing. Is "I agree with your thesis" or "your methods are 100% correct" a substantive comment? It can be very hard to infer your intent, Mr.Schalfly, I'm sorry to say. I have no quarrel with you, but I'm becoming confused as to what is and isn't appropriate comment on what is labelled a "Talk Page". Are there special rules for this Talk Page? If so, perhaps the title on the page might be changed? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: No, your quoted phrases are obviously not substantive comments. Your statement of agreement means nothing. I doubt you are even using your real name, for starters, which renders your agreement evens sillier. I repeat for the nth time, say something substantive or edit somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::I'm sorry about that, I didn't realize the name was the issue, I've had it since last year and have only returned to edit here again recently. Do you wish me to forget this username and create a new one? I am happy to do so if you wish. Finally, does your comment also refer to the other users on this page such as "jp", "jirby", "Pila" and "Bugler" (whose names you didn't seem to have a problem with)? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 20:09, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::Andy - I too, like BenHur, am confused by your definition of "substantive." For example, jp writes only about his opinions of the state of modern science and the current scientific community, nothing at all specific to the PNAS reply letter. BenHur, however, has asked questions directly regarding your original letter (Regarding the use of the Monte Carlo technique and Z-transform) in an attempt to further clarify your position. As far as I can tell, he is not denying the validity of any statement you made, but rather asks for the actual math you performed and further elucidation on the reasoning behind your points. I can hardly see how that is not substantive, it is directly related to the subject at hand: Your letter to PNAS and their response. To quote yourself, "you doth protesteth too much." It is indeed your prerogative to question scientific studies and to raise issues, but to expect to be taken seriously, one should have a complete set of supporting mathematics and evidence for your questions. So far, I have seen you produce no specifics on why Lenski performed an erroneous statistical analaysis, nor why PNAS' claim that your challenges are incorrect is incorrect itself. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: If you're skipping over the main points, then concede their validity or explain why you've skipped over them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Please provide your statistical analysis ==

Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

: I did. Which point don't you understand?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Sarah Palin

2008-09-13T14:58:41Z

AndrasK: /* Other Criticism */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-09-09T22:33:36Z

AndrasK: /* I'm noticing a very disturbing pattern... */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]

== No longer presumptive ==

He's the real-deal nominee at this point. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]] 13:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:He's presumptive in the sense that Obama is far too inexperienced to be President. [[User:Redstatepride|Redstatepride]] 18:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== Education In Jakarta, Indonesia ==

All students in Indonesia, regardless of religion get off for Islamic holy days including Nabi Isa which we know as Christmas. It's disengenuous to make a claim that because he went to a public school and got an Islamic holy day off that there's some nefarious connection. Muslims that attend Catholic school have to attend Mass whether they like it or not.--[[User:EmpressG1973|EmpressG1973]] 17:01, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the point is that Barack Hussein Obama was observing an islamic holy day when he is claiming to be Christian. It just does'nt add up to alot of people and should make Christians think twice about him. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Actually it was his '''school''' that was observing the holiday. When a child attends a school, they can't just choose which days they want to take off. Your argument is ridiculous.-- [[User:rkstiner|rkstiner]]

How is my point incorrect? You can nit-pick it all you want but Obama attended a muslim school and observed muslim holidays. Thats all there is to it. Take your liberal name-calling elsewhere. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:So a Jew who attends a public school in this country doesn't go to school on Christmas, so he is therefore observing a Christian holiday? Making him, I suppose, a Christian? Doesn't make sense. [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 16:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::You shouldn't have to defend it at all. Barack Hussein Obama is very likely a muslim there is strong evidence to suggest it. Since when is being a muslim such a bad thing? It's not, unless your running for President and try to lie about it. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

== Reversion Explained ==

We don't post a politician's self-serving claptrap. Obama catered to anti-patriotic donors to win the nomination. There's no real dispute about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:Remember, Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy, and children read this website. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::What's your point? That children don't need to know he flip flopped on wearing a flag pin? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 15:39, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The point is that children especially should be told the truth. Include the flip-flopping by all means, but also include his explanation for why he did flip-flop. This has more validity then stating "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." Adequate to whom? By what criteria is the inadequacy judged? If he had explained it by saying "it's none of your business", or did not offer an explanation, then certainly that would qualify as "without adequate explanation." Remember: Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that citing his explanation and then explaining why conservatives find it inadequate would be an improvement. I would make said improvement, but I am currently hard "at work". [[User:TJason|TJason]] 16:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action President ==

I reverted the removal of "affirmative action president" for now. Corey, can you explain why this is racist? If affirmative action isn't racist, why is describing someone as an "affirmative action president" racist? Is your problem with the description that it is racist? Or that it is untrue? I think these are two separate issues. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 10:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:This speaks to what I think is an enormous problem with affirmative action (no, I'm not a complete supporter), claiming that a minority only got a job because they are a minority. I think that claiming that Barack Obama's political success comes only from his being black is racist demagoguery, or at least rhetoric designed to incite racial tensions. I have no doubt that there are some people who support Obama only because of the color of his skin, just the same as there are those who oppose him only for the same reason. Also, I will not say that there isn't a desire by many people to see somebody other than white male in the White House. But this is not the ''only'' reason most of Obama's supporters have for supporting him, as the term "affirmative action president" suggests. He has political experience and he is a deft politician, which figures greatly in a political campaign. I would implore anybody who considers Obama to have no accomplishments to compare his life to that of our sitting president before 2000. Some time in office, a string of business failures, and questionable service in the Texas Air National Guard. Fortunately for G.W. Bush, his father is Bush 41. Bush supporters discuss his successes as his own doing. Claiming that Obama's are not his own because he is black sounds rather racist to me. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::George W. Bush was governor of Texas; some people consider that to be a political accomplishment. I think you will have to go pretty far back to find a candidate for President whose entire political career was two years as a Senator. In 1988 Dan Quayle was blasted for his lack of experience for a Vice Presidential candidate, and he had already served many more years in the Congress than Barack Obama has. Like it or not Obama was fasttracked and bypassed the usual protocols because of the color of his skin. Whether or not this is appropriate is left to each individual to decide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::A governorship is certainly a political accomplishment, one which George W. Bush would probably have been unable to attain were it not for his father's name. There is hardly any information on the George W. Bush entry on this site pertaining to his life before his presidency, the details of which would likely lead many people to conclude that were George H.W. Bush not so well-connected his son would not be president. In contrast, the opening paragraph of Obama's entry uses his race to attack him politically. I find this hard to rationalize. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::There is not usually an understood litmus test for governor. Some people are longterm politicians, others are not. For instance Arnold held only minor political appointments before he became governor of California. But the Presidency has generally required proving yourself in some capacity. Bush was a well respected governor who received high marks. Carter, Clinton, and Reagan had all been governors. Someone running for President who has not successfully governed a state and has only been in Congress for 2 years is very out of the ordinary. Again, note what Quayle was put through and he was only a Vice Presidential candidate. That being said, I am not necessarily supporting the article in the form it has taken. I have not read it in quite some time, but if it is a leadoff then that would seem to be inappropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Obama's experience is fair game, and I agree that he has not had as much time in political office as the average candidate. I think that using race as an issue detracts from this fair and logical line of debate. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't think that the term "affirmative action president" suggests that affirmative action is the '''only''' reason Obama is where he is. I think the term is supposed to denote that his being black is a '''major''' force behind his success. Also, I think the term brings to light that, historically, this is a first. No previous nominee has been the beneficiary of affirmative action in the way Obama has. At any rate, ''I'' won't revert the edit if you remove it again, since you've made your case and I am not willing to fight to keep it in. I suspect others might, though. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Where has he explicitly benefited from affirmative action programs? This is a "heads, I win, tails, you lose" situation. If he doesn't get into Harvard Law or win an election, it's because of lack of merit. If he succeeds, it's because the standards were lowered due to his race. This is an extremely dubious political argument. Attack him on his policies, voting record, character, or fitness to lead: fire as they bear! That's our process, and it's a good process. But these race arguments are petty, desperate, and drag our political discourse down to a despicable level. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I am pretty sure that Harvard Law Review has an affirmative action policy, but I will have to check. Regardless, I think the term also covers "implicit" affirmative action that has benefited Obama (e.g. a white candidate with his experience would not be taken seriously). [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::"Implicit" affirmative action seems to be in the realm of vagueness and speculation. I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment 1: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:25, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Like I said, I'm not really willing to fight over this. We are at least in agreement that this is a distraction from the real issue: his actual positions. I reverted the edit because I thought what was said in the edit comment should have been spelled out in the talk page. It has been. Therefore, if you want to remove the reference again, I won't revert it again.[[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I have no intention of perpetuating a pointless revert war, either, and I agree that discussion of the real issues suffer because of such statements. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== "Alleged" birth revert ==

Even the National Review doesn't dispute the [http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.] Why is Obama's birth information being censored by this website? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::There is no censorship here. Removing any mention that there is doubt about the authenticity of his birth certificate is censorship, imho. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:34, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::However, the way rumor is so prominently injected into the article within the first five words is clear weasel-wording. A separate section regarding the issue would be more appropriate than saying that he was "allegedly" born somewhere, and I wouldn't oppose such a section. Seeing as how you usually hear the word "allegedly" on the news while watching a video of a perp walk, it is unnecessarily loaded language. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And accusing senior CP members of "weasel-wording" isn't loaded? You should watch your step. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:46, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:: We know many [[liberal]]s love [[deceit]], and the birth certificate posted by [[Obama]]'s campaign has obvious defects. Even its number is blotted out for unexplained reasons. There are still unanswered questions about his place and date of birth, and what is on his real certificate, which his campaign has not released. We provide the information about this and let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Then maybe the thing to do would be to dedicate a separate section to present the issue. It would be much clearer and provide more information than the status quo. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::I have reverted another removal of the word "alleged" since there are still unanswered questions about his birth certificate. Is the consensus that this should be made into a new section? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 17:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would agree with a section. This entire article could do with a better layout and more sectioning. Our John McCain article is better in this regard - perhaps we could use this as a blueprint? [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 17:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) We seem to be in agreement. I'll make a section tomorrow, under the "Published Criticism" section. I would like to add that I love it when people of different viewpoints can meet in the middle. Good night. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:I like the changes you have made. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::(edit conflict) Thank you. As discussed, I added a section regarding the birth certificate controversy and removed "alleged" from the intro paragraph. I tried to make it as evenly written as I could. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::Also, what is up with the tag at the beginning of the article? I don't know what this is used for, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything except make "span" the first word in the article. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:44, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

:::1. You're right- I scanned the diff and thought he removed the Daily Kos ref. 2. I don't know. I never noticed it before. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:46, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

== We have a problem ==

Okay... to start things off I am deathly afraid of this man getting elected and think he would ruin our wonderful nation. I do think that the media is helping him and realize that he is basically "the chosen one." My conservative principles help me make all of those opinions. Heres the thing. This place exists because someone thought that wikipedia was biased and unfair... but honestly... some of this stuff borders on propaganda! For Pete's sake our job as conservatives is too tell the truth and expose things about him. This page is going too far. I'm embarrassed to know that my fellow conservatives wrote this! This page can still be dedicated to exposing the truth about "the chosen one." But we'll be SO much more effective if we do it properly and fairly. If you want to contact me its easier to do so at my wikipedia talk page of the same name. Thank you and lets try to do better please. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 15:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate Number ==

I copied this from the [[Talk:Main_Page#Obama_Born_In_U.S.A.|Main Page Talk section]] to here because you all might find it of interest. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

----
:[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Look at this photo], is this Barack Obama's birth certificate? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 23:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::It's interesting that they finally give the, so-called authentic, birth certificate number in this supposedly unfaked photo. It is '''151 1961 - 010641'''. The reason I bring this up, and I think the REAL reason this was masked, is because numerological analysis shows something very disturbing. If you add up the three sets of digits thus:<blockquote>151 + 1961 + 010641 = 12753</blockquote>and then add the individual digits of the result thus:<blockquote>1 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 3 = 18</blockquote>the final result, 18, is the product of three sixes (3 x 6 = 18). Three sixes, or [[666]], sort of speaks for itself. I just thought this was interesting. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:22, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
----

I think it's rather obvious that AdmiralNelson doesn't take this site seriously. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Does anyone? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm giving it a chance. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 21:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:::So am I. I new here and was hoping to find stuff that would challenge my beliefs, so far not much luck. [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I quote myself? '''I just thought this was interesting.''' For "seriousness" [[Special:Contributions/AdmiralNelson|I stand by my record]]. Feel free to check it out. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

==Lawsuit==
The guy filing the lawsuit doesn't dispute the fact that he he was born in Honolulu. He is disputing that Obama is a US citizen after he lived in Indonesia. So why does it say allegedly born still? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 19:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: I think he does dispute it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Dilution ==

Don't dilute the entry by referring to the silly text messaging stunt in the first paragraph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I put it down in the Presidential Campaign section instead then? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Requested change ==
Original text:
{{Cquote|On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party by the Democratic National Committee. The nomination became official when Hillary Clinton conceded on June 7th.}}
Requested new text:
{{Cquote|Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.}}
This more accurately describes what happened and updates the section with last week's events. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
===Another===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=506483&oldid=505653 This link] should be commented out until [[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate| this abysmal essay]] is fixed. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 17:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Harbor issue==

The entire section regarding his comments about Pearl Harbor has got to go. There is no reason to imply that someone leaving an 's' off the word 'bomb' (''bomb'''s''''' did fall on Pearl Harbor, that much is true, right?) means they ignore or disdain American history. I'm guessing the McCain article makes no immediate mention of his confusion over the borders of Iran, or his lack of knowledge about the situation in Iraq, illustrated by the fact that he mixed up the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Do either of those things make sense? NO! I'm sure John McCain knows what he's talking about, and I'm sure he's not confused about the issues at hand. Obviously, which course of action he chooses to follow is eternally and rightly up for debate, and if we want to highlight that debate about Obama, then that's fine. But it's ridiculous - nay, ridicule-worthy - to say that Obama leaving out an 's' means he thinks Pearl Harbor was nuked. That's so stupid it turns neurons into Pop Rocks. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 19:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

No, it should stay, the man's an idiot, clearly. Also - I added the "any educated person would know" bit, which Jareddr just removed. But I'd point out that many of the younger generation ''don't'' know that it wasn't one bomb. I've even spoken to young folk who confuse Pearl Harbor with Hiroshima, and think that the nuclear bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbor! It's remarkable how uneducated some of today's public-school educated youth are. Also, people from foreign countries may not know the context of Obama's gaffe. Perhaps that point might be allowed back in - Jareddr, if you want to re-word it yourself maybe? I think it's kind of important, the stupidity of his point might be missed otherwise. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:55, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Then state something to the effect of, "In actuality, multiple bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor during the Japanese mission." You didn't say anything about being foreign-educated, only "any educated person..." If you want to place it in context using my above phrasing, go ahead. But the entire section has already been set up to switch verbal miscues for "idiocy" so no need to pile on, as they say.

:Besides, you don't see anything on McCain's pages about him "not knowing" the difference between Sunni and Shiite, referencing Czechoslovakia (a now defunct country), or calling Putin the President of Germany.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:OK, I'l do that then Jareddr, thanks for the suggestion. As to the McCain entry, I don't think we need to highlight those issues, they're a distraction. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 15:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::True, we don't want to confuse the readers about the candidate storylines. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:11, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::The entry should be removed, since McCain failed to state how many homes he owns is no where to be seen on the McCain article. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 15:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Don't be ridiculous, Samuel. Many everyday Americans have trouble remembering how many homes they own. Sometimes they own a home, but it's in someone else's name, or it's just a vacation lodge, or it's a few homes on one piece of property. Ask people on the street how many homes they own, and I guarantee very few will answer! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:46, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: McCain isn't running to be a real estate agent for the country.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::True, but he spoke about real estate business, and it's undeniably a large factor in the economy, which is a current problem. Compare that to Obama and 60 years ago? Oh Please. Thanks for the sarcasm Jared. :P [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Obama isn't running to be a history teacher for the country either, though. One could argue that if you're going to enforce a populist message, and cast yourself as an "everyman" and your opponent as "elite", you should be able to answer how many homes you have on command. We're not looking for net value, just a (presumably) single-digit number. I'm not aware of any "everyman" that forgets that number, but I'm sure some "elite" may forget. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Obama can try that next, Samuel: "Who cares about what happened at Pearl Harbor? That was 60 years ago!!!" Good luck to him and his supporters with that absurd approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::What's more absurd is putting words in my mouth (as well as Obama's, apparently?), as if I were trying to say that I didn't care about Pearl Harbor. I said no such thing. I was comparing something that happened over 60 years ago to present time in relevance to gaffe, nothing more and nothing less, in comparison to Obama's article and McCain's. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 19:29, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Obama's gaffe was about an essential element of American history that defines our country; McCain's was not. We do expect presidents to know important aspects of American history. We really do. We don't care if they can tell you how wealthy they are, or how many houses they own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::And yet McCain's belief in an Iraq/Pakistan border - and his belief that a country named "Czechoslovakia" still exists - shows how out of touch he may be with the issues that matter NOW.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 19:42, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:I won't compare the semantics of how you measure the impact and importance of a slip-up, but it ''is'' rather telling that the Obama article prominently features such a slip-up while the McCain article apparently doesn't. This doesn't compute. Both of them have had weird moments ("President Putin of Germany", anybody?), and in fact, everybody has slip-ups. Bushisms, anybody? So why do we have to pick on Obama's mistakes alone?
:An encyclopedia needs consistent standards. Entries about similar topics should be comparable. They should be similar in style. They should follow the same intuitive standards.
:Overall, the McCain article looks like a very good example of how such an entry should look like (kudos to those who made it that way), and the Obama article is a prime example of something that would look great on some obvious right-wing propaganda site, but ''not'' in an encyclopedia. The part before the TOC should be condensed and moved to another part of the article. The intro section (the part before the TOC) is supposed to be an ''intro''. It should briefly sum up who he is and what he does, period. Then come biography sections, then his political stuff, then the Presidential campaign. And THERE you should feature the notable events or slip-ups. I'm most definitely no Obama supporter, but when comparing the McCain and Obama articles, you don't have to do a deep analysis to figure out that this site is way more political activism than encyclopedia, and I think that should change. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:22, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Needed ==

The first sentence in the second paragraph about Barack Obama reads this:
Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a teleprompter and rarely allows tough questions.

It then gives the citation down at the bottom, which reads this:
After one debate against Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.

I don't think that's a real citation. Does a link not need to be provided? Just like anybody can type anything on the main page, anybody can type anything as the citation too. I would suggest either finding legitimate proof to this claim, or just take it down.

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

The whole tone of this article on Barack Obama is appalling. It is poorly written, inaccurate, misleading, insulting and thoroughly vile. I would be ashamed to publish such contemptible stuff.

: That's your first -- and only -- contribution here. Hope you can do better than that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

I see someone is watching the Obama talk page like a hawk. I stand by my previous remarks and hope to be adding many more in the near future.

: Good for you. And my hope is that you'll have better contributions to this site than what you've done so far.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:25, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I have to say that to a foreigner, this article reads like one-sided drivel. Some of it is so blatantly ridiculous that it gives a negative impression of the people writing it, not Obama. Surely you should be attacking him over his policies rather than a non-existent issue over where he was born or some completely pathetic nonsense about him taking holidays at the same time as other kids in his school. (Amazing but true: Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist children in Britain take holidays at Christmas and Easter; they don't volunteer for extra classes on those days.) This article reads as though you've given up all hope of defeating him on political grounds and are just falling back on rather silly personal remarks. Surely you can do better than that! (Kindly read that as constructive criticism.) [[User:Googly|Googly]] 19:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== I'm noticing a very disturbing pattern... ==

# (cur) (last) 15:45, 8 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (59,707 bytes) (Reverted edits by Lodovico (Talk); changed back to last version by Ampersand) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 15:42, 8 September 2008 Lodovico (Talk | contribs) m (59,972 bytes) (Corrected information of misinterpretation) (undo)

Alright, so notice that Lodovico makes an edit, and adds sufficient reasoning for his edit in the apt column. Notice then that Andrew changes it, and doesn't even look to the talk page to provide ANY reasoning.

# (cur) (last) 23:55, 6 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (58,039 bytes) (Reverted edits by Chippeterson (Talk); changed back to last version by AliceBG) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 23:52, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,095 bytes) (→Senate career) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:19, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,052 bytes) (I don't like Obama anymore then ayone else on Conservapedia, but come on. The two pictures should be reversed) (undo)

Here again we have a very reasonable edit, that it reverted without adequate explanation.

# (cur) (last) 14:36, 25 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (57,388 bytes) (Reverted edits by Impm (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:35, 25 August 2008 Impm (Talk | contribs) (57,106 bytes) (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html He was born in Hawaii unequivocally.) (undo)

Impm makes what appears to be a reasonable edit, and Andrew changes it again.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Citation_Needed <--- Here is another example; everyone is discussing the pertinent issue, including Andrew, but then drops out of the picture and: (cur) (last) 10:09, 27 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (57,862 bytes) (restored material deleted by liberal censorship) (undo)

I'm just wondering, but why is it we have to discuss changes we want to make whenever an edit conflict arises, but Andrew doesn't? This makes it essentially impossible to edit any article that Andrew has become party to because you can never know which of your edits will be acceptable or not.

Then there is this: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Affirmative_Action_President

Despite the lack as a citation for the statement that caused that particular talk-page topic to manifest, and the lack-of-response from Andrew, any time this statement is changed Andrew swoops in and reverts it.

Am I alone in seeing this? Do I see a ghost ruffling the leafs or is it simply just the wind?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 19:51, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:I've noticed it too, but I didn't think asking him about it would change anything. Especially on the "affirmative action president" thing. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:15, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::This is inane. It's been more at least a day now and we haven't even gotten a one sentence response yet; just more reverted edits without adequate explanation. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:28, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Welcome to conservapedia. Often if you attempt to question the work of ASchlafly, he will simply ignore you. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 18:33, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

==Large repetitions!==
The "Published Criticism" section repeats, aside from a couple of sentances, almost word for word the introduction. This needs changing as it looks silly to have repetitions so I am going to leave this comment to see if there is any response and wait 48 hours and then go to work on fixing it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:17, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, but don't remove information from the introduction. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'll only remove the double-ups from the lower section. Thanks for the quick response! [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Marxist/redistrubution of wealth line ==

Was just trying to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=512956&oldid=512942 fix my spelling error], not trying to revert Andy. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]].

=="My Muslim Faith" quote==
I've seen the video of this quote and it is taken totally out of context. What Obama is saying is that JOhn McCain has not accused him of being a secret muslim. Does anyone really believe that this is Obama mistakenly revealing that he is a muslim? Anyone who has seen the video can't seriously believe that this is the case. This quote should be removed before people start taking it seriously. [[User:Billgates3|Billgates3]]

Talk:Large Hadron Collider

2008-09-09T22:32:20Z

AndrasK: New page: ==Will get to this later== Just wanted to add, from what I have heard of/researched a bit about the LHC, the actual danger is that stranglets (a theoretical type of quark) could be potent...

==Will get to this later==
Just wanted to add, from what I have heard of/researched a bit about the LHC, the actual danger is that stranglets (a theoretical type of quark) could be potentially created and trapped within the earth's gravitational field, thus transforming all matter on earth to strange matter. Will get verification and modify as necessary. Also, I do not believe scientists at CERN actually ''deny'' the possibility, but rather the chances are so monumentally low (I have heard on the order of 1x10^-12%) that it is essentially more likely that the Earth will be destroyed in other ways. I will research this a bit and modify the article with proper citations. Cheers --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 18:32, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?

2008-09-08T23:28:55Z

AndrasK: /* RELEVANCY */

Look at recent elections. 1992: Bill Clinton (draft dodger) beats George Bush (combat veteran). 1996: Bill Clinton (draft doger) beats Bob Dole (wounded combat veteran). 2000: George W. Bush (draft dodger) beats Al Gore (veteran, did not see combat). 2004: George Bush (draft dodger) beats John Kerry (wounded combat veteran). Now in 2008 John McCain (former POW) is lagging behind Obama (never served). Are voters now more interested in a candidate's political record than their time in the military? [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 09:56, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

==RELEVANCY==
It is always a mistake to make broad assertions and generalizations based on stereotypes and prejudices. Especially when they contain errors based on a political misinformation campaign. The error of calling George W. Bush a draft dodger when he actually served in the Air National Guard. Or the incomplete assertion that names John Kerry as a wounded combat veteran without also mentioning his anti-military actions such as calling all American forces in Viet Nam as being war criminals. These differences in military service did make an impact on the elections. The relevance is especially pronounced to anyone who has ever served in the military or even had a family member that served. It also is relevant to the voter who sees their military service being belittled, slandered, lied about, or shown contempt for by those people who've never served their country. In the current election it has been attempted repeatedly to make John McCains military service record irrelevant since his opponent never served in the military. Which it looks to be as one of the goals of this debate, by the way. Everything is relevant in any election.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:07, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:Correct, everything is relevant, but that does not answer the question as to what /ought/ be relevant. I think military service certainly helps, but it's not the end all be all that McCain wants it to be. Soldiers are people first, and people are fallible; there are bad soldiers just as there are bad people and pointing that out (such as when Kerry went before Congress) isn't a bad thing at all. The point? Serving your country doesn't make you better or worse than anyone else, it just adds variety. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 09:39, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::So then the addition of military service record as variety in an election is relevant. But then you say it is irrelevant in that it doesn't make you a better or worse candidate. So which one is it to be, relevant or irrelevant?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Do you not read? Indeed, EVERYTHING is relevant; that's the way things are, but here's the kicker, that says nothing of what /ought/ be relevant. Palin's daughter, for example, was highly relevant in the days after the story broke about her being pregnant, but it shouldn't have ever been broken in the first place: Bristol isn't going to be the vice president, and what happened to McCain in Vietnam doesn't suddenly make him a superior leader because Obama /hasn't/ served in the military. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 10:25, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:::So you say it is irrelevant. But you also say everything is relevant. Here is my point to you. I served in the military for thirteen years. I know it made me a better person. I also know that for some people it will bring out the bad characteristics in them. Any hardship or challenge will do this and the challenges faced during a persons military service are very relevant towards their future tasks. To those who have a contempt for military service I doubt will be able to recognize what that relevance is for a candidate. You just get it, or you don't. It is an individual stance and not a collective one.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::You seem to be not getting this on purpose, and now I am becoming annoyed but I shall persevere: Anything that can be reported is relevant, insofar as people will read/listen to it, I.e., Bristol's pregnancy. However, ''OUGHT'' it be relevant; should it really matter? The answer is no, not everything ''ought'' be relevant. When we're talking about McCain's military record being relevant, it is to a ''degree'', however, it isn't relevant as pitched by McCain et al; it's not the only relevant thing. If McCain had his way, then his military record is the only thing necessary to run President of the United States, but it's not; it's one of many areas that demonstrate the character and integrity of the person in question. McCain served his country, Barack served his community. Is there a difference? Maybe a superficial one. The Military is just another job; you can attach as much symbolism and meaning to that job as you want, but do the cold steely eyes of logic (and more importantly, God), a soldier is no different than a plumber; they are both but men.

::::I also disagree with the rather subtle assertion that I or anyone else have contempt for the military (for why else would you bother mentioning it?) simply because we disagree that McCain's service record necessarily makes him the second coming. You're 'you either get it or you don't' statement isn't even an argument; if we disagree we don't get it, whatever. That is essentially saying "if you argue you're wrong!" Well, denied. I'm a future marine, but just because that is the case doesn't mean I think all marines would make good presidents simply because they are marines. That's called a circle. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 13:00, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::I wasn't being subtle, but if it fits then go with it. If you think that the difference between community service and military service is merely a superficial one then this dialogue has just entered the realm of irrelevancy. I'm supposing you mean circular reasoning. So that's all I got to say about that.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 17:44, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

==Depends==
I think the relevancy of the military record of a candidate depends on his role in the war. If the person was a regular soldier (I am not familiar with rank so excuse the layman's language, I believe it is the rank of Private, but am not sure) then honestly, no I don't think it does. I am not in anyway trying to lessen the sacrifice that privates make in battle; I respect them 100% for the sacrifices they make. These sacrifices, however, do not necessarily translate into superior ability to be commander in chief. A private in the military makes no strategical decisions in the larger picture, that is the job of majors, generals etc. A commander in chief is chiefly concerned with overall strategy. Thus a private really has no greater advantage in this situation. If the candidate, however, was a a major or general or some other strategical position, then yes, in the context of commander in chief, it does matter. That record as a strategy decider, however, cannot be the only attribute that makes a candidate successful. Being commander in chief is only one of the many responsibilities of a president. In a way, it is almost of slightly lesser importance (before you all scream, hear me out). As commander in chief, the president (once in a declared war in congress) has the ultimate authority on strategy. Thus he can listen to his advisors and generals and such, make a decision, and have it enacted. Domestic and foreign policy, however, must go through congress. A president needs tremendous political skill to work a plan through congress (vis a vis FDR). In policy decisions, the president must work with congress and satisfy congress. In military strategy, the president has practically free reign. My 2 cents --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 19:28, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Liberal Denials about History

2008-09-06T01:03:31Z

AndrasK: /* Public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old. */

== Public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old. ==

So is penicillin. That doesn't make it a bad thing. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 18:15, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: Then why don't liberals admit it about public schools, and question its long-term value (harm)?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Can you provide any sources that show that the majority of liberals deny that the current public education system is less than 100 years old? As a liberal, and being in a fairly liberal community, I have never even heard that this was an issue. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:03, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

== This essay sparks interest, but... ==

...then we're left with no source or explanation, so the overall impression is a startled shrug. Which ''is'' a pity, so I offer my view in the hope that you could expand it.

For example, the Rhode Island point immediately triggers the question what makes you assume that this single cause (separation of church and state) among the undoubtedly many had the consequence (slave importer). Our entry about Rhode Island currently states that "Rhode Island was the first state to outlaw slavery", so what's to stop somebody from claiming that the separation of church and state caused this, too? Without any explanation or source, both conclusions are equally valid (and shaky).

The point about public school education in its current form being just 100 years old is fairly weak because my reaction was "...it seems to work pretty well, so what's the point?" You seem to assume that every conservative will go "Oh no! Public schools in their current form are horrible!", but... nope, sorry. :/ I'm not saying public schools are Heaven on Earth, but to me, this item looks out of place on a list about Liberal History Denials. It would help if you at least explained the alternative: What changed 100 years ago?

And if I'm not ''completely'' mistaken, liberals don't deny that chivalry was a big thing here (conversely, I never noticed conservatives pointing out that chivalry was customary throughout history) - it just happened to be a big thing in several other countries, too, so I don't see the need to go out of my way to point it out. It's sort of a given. But maybe I'm missing your point. Please enlighten me, I'm always open for new ideas!

Lastly, the "American Indians vs. Asians" thing... really needs a source. Who says they're "too different", for example? And on what basis? This sounds like a fairly complex evolution issue, so it ''really'' needs some background.

I'm fairly new here, and this essay strikes me as a collection of "inside jokes" (not in the "funny" sense, but in the "This will make little sense unless you also read my other fifty essays about these things" sense). So I would appreciate some expansion of these points. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 19:47, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: As to your first point, there's no denying a correlation between the separation of church and state and slavery, though [[liberals]] will refuse to admit it. I've updated our Rhode Island entry to reflect that this tiny state controlled 60-90% of the African slave trade after the Revolution.

: Your other points are not any more open-minded. Public schools in their current form is less than 100 years old. It's a fact. The fact has significance. Admit it and teach it. If you think critical analysis of the results of this less-than-100-year experience is inappropriate, then welcome to the liberal mindset.

: Chivalry is not taught as part of history. It should be. Your view is unclear.

: American Indians are different from Asians in almost every significant way. Blood type. Interests. Every other measure you can think of. Deny it and join the liberal denial about history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

I have a few questions about these. I'll address them one by one for simplicity.
# Can one say for sure they are too different for one to have descended from the other? YEC theory postulates that everyone is descended from two people. Obviously major changes in such groups have occurred over the years, and very different groups must have common ancestry.
#Rhode Island was the biggest importer of slaves? That's news to me. Overall, I think you'll find Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas imported more slaves than Rhode Island ever did. I know you don't care for Wikipedia, but, for lack of a more convenient source, if you look at their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_America Slavery in America] article, you'll see he highest slave population for any year in RI was less than a thousand, while in Virginia it at one point reached nearly half a million.
#Chivalry, in its most literal sense, dealt with etiquette among the gentry and nobility. America does not have a nobility, has never had knighthood, and has not had such a code. In its less formal sense: etiquette rules in general, manners, politeness (especially towards women), I don't think anyone denies its presence.
#As for the age of the public school system, I'm not sure if its denied; I just wonder the significance. If you're saying it's not adequately tried and true, well, I have to wonder, what is the alternative? Homeschooling is not an option for most people. Even when one parent can stay home with the child for 18 years, how competent will any one person be at teaching multiple subjects at an advanced level? I consider myself a pretty smart guy, but I couldn't teach most classes at a high school level. If I ever had a special needs child I wouldn't know where to begin. It seems to me there are 4 choices: public school, private school, home school, or no school. The last should not be an option, the middle two aren't available to everyone, so that just leaves public school. While its far from perfect, I think efforts should go towards improvement rather than dismissal.
Well, that's my thought. I hope you'll take the time to reply. Thanks. [[User:Sanders|Sanders]] 20:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::(Edit Conflict with Sanders, so some points might overlap)
::Andy, I believe you missed ''all'' of my points and simply replied by repeating your claims. But maybe it's my fault for not being clear enough. Paraphrasing Sun Tzu: "If words of question are not clear and distinct, if requests are not thoroughly understood, then the initial poster is to blame." So here we go again, more to the point (I hope):
::#"There's no denying it" is a very bad reply to a request for sourcing and explanation. If it's so obvious and undeniable, then you can surely produce at least a single source that explains (instead of just asserting) it. Or, since you arrived at that conclusion, you can surely explain it yourself. You're a teacher - would you tell your student that "there's no denying it" if they asked you "Could you explain how Rhode Island's position as #1 slave importer was a result of the church/state separation?"? I hope not.
::#I didn't doubt that "public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old". My questions were how things had been 100 years ago and what the point of this claim is. You don't even say what the results are, but you imply that I disfavor critical analysis of such results. In fact, that's why I repeatedly called for expansion of your points. I know you value conciseness, but in its current form, this essay only teases and hints, but fails to deliver. Which is why I made my initial comment in the first place (along with notes saying just that).
::#Chivalry... I really don't get why you want to stress it in a single country when it was widely spread. Unless your point is that it should be pointed out also for the other countries. I could agree with that. But either way, this strikes me as pointless. Also, your claim that it's not taught is weak: My History teacher pointed out that it was followed in the US and other countries as a basic concept, along with a brief primer about its roots. But from what I remember, it's more of a social issue and less of a distinct historic one in terms of impact (and even less of a distinct US History one), so I currently don't see the need for such emphasis. But I repeat: I'm willing to listen if you explain it. I'm open for new things. But simply repeating your short claims without any sort of source or background won't help.
::#A great response. I ask for background, a source and an expansion, and you basically reply with "Almost everything is different! If you deny this, then you're a Liberal History Denier!" Though I admit that the "Their interests are different!" bit cracked me up. I always like a teacher with humor. I can see it now. "Asians like Mahjong. American Indians didn't. Hah-ha!" :P Seriously, though, you're making a veeeeery strong claim here that deeply dips into evolutionary biology and ethnology, so in the interest of all your readers, I ask for a source.
::I hope this sums up my issues in a more clear way. I'm happy you replied, but I would be even happier if you actually replied to my questions/requests. :) --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:57, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Sarah Palin

2008-09-03T01:22:55Z

AndrasK: /* Drug Use? */

Sexual orientation theory

2008-09-02T18:08:45Z

AndrasK:

The '''sexual orientation theory''' asserts that a person's [[sexual preferences]] are immutable and should therefore be accepted by society, <ref> [http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/books/sevensteps/Chapter3/index.html Seven Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child] </ref> as theorized by some developmental psychologists and advocated by many social advocates and partisans.

Many social advocates assert that unknown biological factors are responsible for sexual orientation. Thus, they argue that is by no means a matter of [[Homosexuality and Choice|choice]], and that it is pointless to try to change one's orientation. Some go so far as to say that the attempt would cause harm, so [[mental health]] professionals must not offer assistance even if asked.

In contrast, [[sexual preference]] refers to a person's preferred mode of sexual activity, fantasy or desire.

Advocates of [[homosexuality]] frequently argue that sexual orientation is fixed at birth, i.e. one is "born that way". This forms the basis of an argument that homosexuality is not a matter of choice, and thus should not be criticized. One may as well criticize a person for having blond hair, or dark brown skin.

As a response to the claim that homosexual activities are "unnatural" or "do not occur in nature," many groups cite scientific studies that indicate homosexual practices in many species (such as apes, monkeys, or penguins).

Some homosexuality advocates make an intermediate claim, i.e., that sexual orientation is caused by a number of factors but does not become unchangeable until early childhood or even as late as adolescence. Likewise, this forms the basis of the argument that no one can be held morally responsible for being homosexual.

There is no scientific consensus on when sexual orientation is fixed, or whether it is fixed at all. All attempts to find a "[[gay gene]]" have failed.

Many people generally disagree with the premises of these homosexuality arguments.
*A person "born" with a strong craving for alcoholic drinks would still be held responsible if he got drunk and injured someone in a car accident.
*A person with an "inherent" hatred of blacks would still be considered a [[racist]] (and in violation of the rule, "Love your neighbor as yourself").
However, in both of these instances, it could as well be argued that these are the result of personal experience and development: for instance alcoholism is seldom found in infants but develops as individuals gain experience of alcohol and see it as a solution to their problems or a route to happiness.

Some Bible passages suggest that the normal, God-given ''orientation'' for human beings is [[heterosexuality]]. Jesus taught,

*"Did you not read that He made them at the beginning of creation, male and female, did He not?
*"And it said, because of this a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife and they become both one flesh.
*"From then on they are not two, except one body. What God has thus united, a human being does not separate." (Matt. 19:4-6)
Nonetheless, no explicit condemnation of homosexuality is ever ascribed to the Son of God: all these are found in the Old Testament and the Epistles.

[[category:sociology]]

User:AndrasK

2008-08-24T05:41:17Z

AndrasK: New page: {{User NoArbBlk}} {{User Evo}} {{User bigbang}} {{User guncontrol}} {{User patriot questions authority}} {{User free speech}} {{User Liberal}} ...

{{User NoArbBlk}}

{{User Evo}}

{{User bigbang}}

{{User guncontrol}}

{{User patriot questions authority}}

{{User free speech}}

{{User Liberal}}

{{User nowar}}

{{User gay rights}}

{{User Democrat}}

{{User legalpot}}

Talk:Homosexuality and the Bible

2008-08-14T00:49:29Z

AndrasK:

Why don't you include material from groups like Dignity USA,Soulforce,and the MCC,this thing on homosexuality and the bible is completly one-sided.

:If you'd care to summarize the liberal POV on homosexuality, we can add that somewhere in this encyclopedia. I for one am particularly interested in how what arguments they make in opposition to the traditional or conservative Christian POV that homosexuality is sinful. Who are they to say it's not? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:20, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
:Who are you to say it is? --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:49, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Political scandals

2008-08-07T17:46:46Z

AndrasK:

Instances when conduct of a public official brings great discredit and embarrassment to oneself and one's office.

==Examples==
* September/October 2005: House Majority leader Tom Delay (R-Tex) was indicted on September 28th on the counts of conspiracy to violate campaign finance law with two of his co-workers. Delay was charged of conspiring to use illegal corporate campaign contributions in the 2002 congressional elections. The indictment prompted Delay to step-down from his position as House Majority leader. On October 19th of 2005, Delay was issued an arrest warrent by a Travis County and was processed at the Fort Bend County Jail. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101900789.html]
* August 2007: On August 28th, Larry Craigh (R-Miss.) pleaded guilty to a disorderely conduct charge after his arrest for solicitation of sexual contact in an airport bathroom stall.[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294927,00.html]
* February, 2008: [[Carl Stanley McGee]] (D), a Leftist gay official in Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick’s administration, is arrested for sexually assaulting a 15 year old boy in the steam room of a Florida resort. [http://www.examiner.com/a-1207714~Gov_s_Aide_Accused_of_Sex_Assault_on_Boy.html] [http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/gay_massachuset.html]
* February 2008: Leftist New York Governor Eliot Spitzer breaks wife's heart when discovered to have solicited prostitutes while in office. [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/11/2008-03-11_spitzer_may_have_spent_tens_of_thousands-2.html]
* March, 2008: Leftist Detroit mayor [[Kwame Kilpatrick]] charged in text-messaging sex scandal. [http://www.kswo.com/global/story.asp?s=8060071]
* April, 2008: Thomas Athans, co-founder of the liberal TalkUSA Radio network and a married Michigan Democrat is charged with soliciting a prostitute. [http://www.wxyz.com/news/story.aspx?content_id=bf5c0996-2d4e-48db-a3d5-a61fc917e935]

* April, 2008: Oklahoma state prosecutors filed 35 felony charges against Democrat Sheriff Mike Burgess of Custer County for running a sex-slave operation out of his jail using female inmates he bribed for the purpose. Charges include 14 counts of second-degree rape, seven counts of forcible oral sodomy and five counts of bribery by a public official. [http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/04/18/county-sheriff-runs-sex-slave-operation-from-jail-guess-which-party/]

[[category:politics]]

Talk:Unitarian Universalist Association

2008-07-30T01:01:17Z

AndrasK:

== Redirecting this page ==

I intend to redirect this to [[Unitarian]] within a few days. Please let me know if this is disagreeable to anybody. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 20:35, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

I would not. The UUA and Unitarianism as a religion are not synonymous. It would be better to have two different articles. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:01, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-07-28T15:13:38Z

AndrasK: /* Wikipedia acknowledges all subjects and opinions. Conservapedia does not. Hmmm, which one is biased? */

{{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]]
|}



==Religious affiliation 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)
::As there has been no explanation of the origin or basis of that graph, I will remove it as I suggested above. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== "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)
:Isn't the National Enquirer the National Enquirer of the internet? Seems a bit like saying "The Beatles are the Rolling Stones of music." [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 01:42, 6 May 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)

Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that American atheists give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per capita basis.[11]

doesn't this seem like a moot point simply because of the number difference does the wikipedia article mention that in the more atheistic countries it's the opposite?

== 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)

==Why some of these problems don't count==
Biases such as a lack of Biography on conservatives, here is the soltion. ADD THEM! An expert (presumably a conservative) has to write the article. There are more bios on Liberals because there are more people writing about them. Seperating to another website will not encourage what you believe to be true! It means that conservatives and Liberals stay wrong about things. Go and add the Bio, don't write it here!

Number 50. Dismisses the banner saying that an article doesn't represent a world view, and you argue that there is no world view. By your own admission, there is no one view that represents all people of the world. Due to this, it would be necessary to tell people when something is Western centric, or American Centric. An article on Gun law, for example, could not be reliable from an American view because (unlike many countries) guns are supported in the constitution. 50 isa contradiction.

{{unsigned|Margheritapizza}}

: No, you're wrong. Adding a biography on a conservative can result in its deletion or redirect by the [[Wikipedia police]], even though [[Wikipedia]] has thousands of entries about obscure liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::I've read your article on the wikipedia police, and I wonder why there isn't an article on the conservapedia police because it seems like there are around 5 people on conservapedia who do everything. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:04, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

==WP: Sexist?==
Wh...what? How does that prove anything? Then again, it IS pretty much on-par with the rest of the petty claims on the page... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Reversion==
I looked up WPs Hamas article, and it describes them as a militant organization, with the rider that the US state dept etc etc as per the linked claim. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:40, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:Partially true; to quote the article: "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin." More to the point, Wikipedia's article on Al-Qaeda directly calls it a terrorist organization with no peddle-footing around. Therefore, the cited quote is still false in that it specifically says Wikipedia does not call Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization. The quote is false and should be removed. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 23:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::Scratch that. The "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin" quote was just added by an IP address today and could possibly be reverted. However, the Isreali Media quote is still wrong due to the Al-Qaeda issue, as much as I agree of Wikipedia's bias. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 23:13, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::I removed the article again today. If someone were to look up Wikipedia's Al-Qaeda article and discover that we were perpetuating false information, it would damage our credibility. The truth alone is an incredibly strong case against Wikipedia, so we don't need to give anyone reason to believe otherwise. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 22:04, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: You deleted an accurate quotation of an observation that is substantially true. In the Al-Qaeda entry on Wikipedia that you cite as a counter-example, Wikipedia uses the term "militant" repeatedly to describe the organization and only uses the term "terrorist" in the context of official government descriptions of the organization.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::Respectfully, the first sentence of wikipedia's article is ''"Al Qaeda is an international alliance of Islamic militant terrorist organizations founded in 1988."'' Then, yes, it goes on to list the nations that consider it a terrorist organization. It should also be noted that it describes its attacks as "terrorist attacks". [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 17:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

==43==
Ad hominem against atheists on Number 43. And don't attack me as being a devil worshipper/satanist/atheist: I'm catholic. [[User:Mwaetht|Mwaetht]] 13:53, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
P.S. On 49: Ever hear of Project Steve?
: How is No. 33 an ''ad hominem'' argument? An ''ad hominem'' argument is where you attack the person rather than their argument. No. 43 is not attacking atheists; it's attacking Wikipedia's treatment of atheism.
: And "Ever hear of Project Steve?" (yes I have; so what?) is not a refutation of anything.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:28, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== Smoking example ==

I'm confused about the smoking example that you just added. Is the implication meant to be that smoking isn't dangerous? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:02, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

: Yes, I take it from Ted's edit that Wikipedia wants to downplay the dangers of smoking. Could be tobacco industry types editing on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Moved from being inappropriately put in a user's personal talk page ==

== Question ==

Hello. I'm a long time wikipedia editor, and as such am fairly insulted at your harsh criticism of wikipeda. On the allegations of bias...since conservapedia openly admits being conservatively biased, doesn't that make it even worse than wikipedia? Not that Wikipedia is biased...how can an encyclopedia anyone can edit be biased? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:25, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

And as far as your criticisms of Wikipedia's scope and content...isn't having a larger scope better? Also, you criticized it for having pornographic images and articles. That is true, but isn't it better to have articles that describe things such as pornography and other non-child friendly things in an accurate way? Or is it better to pretend they don't exist? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:29, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
: My [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] goes part way to answering your questions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:36, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I still vehemently disagree about Wikipedia's bias. Anyone can edit Wikipeda, and thus, as long as the change is not biased, it will not be reverted. There is no "ruling class" on Wikipedia--all editors are equal to the others. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
:From personal experience, I can vouch for that not being the case. For example, see the Intelligent Design article (my comments relate to around January/February 2007, which I last seriously looked at it). It was not an article ''about'' Intelligent Design, but an article about why Intelligent Design was wrong. And ''numerous'' editors either tried changing it or discussing changes on the talk pages, only to have their changes reversed, their discussions shouted down, themselves called trolls and various other names, and generally grilled and harassed to the point that they either left or blew their stack, giving the controlling editors, which included sysops, the excuse to block them. It truly was a mobocracy. I found similar control existed over all articles to do with creationism. I was never blocked on Wikipedia, but I left active editing because of the oppressive regime active in those sorts of articles. See my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment Wikipedia user page] for more detail. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:47, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, remember what neutrality is. Neutrality does '''not''' mean "give both sides equal weight", it means "give both sides equal weight according to the strength of their argument". [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:52, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
: In other words, if a majority of editors consider that the strength of the anti-ID argument is greater than the strength of the pro-ID argument, then an article supposedly ''about'' Intelligent Design can have an anti-ID stance. In which case, it comes down to the number of anti-ID editors vs. the number of pro-ID editors, which is ''not'' neutrality, but majority rule. Secondly, your definition is self-contradictory. "according to the strength of their argument" means "give the side with the stronger argument more weight", which is the opposite of "give both sides equal weight". And finally, giving the stronger argument more weight may (in principle) be ''fair'', but it's hardly ''neutral''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

You misunderstand me. What I mean is that the article takes a critical look at ID because of the overwhelming number of qualified scientists who are opposed to it, compared to those who favor it. In this case, neutrality does not mean give both sides equal weight in the article, it means give the side that has more reliable sources supporting it the greater coverage. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 11:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: There is no evidence that "overwhelming number of qualified scientists ... are opposed" to ID. Moreover, it's a meaningless statistic anyway; 30 years ago an "overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space. By relying on this approach, you have illustrated an example of point 11 of [[liberal style]]: overreliance on [[hearsay]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::Most scientists believed there was life in outer space? Have any proof for that statement? Sounds like you are being a good liberal and relying on hearsay!--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 12:06, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Mathewson, I'm afraid you're clueless. Please stick around here and learn some things '''with an open mind'''. It's common knowledge that a generation ago scientists overwhelmingly believed in life in outer space. See, e.g., [[Exobiology]]. Rest assured I was not ''relying'' on what a majority of scientists reportedly believed. You are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:40, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::No, my friend, I am far from clueless. You made the claim that an ""overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space." Can you provide any cites proving that this statement is correct?--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 12:49, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Life in space has been neither proven nor disproven; and for that matter, it can't be disproven since the universe is theoretically (or at least practically) infinite in size. It could only be proven, and only then by finding life in space. But that is besides the point. Any encyclopedia should strive to provide its readers with the most accurate and up-to-date information from people who actually know what they're talking about. As such, Wikipedia is right in down-playing the supporters of ID...because there are very few reputable ones. if you have any examples of reputable supporters of ID, please tell me. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 12:51, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, I'm not going to allow the repetition of [[liberal]] falsehoods on my own talk page. Please illustrate point 11 of [[liberal style]] somewhere else. In response to Mathewson above, I did provide a cite, and am not confident he read it with an open mind.

: Further attempts at [[liberal]] [[last wordism]] on my personal talk page may result in a short block of the offending account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::Translation: "It's my website, so I get the last word." (Go ahead and reply to this one, Andy. I just wanted to point out the blatant hypocrisy here.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 14:54, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Gulik5, you're clueless also. We've always had a policy of respect on Conservapedia for everyone's talk page, in contrast with [[Wikipedia]]. See point 11 in [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Insist on [[last wordism]] on my talk page and you'll then see an example of an account being blocked for violating this principle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't aware I was trying to get the last word, I thought we were having a conversation. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 16:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

== Maths, anyone? ==

''"Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."[76] This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other liberals in reliance on Wikipedia.[77] The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that every other scientist must support evolution.[78] Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President George W. Bush, then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that."''

700 out of 500,000 expressed as a percentage is 0.0014%. That is, by your figures, 99.9986% - more than the much maligned estimate gave. Can someone please tell me what the point of the '700 scientists' comment was, if it only serves to destroy your own arguments?

Also, the figures are more closer to 7% religious.

- http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

--[[User:Tommy|Tommy]] 21:58, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

: Tommy, your objection is not clear and you seem to be missing the flaw in Wikipedia's biased claim. Your point about the religious seems completely unrelated to your other point. Be clear, and I'll respond, but demonstrate that understand the flaw in Wikipedia's analysis or else I may not waste my time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

It should be made clear what "reject evolution" means, or this debate is kind of pointless. I'm also not sure why the 'religious' comment and the link are relevant. I think the key to that objection what the first percentage, indicating that 0.0014% of scientists definitely "reject evolution". By the way, it should actually be 0.14%; 700 / 500,000 = 0.0014, but you must multiply by 100 to get the percentage. Either way, the figure is small. Aschafly is correct that assuming that ''all'' other scientists (the remaining 99.84%) "support evolution" (which doesn't mean any more than "reject evolution" does) is not necessarily valid, but as a student who knows and has spoken at length with many scientists and professors on a variety of issues, I would consider it fair to assume that ''most'' scientists have some conviction about the correctness and utility of our current theories on evolution. It is not nearly so black-and-white an issue as simply "supporting" or "rejecting" evolution. Is this covered in one of the points on this article? This probably should be changed on Wikipedia, if only because it sounds to me like this poll was conducted in improperly simplified terms. I'll look for it. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 10:06, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

I've looked into this reference on Wikipedia, in their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution Level of support for evolution] article in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Scientific_support Scientific support] section. Due to the subtleties involved in this debate, I would still like to know more about how the poll discussed there was conducted. I did find a lively debate over the validity of using this poll in the article in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Level_of_support_for_evolution/Archive_3#Newsweek_article article's 3rd and most recent talk page archive]. There did not appear to be a consensus. If it makes any of you feel better, consider the context of this poll and remember that it was conducted in 1987 and appears to have used blunt, oversimplified questions. It's more of a historical reference than a current item now. Either way, the debate goes on.

By the way, I'm curious to know if any of you can direct me to any papers published in peer-reviewed journals that presented data or explained experiments whose results clearly supported Intelligent Design. I've read about ID supporters' thought experiments and probability-based arguments, but I don't know anything about their supporting data or experimental evidence. If any of you know where I can find papers on this data and evidence, let me know. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 11:01, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== Obvious bias in liberal page ==
Did anybody else notice that in the "See Also" section for [[Liberal]], there are a ton of links, with most of them being negative (to the point of extremity and nitpickiness such as [[Liberal celebrity obsession]] or [[Liberal Myths]]), while the same section for [[Conservative]] has only three links, none of them which are remotely negative?

--[[User:Blabberno|Blabberno]] 21:13, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Administrator names? Huh?==

This article makes the claim that Wikipedia harbors an anti-intellectual bias because of the fact that the site has many users with "silly administrator names", uhm, excuse me, but it also makes the claim all over this page that there are far too many examples of pages being "complicated" or information about people being "buried" within lengthy articles. I don't have any problem with this page at all, and I appreciate ''what'' it's trying to say, but I have to take issue with ''how'' its said. It's irresponsible and misleading to say that the little tags accompanying edits on Wikipedia are somehow a vanguard of idiocy but then to say that Wikipedia is being deceptive because it doesn't follow (or, speaking chronologically, because it didn't ''create'') the Conservapedia model of referring to politicians in cherry-picked Fortune Cookie-size snippets according to subjective information and some stray quote. It's hardly a stretch to say that a Congressman or activist or other such notable figure being referred to as being "...a [[liberal]] [[Socialist]] [[secular]]-[[Progressivism|progressive]] who once referred to [[Christianity]] as a charade" (or some other such marginalization) would be difficult to find on Conservapedia. Basically, if this articles going to attack Wikipedia for being a flip-flopping, contradictory, biased Gemorrah, then let's please not turn around and do these EXACT same things on very page where we claim these things about them. Just a thought (as with most things here...). [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 14:20, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I concur. --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 14:23, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

: Replying to Linus above, there is nothing contradictory about:

* criticizing anti-intellectual user names
* criticizing long-winded, wordy entries filled with trivial and weak on substance

: That's Wikipedia in a nutshell. It tells you everything except what you need to know, just like the National Enquirer. And Wikipedia gives that juice from the hands of anti-intellectual contributors who think it's funny to be dumb.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:33, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:Huh?--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 17:00, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

==Peter Singer==
New to this site. Check out the article on Peter Singer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer, particularly well known for his belief in infanticide. The article makes little mention of his views, and the section purporting to include the ideas reads like an advertisement for his book. An excerpt from one of his books can be found at http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm [[User:Egd|Egd]] 13:35, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

* Quotes such as '''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person''' were ''removed'' as being POV

:Wikipedia policy: "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Deleted_content] But this is disregarded by POV-pushers. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question of Logic ==

The underlying grammar of this page (at least) is "wikipedia this" and "wikipedia that" as if it were a hive mind, monolithic and single-minded. While the examination of the religion templates of registered Wikipedia users ("Wikipedians", whatever) approaches laudability, the conscious choice to treat it, its articles, and its users as a single static unit rather than one made up of self-selecting communities (with particular categories of articles dominated by particular communities of users) does nothing for your credibility among those who disagree with this website or, ultimately, its political goals. Self-isolation and the creation of an "us vs. them" mentality (among other approaches of this site) just make this //look// like its users are stereotypically smug, self-righteous, hypocritical conservatives working on a "propaganda source" instead of an honestly self-critical attempt at a no-nonsense examination of the world. 
 
To be clear, I am neither conservative nor liberal (my views on foreign policy tend to agree more with 'hawks', my economics more technical than political, my social/civil views classically liberal, and my historical/teleological views loosely extropian). I agree there is some degree of 'liberal' (as nebulous as that word is) bias among Wikipedia's editing communities, but I also think '''this''' community's notion of 'balance' is ridiculous. As well, I believe it is politically ineffective beyond 1) preaching to the proverbial choir and 2) reinforcing stereotypes of conservatives - how 'they' think and view others. If those are truly the goals of Conservapedians, then good luck and happy editing. [[User:Zebu1911|Zebu1911]] 23:17, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

== Creation "myth" ==
Im only going to say this from a neutral standpoint all stories of creation are myth this is the definition of myth {{unsigned|Cal05000}}

: Wikipedia is redefining words to advance its [[liberal]] agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::What does wikipedia define myth as, and what is myth defined as? [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 18:02, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Wikipedia does specify that the definition of "myth" is just a traditional story with no implications of truth or un-truth. I can confirm definition this in several dictionaries. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 20:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The word "myth" plainly connotes falsity, which is what the [[liberals]] on Wikipedia want to connote about [[creation]]. See [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth Webster definition]. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

::::: Aschlafly you should sign your posts. And if you read the beginning of the article you can see that the author of the article goes out of their way to define myth. The article is about creation stories, including every major religion. Not just christianity. I fail to see your problem with this. But realizing no matter what I say you will never change your opinion, or for that matter admit you were wrong. So feel free to not comment back. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

You are both right. "Myth" does not imply truth or falsity ''when used in a scholarly sense''. The Merriam-Webster definition 1 (see Aschlafly's link) reflects this. But when used in an everyday sense, it implies something that is not true, as per Merriam-Webster definitions 2b and 3. Wikipedia uses the first definition as an excuse to tar creation accounts as unreliable, but contrary to your claim about "every major religion. Not just christianity", does not include atheism and apply the term to its origins account. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Great points, Philip. In sum, Wikipedia's [[liberal]] and [[atheistic]] bias is demonstrated by how it applies the term "myth" to [[creation]] but not to [[evolution]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:52, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: I completely agree that the word "myth" carries connotations of falsity, and for a while I was of the opinion that the title in question was not NPOV, but after reading the arguments on Wikipedia, there are several definitions of the word which do not define a myth as either true or false, which describe the topic in hand far more accurately than something like "story" or "belief". Here are some examples of the '''primary''' definitions from the first 4 dictionary websites I found:

::*''"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."'' ([http://www.dictionary.com])
::*''"an ancient story or set of stories, especially explaining in a literary way the early history of a group of people or about natural events and facts"'' ([http://dictionary.cambridge.org])
::*''"a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon"'' ([http://www.merriam-webster.com])
::*''"ancient story: a traditional story about heroes or supernatural beings, often attempting to explain the origins of natural phenomena or aspects of human behavior"'' ([http://encarta.msn.com])

::In my opinion, the definition of the word "myth" is perfectly inline with the definition of Creationism, while it doesn't describe recent scientific theories like the Big Bang and the theory of evolution. The fact that the article clearly explains that it is using the strictly academic definition of the word makes it an acceptable title, and I don't think a more vague, politically correct word is needed. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 22:58, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::: [[Wikipedia]] is a good home for you then. You selectively quote from the dictionary definitions about myth and then, once you settle on a misleading meaning, you apply it in a biased way against creation but not evolution. You've illustrated and embraced the bias at Wikipedia well. Enjoy it there. We don't allow such bias here on our content pages.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I did not selectively quote dictionary definitions, I clearly stated that I chose the '''primary''' definitions from the first 4 (and, in fact, only) dictionary websites that I looked at (typed "dictionary" into google and chose from the first page of results). I acknowledged that "myth" carries negative connotations, and that at first I felt that the title did need to be changed. However, I felt after consideration, that due to word (or at least the primary definition of the word) being far more descriptive of the topic at hand than other potential replacements, along with the definition of the word within the article itself, it was better to keep the title than to change it because of the connotations it carries. This is of course my opinion, and is based on my view of how negative the word "myth" is. Others are likely to have different perceptions, and thus disagree with me.

::::The other main definition of "myth" seems to be ''"false belief: a widely held but mistaken belief"'' (encarta). Both Evolution and Creationism could fall under this description, depending on your POV/bias. Evolution however, in my opinion, does not fall under the other definition, as it is in no way "traditional", "supernatural", "historical" or has anything to do with "deities", whereas Creationism does (if you disagree I would be happy to hear your points).

::::I do not support any form of bias in this context, and agree with Conservapedia that there is significant bias throughout Wikipedia that needs to be amended. I hope that I have cleared up my views on the matter. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 00:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: Evolution wasn't invented by Darwin. He merely popularised it by giving it a pseudo-scientific explanation. The general idea of evolution is ancient, so it ''does'' fit some of the definitions you provided (note that reference to a deity was not in all definitions, and not a requirement in others). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia obviously cant say it isnt a myth either so how you put it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:54, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Philip you make a good point, but you have one flaw in your logic. The purpose of an encyclopedia is the present factual information based on the official definitions. Yes, popular and actual definitions are often at odds, but encylopedias present the actual definition. I disagree that a evolutionist/atheistic view of creation should be added. The page is about religious creation myths, and it does include a link to the article on evolution. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 13:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not aware that anyone has decreed that encyclopedias can only use "official" definitions.
: If the page is about ''religious'' creation myths, then why exclude the "creation myth" of atheistic religions? This is part of the atheist agenda: Label everyone else's worldviews/beliefs as "religious", but their own as "non-religious" or "rational" or whatever, and label everyone else's beliefs about origins as "creation myths" but their own as "scientific". Such artificial self-serving distinctions are not accepted on Conservapedia. Granted, Wikipedia does define how it is using the term "myth" in that particular article, but, as pointed out, does not include the atheistic origins myth. Further, at the top of the page are links to "scientific" views, a non-so-subtle inference that the "creation myths" are not scientific.
: And the only link to evolution ''per se'' is buried within the "Hermeticism" section half way through the page.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:02, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

While that may be so Philip I think it prudent to mention that many links on this website either redirect to another conservapedia page, are missing altogether or are linked to a page that says nothing in regards to the intended point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: I'm sorry, but I have no idea how that relates to the discussion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you said the only link to evolution in wikipedia when discussing the 'creation myth' was buried ''per se'' (in what I gather) rather obscurely. I was pointing out that many CP links demonstrate this also, if not worse.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 08:23, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: My ''criticism'' was that Wikipedia treats creation but not evolution as a "myth". My reference to an evolution link was simply a reply to your claim that the Wikipedia article did link to evolution. It does, but not in any way that could be construed as including evolution as a "creation myth". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:50, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Has anyone else noticed the further evidence of systemic bias in the Wikipedia Creation myth page? "Some Jews and Christians believe that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Every other subsection starts without such a qualifier:
* "The Aztec narrative describing creation proceeds with..."
* "In the beginning, there was just water..." (Cherokee)
* "The god Izanagi and goddess Izanami churned the ocean..." (Shinto)
* "The Voluspa opens with the Norse account of the creation of the present universe :"
Wikipedia insists on qualifying every statement regarding Christianity to suggest that those who believe in the Bible, or in this case that Genesis is the Christian story of creation, are offshoots of the mainstream. [[User:Egd|Egd]] 10:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Right. The hostility and bias on Wikipedia against Christianity are undeniable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:33, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: Yes, I've seen that sort of thing before, although probably not that particular example. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:22, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Also wikipedia has a categories for alleged Christian mythology and Jewish mythology -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:23, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

I just removed a 'bias' example regarding the Wikipedia article "Creation myth" because it talks about myths from all sorts of religions and cultures. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:17, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Categorization ==

Would anyone object to an effort to categorize the examples in different sections, such as Wikipedia attacks on religion, Wikipedia pro-liberal bias, examples that have been corrected and so on? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:26, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

: That's OK, provided it does not dilute the entry or introduce [[placement bias]] by moving stronger and more recent points lower in the page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== #12: Ron Paul smear ==

As a huge Ron Paul supporter, #12 sent me to straight to wikipedia in hopes of setting things straight, only to find that the article clearly shows that the comments were not made by Ron Paul. I fail to see the smear here. -[[User:Crimson30|Crimson30]] 14:33, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why is the smear so extensive on Ron Paul's entry given that, as you say, he did not author the comments? When the entry is about a [[liberal]], Wikipedia does not smear the person in such a manner. Hence this illustrates Wikipedia's bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:: How is the entry in the Wikipedia article a smear? It's responsible of the article to mention the controversy over the newsletters given the widespread coverage it has in anti-Paul propaganda online, and the article clearly states that Ron Paul is not the source of those comments and that they are not his beliefs. If there was a Wikipedia article about you, and there was a widespread story on the internet that falsely attributed Holocaust denial remarks to you, would you think Wikipedia worse for noting this story and refuting it? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:42, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Wikipedia is like the National Enquirer, then, in simply repeating smears about people without any educational value.

::: But the reason the point is here, as I said, is because Wikipedia does NOT smear liberals as it smears conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: But it *does* have educational value - it informs people that Ron Paul did not write those things, does not believe those things and that he finds what was written morally reprehensible. It's not a smear, because it presents the facts of the matter. And if it's not a smear, the point has to be made with a different article. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 17:28, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: "Wandering", it obviously is a smear. If you can't admit that, then this discussion is a waste of time. Ron Paul's opponents used that information to attack and smear him. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: They cannot use that information to smear him, because the information directly indicates that it is not smear-worthy material. The information clearly shows that Ron Paul did not write and in fact repudiates the controversial content from the newsletters. I'm beginning to wonder if you've actually read that portion of the article word-for-word, instead of just skimming it. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:52, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

== Points #1, #4 ==

I do not see how the image of the minuteman statue is presented as "proof" (although the caption is admittedly quite poor). On the point of the two articles concerning religious terrorism, "body" seems somewhat of a misnomer, since the articles are not essays. Regardless, reference link 6 is broken. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:03, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Defamatory material in American Family Association article ==

Wikipedia's article for the group includes numerous defamatory assertions which are either unsupported or poorly supported (e.g. with biased references). For example, the article claims the AFA supports "the criminalization of homosexuality," yet neither source supports such a blanket assertion (one of the sources actually says the AFA supports criminalizing ''public displays'' of homosexuality). Another example, the article states, "The March 2005 issue of the AFA's Journal contained an article which insinuated that raising children as Jews would lead to criminal lifestyles, and that it required a conversion to Christianity in order to make them productive members of society," yet the article in question makes absolutely no such insinuation. Wikipedia also categorizes the article under "Homophobia" even though phobias are disorders requiring a clinical diagnosis to identify. Attempts to correct material within the article are met with vicious and unrelenting opposition by homosexual and pro-homosexual editors. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:03, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
:Check out the recent edit history. WP editor (who is gay, unsurprisingly enough) is reverting my properly rationalized edits for no good reason. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:12, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:: The Wikipedia entry does misrepresent what the [[American Family Association]] article says, probably in a misguided attempt to smear the [[American Family Association]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Family_Association&diff=216091906&oldid=216091846] Let's see how long Wikipedia persists in its misrepresentation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I have to admit that there was a show of bias on the part of WP editors, or to be more precise two of them. If you follow guidelines like I did and initiate discussion rather than just engaging in all out edit wars you will find that the greater community is more than willing to listen. Try doing that next time, the talk page is there for a reason. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 20:59, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: I don't see any improvement. Illustrating its bias, [[Wikipedia]] simply reverted or overwrote the corrections in order to continue to smear the [[American Family Association]]. The [[Wikipedia]] entry even resorts to smearing the [[American Family Association]] for something it did not even write in one of the widely read textbooks of all time. Contrast that with how [[Wikipedia]] does not criticize John Scopes and the [[ACLU]] for defending the [[racist]] textbook at issue in the [[Scopes trial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Look closer, if you have any problems with the current article perhaps you could list them here and we could see if we can try to fix them. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:07, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: It's essentially the same as when I (and Jinxmchue) complained. The Wikipedia entry is a complete hatchet job. No, I'm not going to waste all night on this. The [[anti-conservatives]] running [[Wikipedia]] will revert any corrections to this entry. This is a determined smear by Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:12, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Well the thing is Jinx didn't complain, he engaged in an edit war. Just list a couple of things here and we'll see if we can't get them changed. If they aren't then that's that, if they are then we can start working on other problems with the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:19, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Edit war. Mm-hmm. Yeah, no one else there was involved in any edit war. Nope. They can revert edits they don't like without any sort of attempt to address issues, get their friends involved to subvert the three revert rule, but they aren't ever accused of starting edit wars. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:29, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::I didn't say the others weren't also involved in an edit war, obviously you would need two sides to do it. However, if you observe what I did (discussed, rather than continually revert and get blocked for it) you will see that I achieved my goal (as stated on the article's talk page). Now, give me something else wrong with the article and we will see if we can change it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:31, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::If you want to see what I did, check the edit history for AFA's article over there. There's absolutely no legitimate reason for my edits being reverted. There's just a couple of AFA-hating gay editors who want the article to be a hit piece. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:32, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

<- Yes there were a couple of anti-AFA editors who chose to revert the article, and if you look closely they also got blocked for it (one has since left). If you did what I did and tried to initiate discussion on the article's talk page you would not have gotten blocked, and others would have come to your assistance, as they came to mine. The AFA article has also been reported to ANI/NPOV for further assessment of bias against the organisation. Now, if you or Andy would care to give me another problem with the article then we will see if we can get that changed too. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:36, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: We did. See the first and fifth paragraphs above. Those smears are still in the Wikipedia entry about the [[American Family Association]] despite the high-level review that you apparently initiated, and despite Wikipedia not smearing liberals like that. If AFA supported the [[homosexual agenda]] rather than opposing it, then you can be sure that Wikipedia would have a very different and favorable entry about it. So, the bottom line is clear: this is yet another example of bias at Wikipedia, and it's not likely to change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:28, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:I am making some corrections now. We will see if the one remaining gay editor who wants to control the page will leave them be. I doubt it, but then years of experience with such people have turned me into a cynic. Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:31, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
::My cynicism was well-founded. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Point #44 re: Association of American Physicians and Surgeons ==

The reader who submitted this comment claims that it was "guilt by association" to repeat "a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS."

However, the factual basis for associating AAPS with the John Birch Society is much stronger than a mere "newspaper claim". For example: in the early 1960's, the AAPS Board of Directors included Dr. Granville Knight (a JBS National Council member), Dr. Charles W. Pavey (a JBS member),Dr. James L. Doenges (a JBS endorser) and Dr. George J. Hess (a JBS member who was AAPS President in 1962).

Furthermore, AAPS annual conventions featured speakers and exhibitors which were recommended by the the JBS in its own literature. In fact, the exhibitors often were organizations that were created or led by JBS members, endorsers and sympathizers -- including, for example, Southern States Industrial Council, National Education Program, National Committee For Economic Freedom, and American Opinion magazine (the JBS magazine!). AAPS described these organizations as "freedom organizations". Speakers at AAPS conventions included prominent JBS members and sympathizers such as JBS National Council member Revilo P. Oliver.

Incidentally, senior FBI officials (including Director J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Division Chiefs, and Supervisors within its Domestic Intelligence Division) routinely referred to the JBS in FBI memos as "irrational", "extremist",
"irresponsible", "fanatics", and "lunatic fringe". They did not describe the JBS as a "freedom organization".{{unsigned|Ernie1241}}

: Your 40-year-old [[gossip]] is silly and unsupported. Communists, anarchists, criminals, etc., also belong to numerous organizations. Smearing through use of guilt-by-association is criticized by [[liberals]] and against official Wikipedia policy. So why this reliance on 40-year-old gossip against this organization? This selective smearing illustrates Wikipedia's bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: : REPLY TO ASCHLAFLY: Not sure why you describe what I presented as "gossip". The details concerning JBS member connections to AAPS come from AAPS publications. Is that "gossip"? The info I provided regarding comments made by top FBI officials originate in FBI internal memos---all of which I have in my possession. Is that "gossip"? You can certainly disagree with their judgments -- but why misrepresent and de-value the quality of the data as nothing more than "gossip"? {{unsigned|Ernie1241}}

::: You lack dates, sources or logic for your gossipy accusations. The accusations have no relevance today. Do you spread the same silly gossip about the Democratic Party, such as claiming that many KKK members were delegates at Democratic Party conventions a hundred years ago? No, Wikipedia only uses this silly smear campaign against conservative organizations. That's called bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

With respect to your larger point (i.e. unsavory people belong to all sorts of organizations) -- yes, that's true but you conveniently ignore the salient difference i.e. such individuals did not represent the official position of those organizations nor were they knowingly embraced by such organizations. In fact, if "Communists, anarchists, criminals, etc." were identified -- most organizations would expel them. BY CONTRAST, AAPS enthusiastically welcomed JBS members and even invited them to be speakers and exhibitors at AAPS functions!

== Reversion explained ==

The recent edits by [[User:Dnotice]] had an egregiously misspelled word, several inappropriate edits, and did not recognize that some Wikipedia improvements were after (and probably the result of) criticisms here. Some of the edits reverted had some value if presented properly. We welcome proper update of the points edited.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:"Egregiously misspelled"? "Inappropriate edits"? Which are you referring to? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:29, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Dnotice, you have this backwards. Please fix your own misspelling, and don't make as many potentially objectionable edits without discussing them here. OK?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The whole idea of a Wikipedia-style website is that if a mistake is noticed, e.g. spelling, then the next user amends that error, instead of removing all of the previous user's edits on that page. Anyway, you didn't answer my question, which parts of my edits are are you specifically referring to? If I know which are incorrect or "potentially objectionable" on this site, I can ensure that future edits don't fall into that category. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::As you've made amendments to my further edits, any chance of a response to my questions? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 05:49, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Dnotice, you have to try harder first. Sorry, I wish I had the time to correct your mistakes, but I don't. In addition to an egregious misspelling, your edit to the point about Conservapedia being supportive of YEC was improper as it does not properly reference the prior version of the Wikipedia entry that illustrated the bias, and does not note how Wikipedia changed its entry in response to criticism here. Unless you fix your edit yourself, I will probably revert it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:09, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Is Conservapedia supportive of YEC? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:12, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: StatsMan, please read the relevant points in the entry first before asking questions that distract from the issue at hand, and then stick to the issue of how Wikipedia falsely portrayed Conservapedia in order to try to smear it in front of the Wikipedia audience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:18, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::You didn't answer his question. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 07:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::My edit took a direct quote from the link that was already in place. Anyway, it's odd that you've now decided to keep in my effective re-instatement of your deletion of this point... [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 11:38, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, I'm hoping you'll fix your edit to reflect how Wikipedia changed its entry in response to criticism here. Will you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::How could I show that? Especially when you don't deny what I said about my edit reflecting the what the quote actually said. With all respect, the previous edit was guilty of [[Quote mining|quote-mining]] as the Wikipedia article (even at that particular time) had a lot more than what this site portrayed it did. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 07:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

==Criticism of Conservapedia "rare or non-existent"==
Your suggestion that criticism of Conseravpedia "are rare or non-existent" seems blind to the day-to-day reality of Conservapedia. Criticism of your articles here features loudly on many, many Talk pages, much of it vandalism, yes, but much of it also well founded, well reasoned and intelligent criticism. And this is not just criticism based on ideology - this is often criticism of factual inaccuracy and misleading information. I think it's only fair to point this out in the interest of Fair Balance. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:29, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

: You misunderstood what your quote refers to, and falsely stated that the quote applies to all criticism. Of course many people who do not like the truth are going to criticize the truth, but that is not what the quote refers to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:07, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Correct me if I'm confused, but were you not referring to the sentence in the WP article which states "The site has come upon much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies and bias"? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:10, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Right, but there are few or no criticisms of Conservapedia for "factual inaccuracies." The citation by Wikipedia for its claim is to a New York Times article that actually criticizes Wikipedia for harping on such a claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:02, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

==Belfast Agreement==
Although both 'Belfast Agreement' and 'Good Friday Agreement' are used almost interchangeably, it has become common for Irish and UK people to refer to this agreement as 'Belfast Agreement'. Some references from major Irish news sources are listed here - [http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0527/breaking59.html], [http://www.rte.ie/news/1999/0408/north.html], [http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/dissecting-north-agreement--for-all-its-worth-363083.html]. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:27, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:But it is better known as "Good Friday Agreement" elsewhere. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:28, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I am British and would say that use of 'the Good Friday Agreement' is far more common, in Great Britain at any rate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:30, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Where is the 'elsewhere' you refer to WilliamH? Even the Northern Ireland Office refers to it as both [http://www.nio.gov.uk/the-agreement]. I am Irish and would say 'Belfast Agreement' is much more commonly used on our island. I'm mostly curious to know why Wikipedia's use of one term over the other is considered 'bias' here? It reeks of grasping at straws, as it's perfectly appropriate to use either term. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:47, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::'Elsewhere' as in everywhere else outside Ireland or the UK. (I might have forgotten a few places or two, but the point stands.) [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 20:12, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, I've removed the reference from the article, because while facts usually contain a 'liberal bias', I don't believe they're geographically biased. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 21:25, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Google shows that uses of "Good Friday Agreement" outnumber "Belfast Agreement" '''by more than a 3:1 ratio.''' It's irrelevant that Ireland newspapers prefer "Belfast Agreement" because Wikipedia does not ordinarily defer to an Irish point-of-view!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The popularity of a term "on Google" is simply not a metric on which to base an encyclopedia - if you go down the road of determining 'fact' based on Google cites, you're in deep trouble. The simple fact is, to those for whom the Agreement matters, both terms are interchangeable, and in fact Belfast Agreement is probably more commonly used. Finally, to use the choice of one term over the other as implying 'bias in Wikipeida' is to invent controversy where there is none, and in itself, biased - in this case, against Wikipedia, the editors of which can fairly choose to use whichever term they want. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: An illustration of bias is how decisions that could go one way or the other (i.e., "interchangeable) are, in fact, always decided one way. In Wikipedia's case, that bias is against religion. Wikipedia censors religious references every time it can, and insisting on the unfamiliar "Belfast Agreement" rather that the more popular "Good Friday Agreement" is merely one of many examples. Alone it may not be significant, but with numerous other examples it reinforces the existence of the bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:38, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: You are guilty of trying to foist a conspiracy theory into on an 'encyclopedia' article. Have you considered that those who would be most knowledgeable about the Belfast Agreement might, in fact, be from Ireland? And that therefore the Wikipedia articles may well be written by Irish editors? And that they may simply be using the term that is most familiar to them? And that the choice to not use the term containing a religious holiday reflects no "conspiracy against religion" as you have invented? Not everyone in the world is American, you know - in fact, Americans barely make up 5% of the world's population. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:46, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: Maybe there are more non-Americans in the world than Americans, but there definitely are more Americans in Wikipedia than Irishmen (plus, all the other english-speaking nationalities that don't call it 'Belfast Agreement') so bias is the most plausible explanation. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 23:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: I take it you are certain that the proportion of Irish editors on the Wikipedia article is no higher than on, for example, an article about Alabama? [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 00:00, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::: Some protestant groups in Northern Ireland do not celebrate Good Friday, preferring to observe the crucifixion on Wednesday, so the neutral term 'Belfast Agreement' gained favour in diplomatic circles in order to avoid suggestions of anti-protestant bias. [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 23:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: Exactly, Jalapeno. Thank you for pointing out the political sensitivities that those of us on this island take for granted, and foreigners are clueless about. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:58, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Walter, you protest far too much, and now you have the fringe below even siding with you. Wikipedia editors are predominantly American and British, far more than Irish.

:::::::::::::: By more than a 3:1 margin the term "Good Friday Agreement" is used by the public. The fact that some Irish newspapers, which are themselves more liberal than the Irish public, use the term "Belfast Agreement" is an awfully weak rationale. There is no sign that the decision at Wikipedia was made by Irishmen. Odds are that this decision was made by the typically liberal editors there who seek to censor Christian. Many other points in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] illustrate the same bias at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::WP's bias is shown by it using the document's official name? (See WaltherPPK's link to the Northern Ireland Office) [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 19:03, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: ASchlafly, I protest because I know I am right and that you are wrong. First, I note you continue to assert the Google-sourced 3:1 ratio - except you now claim it's "the public". If Google is equal to "the public", I'll be damned. Please don't try and pull the wool over people's eyes - the world exists beyond the confines of Google, you know. Secondly, you clearly know ''nothing'' about the Irish media landscape (and, in fairness, I wouldn't expect you to), and you obviously haven't read any of my supporting references. Two are from newspapers - one being slightly left-of-centre (Irish Times), and one being right-of-centre (Independent). The third reference was a TV channel. They represent the non-tabloid news sources in the country. The other non-tabloid newspaper is to the right of these, and is only published on Sundays. Given your lack of knowledge of the Irish media scene, how you "know" that Irish newspapers are more liberal than the Irish public, I'd be interested to know. Are you an expert on every country in the world? Finally, you have obviously not looked at the Northern Ireland Office (of the UK Government) document on the Agreement (which I referenced above), which states "The Agreement (also known as the Good Friday Agreement or Belfast Agreement) was reached in Belfast on Friday, April 10 1998". Re-read Jalapeno's comments above as to the reason WHY politicans and public figures in Ireland PREFER the term 'Belfast Agreement to Good Friday Agreement. While your ignorance of the world may be appealing to an uneducated Amero-centric reader base, rest assured those of us from other nations will not lie down and let YOU tell US how we name our institutions, offices, or policy. Good day to you Sir. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:19, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Walter, your ranting is getting out of control. I do know quite a bit about the Irish press, Ireland, and Wikipedia. In fact, I've been quoted in the past in the Irish newspapers. Yes, they are more liberal than the Irish public, and Irishmen have relatively little influence at Wikipedia. The British and American influence, by liberals, is far stronger. It's absurd, frankly, for you to claim that the naming of the Agreement is due to the position of the Irish press.

::::::::::::::::: Want to rely on the Northern Ireland Office? Fine. It provides the "Good Friday Agreement" as the first choice, even though alphabetically it would come second. Use it and please stop pretending that the atheists at Wikipedia lack bias. Read the scores of other examples of the same [[Bias in Wikipedia]] and end your [[liberal denial]]. Godspeed. I expect you will insist on [[last wordism]] now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:40, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: ASchlafly, Where did I claim "that the naming of the Agreement is due to the position of the Irish press"? We're trying to make you understand the sensitivities of Northern Irish politics - re-read Japaleno's comment above please as to why "Belfast Agreement" is actually the '''preferred''' term - you should be especially sensitive to the fact that the reason it's ''not'' named "Good Friday Agreement" is '''for''' religious reasons. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 20:03, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

===References===
Here's [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=361&docID=219&COMMAND=PRINTER the document itself], which shows that ''technically'', its title is '''The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement'''. (''All other names are therefore colloquial terms''). Here are some references from official Irish government websites showing many different terms used for the Agreement: [http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?locID=135&docID=507], [http://www.citizensinformation.ie/References/legislative/legislative-background-to-irish-citizenship], [http://ombudsman.gov.ie/en/Legislation/TheOmbudsmanAct1980/], [http://www.president.ie/index.php?section=5&speech=176&lang=eng], or [http://www.ga.etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=MAY102655 this one, wherein it is referred to as "The Belfast Agreement of Good Friday"]. A brief scan of any of these will show you that any term is equally usable, and that 'Good Friday Agreement' is simply one of them. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 20:50, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Could someone move [[Camp David Accords]] to [[Constitution Day Agreement]] or [[Saint Lambert Agreement]]? It just happens that September 17th (the day the accord was signed) is a a political holiday in North America and it should be named accordingly. Alternatively, September 17th is also the feast of Saint Lambert and it is disappointing that people are not recognizing the religious significance of the date and instead using the more widely known, secular, place name. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:12, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:Does this mean that CP has an anti-Christian and/or anti-American bias? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 18:32, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
----
Google may not be the same as the public, but it's likely to be fairly close, and is about the best idea of public usage that we have readily available. So Andy's correct point that the term "Good Friday Agreement" is more common that "Belfast Agreement" holds up, pending better evidence to the contrary.

However, I don't think it's a good entry to have in the list, unless we have some evidence of Wikipedia using the Belfast name for (anti-)religious reasons. That may be a plausible explanation (Wikipedia does tend to be anti-Christian), but in this case using the Good Friday name hardly advances Christianity at all, so Wikipedia would have little motive to change it on that basis. So although the argument ''may'' be correct, it would be better to not use this example and stick with just having stronger examples.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:28, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:Philip, a few points. 1) The specific words written by ASchlafly which I objected to and removed from the article described the term "Belfast Agreement" as "ambiguous and unfamiliar", not 'less popular'. The copious evidence I have provided has shown that the term is neither officially nor colloquially considered "ambiguous and unfamiliar", but is in regular, everyday use in the community where it is most often discussed by both of the Governments concerned and amongst the press and general public; 2) Not only that, but others have explained that there is actually an underlying reason why, for obvious reasons of religious sensitivity to all communities, religious terms are generally ''avoided'' in political debate in Northern Ireland; 3) It seems Mr.Schlafly's Amero-centric view of the world and his ignorance of Irish affairs led him to presume guilt on behalf of the Wikipedia editors where there was none; 4) Finally, I note that the Wikipedia article on the Agreement '''very clearly''' lists the term 'Good Friday Agreement' as "alternatively and widely known" in the opening sentence of their article, and the term Good Friday Agreement redirects to the article as one would expect [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_Agreement]. In short, not only was the assumption wrong, the facts were wrong, and the case didn't even exist. I notice you too are sometimes upset when foreigners presume to know about Antipodean affairs, so I thank you for your analysis of this mistaken example. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 12:09, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
:: 1) I agree. I was responding to comments on this page, not to the wording in the article.
:: 2) This seems to be supporting that Wikipedia's choice of label ''was'' chosen for religious reasons.
:: 3) I can't see what US-centricity has to do with this particular case.
:: 4) I can't see that this is any sort of rebuttal. The fact is that Wikipedia has chosen to not use (as the article title) the official name of the agreement, but what appears to be the lesser-used of the two most-commonly-used unofficial titles. And by the way, I Googled the two unofficial names on all English-language pages, on .au pages, and on .uk pages, and in all three cases, the Good Friday name was the most popular by a significant margin. So it's not as though one is more popular in American and the other in Britain, for example. So although it's unknown why Wikipedia has gone for the lesser-used title, I don't think that it's safe to jump to the conclusion that it's for anti-Christian reasons, although neither should that reason be ruled out.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Walther, Wikipedia has chosen the less popular, but more secular, name. As Philip observes, you now seem to be saying that Wikipedia did do this for religious reasons after all. Maybe what is needed is for Wikipedia to explain its decision. Perhaps the edit history can be checked, and the person responsible can be asked. I'm confident that Irish newspapers had nothing to do with the decision.

::: There may even be a formal Wikipedia policy favoring secular names rather than religious ones. Guess what? I just typed in "Saint Valentine's Day," and Wikipedia redirects me to the secular form, "Valentine's Day." I could repeat that exercise with other examples and I'm confident the same pro-secular result would be obtained.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:24, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: The edit history shows that the Wikipedia article was started in 2001 as 'Belfast Agreement'. There was a proposal to move the article to 'Good Friday Agreement' in 2005 that failed due to lack of consensus. There is a long and ignoble history of naming disputes in Northern Ireland (e.g. [[Londonderry#Nomenclature]]) and those of us who are familiar with this part of the world know will appreciate that if there is a workable neutral term available then it's almost always best to stick to that rather than risk stirring up sectarian passions. Of course Conservapedia, as an explicitly pro-US site, is free to ignore political subtleties in other parts of the world. Interestingly Conservapedia has ''separate'' articles on [[Belfast Agreement]] and [[Good Friday Agreement]] -- what should we make of that! [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Oh no, we have entries for each! :-) Thanks for pointing that out. What do you suggest we do about it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:32, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::I'm not really part of this argument, but I suggest they be merged, under whatever name you prefer, with the other redirecting to it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 09:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Given the far greater usage, familiarity and descriptiveness of the term "Good Friday Agreement," I think that is the obvious choice. Wouldn't you agree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:41, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm not sure that "Good Friday Agreement" is more descriptive, but I agree that it appears to be more common. However, rather than take sides on this, why not go with the ''official'' title given above (assuming that's correct; I haven't checked it): "The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement". Both the other terms can be redirects to that. I'm not suggesting this solely to avoid taking sides (I'm happy to take sides where it's warranted), but when there is an official title and two unofficial titles, why not go with the official title? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Your suggestion is a good one, assuming that really is the official name. Let's see what others have to say here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:53, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Please create the new article as Philip suggested. It is really the only ''correct'' way to title the article, and you can finally claim to have an article that is ''more correctly named'' than Wikipedia. It is the official name for the Agreement, as evidenced by [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/NIPeaceAgreement.pdf this, the official Irish Government PDF version] of the document. All other names are colloquial terms and may be redirects to it. Thank you for finally understanding my position. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: OK, but do you agree that "Saint Valentine's Day" is the correct name for that entry and that Wikipedia is biased in claiming otherwise?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:13, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::: Google shows that uses of "Valentine's Day" outnumber "Saint Valentine's Day" by '''more than a 235:1 ratio''', so I think the answer is obviously not, no. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:45, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I feel like Charlie Brown after Lucy invited him to kick the football, but then pulled the ball away at the last minute (using incorrect data as well - try "St. Valentine's Day" too). Walther, you just refused to apply your reasoning to an analogous situation, and instead insisted on censoring the religious name a second time. To say your approach just lost credibility would be an understatement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:24, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ASchlafly, I am using the methodology you recommended [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=465265 in your comment above] - using Google hits to determine 'truth'. As to spellings and typos, it makes little difference - "St.Valentine's Day"=563,000 hits and "Saint Valentine's Day"=176,000, a total of 739,000 hits. "Valentine's Day"=41,500,000 hits, and "Valentines Day"=19,600,000 hits, or a total of 61 million hits, giving a ratio of 82:1 in favour of the non-religious form. Thus, by your suggested methodology as above, all articles regarding the 14th Feb should be retitled "Valentine's Day", and the religious forms should be redirects. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 13:15, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: But you already emphatically rejected that methodology and, besides, "St. Valentine's Day" is unquestionably the historically correct name. "Belfast Agreement" has no historical claim to accuracy. While I was willing to compromise, you were not: you are adamant that the non-religious name be chosen in both circumstances, for contradictory reasons.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::So let me get this right: Your methodology is using Google rankings and hits to decide whether or not to use a certain name for an article on Conservapedia. First of all, you have a go at [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] for not using your methodology and then, after using it and displaying the results, you criticize him even more for doing so? Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't... [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:50, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Rather than creating a new article, one of the existing articles should be renamed. Probably the Good Friday Agreement one, given that it was started first. Of course only a sysop can do that, but there's enough of us around. Are we agreed on that course of action? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia "bias" ==

When Wikipedia says that "Obama entered Harvard Law School in fall 1988 and at the end of his first year was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a writing competition", it's because it's [http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/?page=full sourced.] The fact that [[User:ASchlafly|you]] disagree doesn't constitute bias.{{unsigned|Tennant}}

: Surely you don't suggest that merely citing a (liberal) source makes something true and unbiased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:I think the Wikipedia sourcing is somewhat poor, but until there's evidence that he was chosen due to the quota, this "example of bias" should definitely be removed. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Ah yes, because no non-anglo-saxon person ever has good grades. That sounds a lot like racism on Mr. Schlafly's part. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:37, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::To my knowledge, the policy at Wikipedia is that everything must be correctly sourced - i.e., it's enough if the source is reputable, and the entry is relevant. It doesn't matter if the source is liberal, conservative, anarchist, fascist, monarchist, socialist, regionalist, communist, christian, buddhist, atheist, nationalist, chauvinist, et cetera. Thank you. --[[User:Tennant|Tennant]] 17:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, the problem with your entry is that if you follow that pattern, then you should insert each and every liberal quote on Wikipedia, from ''every'' article. '''--[[User:Tennant|Tennant]] 18:28, 17 June 2008 (EDT)'''

:::More to the point there is nothing in the reference we supply here to indicate that Obama was selected on the basis of his race. Does Conservapedia want to have a ''lower'' standard of fact checking than Wikipedia? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:48, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Isn't this article biased as well?==
Sorry-I'm new-but isn't this article biased by saying that Wikipedia is biased? This is sort of like a personal account, depending on personal judgement. And plus this sounds like publically directing a criticism against Wikiepdia. PLus I think some of the stuff has already been changed or reverted--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 17:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:How does claiming that something is biased constitute bias? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:14, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia includes phony quote for over three years ==

The phony quote in question is as follows:
<blockquote>
The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'
</blockquote>
This appeared on at least three pages. Here is how the pages appeared recently before I attempted to remove the quote:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phillip_E._Johnson&oldid=219686529#Criticisms Phillip E. Johnson] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teach_the_Controversy&oldid=219162996#The_Discovery_Institute Teach the Controversy] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&oldid=215173365#Origins_of_the_movement_and_strategy Wedge strategy]

And here's where the quote was added for each page:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phillip_E._Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=12617922 Phillip E. Johnson - April 21, 2005] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teach_the_Controversy&diff=prev&oldid=12219123 Teach the Controversy - April 12, 2005] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=15250578 Wedge strategy - June 15, 2005]

There's absolutely no indication that this is anything other than a direct quote. I found that the quote was completely bogus [http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/post-4.html here] and [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson here]. According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons] policy, such false material should be removed immediately and without discussion.

This removal didn't sit well with the anti-ID crowd, however, and I came under vicious assault, particularly from one editor. I ultimately prevailed, and though the quote was not removed, it was moved and clarified as being a paraphrase. All the accusations made against me were found to be without merit, but the person making them continues to make them. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:36, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Obama's selection as editor==
This article states as if it were a fact that Obama was chosen for this position on the basis of his race. However the references don't say that - they do say that a person ''might'' be selected on the basis of affirmative action, but there is nothing to indicate that Obama's selection was on this basis. We need to fix this. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:46, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Michael Moore==
"the lying, deceitful films of Michael Moore". What, are we deliberately trying not to get taken seriously here? How can we go around accusing other people of bias and then expressing what is clearly someone's opinion as if it were fact? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 14:04, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it's pretty much a proven fact that Moore deceptively edits his films. Two examples in particular are his acquisition of a gun at a bank and his manipulation of statements made by Charlton Heston. Those are just two out of many that immediately come to mind. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:07, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:It's bias to push this point up front. We don't describe Richard Nixon as "liar and felon" every time we talk about him. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:18, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Analysis of Claims ==

I am One For Logic (also spelled oneforlogic or Oneforlogic), a regular user and editor of Wikipedia for several years. I began reading some articles on Conservapedia a few weeks ago. This is an interesting project. I will readily admit that the quality of writing and sourcing of articles in Wikipedia is not always the highest, so in the spirit of supporting well-intentioned dissent (which is what I’m assuming this is; let me know now if I’m wrong) I’m going to check on the claims on this page and explain what I find. If I conclude that any of these claims are valid, I will discuss and attempt to edit the relevant Wikipedia articles myself. I expect many of you will want to comment on this effort; please do so in the next section. I welcome your input. Signed [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 15:01, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Current Issue 1: SDI'''

Wow, you guys are good at this. Slow down on the new claims a little so I can keep up. I'll study the SDI article later. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 19:16, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

'''Current Issue 2: Controversy Sections'''

The articles provided as examples are definitely organized differently. If any Conservapedia editor is sufficiently knowledgeable about Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, or Jane Fonda and would like to take the time to reorganize the material in the Wikipedia articles, go for it. I'm afraid I don't know enough about any of them and don't have enough free time to reorganize the articles myself. I also don't think this is really a case of serious systematic bias; I'd need to see more examples before I'd be convinced. It may also be relevant to note that Wikipedia guidelines discourage use of "Controversy" sections, and that those sections in both the Limbaugh and Malkin articles had been flagged to be reorganized or otherwise improved. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 21:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

: You describe a futile exercise, as many of us here have tried to edit out some of the liberal bias in Wikipedia. The mob there simply reinstates the bias and even seems to enjoy doing so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:51, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure you've been studying this longer than I have, but I have not yet encountered this angry liberal mob you describe. I have, just like all of you, had some of my edits falsely described as vandalism or removed without reason, but I have always discussed any changes to my work that seemed inappropriate and have often gotten useful feedback. Most of the people that care about an article enough to quickly revert edits they find disagreeable seem, in my experience, willing to discuss those edits. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 19:09, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

'''Issue 3: GA status of Wikipedia's Conservapedia article

I would not have nominated this article to be listed as a good article. You were correct that the new cite on that statement did not ''explicitly'' state that Conservapedia contains factual errors. I have since revised the statement to more closely reflect what the article does say, which is still harshly critical of Conservapedia.

Update: I've been going back and forth on this with a few other editors. Most of the other editors agree that we need very explicit sources to claim that Conservapedia has factual errors. I am now convinced that we have three, and I have attached all of them to the 'factual errors' claim in the introduction. I still don't think the first cite on that claim supports it, but the editor that insists on including it hasn't responded to my discussion thread for a couple days. I do now believe that the claim is sufficiently verified. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 19:09, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

: "Oneforlogic", you lack logic here and show your own bias. The "factual errors" claim is an obvious smear and the citations both utterly fail to support the claim and are absurdly biased themselves. You seem to think it's OK to cite a heavily biased source to justify a smear. It isn't, obviously. Conservapedia has no more "factual errors" than any other wiki. If you persist in asserting this harmful smear, then I'm unlikely to bother reviewing any of your other arguments further. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

"Both" citations? Which ones were you looking at? Both occurrences of the factual inacuracy claim now have 4 citations: one (#8, the Guardian article) that I believe does not directly address factual errors but is favored by another editor (and does mention that liberals engage in factual relativism as often as conservatives, which I consider generally true), and three that, while they address other issues and are obviously not supportive of Conservapedia, do directly discuss factual issues. I'm certainly not arguing in any way that Wikipedia is error-free, or even particularly more accurate than Conservapedia; I'm looking specifically at the claim made by previous editors to Wikipedia's article on Conservapedia that Conservapedia has factual errors. I currently consider this a sufficiently verified claim.

If there must be an agenda or conspiracy behind my actions here, it is this: I want to improve Wikipedia in whatever small ways I can as an individual editor, and I want to come to understand the conflict between conservatives and liberals better. I don't consider myself either, and you'd find that my political inclinations really don't line up consistently with either general ideology. If you're interested in any particular examples, let me know and I can post a few on my user page here. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 21:15, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

: Sir, you call yourself "Oneforlogic", but you haven't even quoted my concise reply in a logical matter. Read it again, and then read your quote of "'both' citations." Hopefully you can see yourself the flaw in your analysis of my straightforward reply.

: The broader point is this: Wikipedia's biased smear of Conservapedia is unsupported by the citations and contrary to logic, yet you now defend it primarily because another editor at Wikipedia wants it to stay. Alas, that is the essence of liberal bias on Wikipedia. Wikipedia bias is not a conspiracy; it's bullying by liberals until others simply give in because they don't care to oppose it. Needless to say, Conservapedia editors are cut from a different cloth: we do care about the truth and we don't allow here the smears, half-truths, and gossip that plague Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:06, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

:: If I may ask, the page on Barack Obama starts off with the claim that he wasn't born in Hawaii (http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert is a scan of his birth certificate), claims that he is islamic and makes use of a number of smears, half truths, and repeating of gossip. If it is as important as you say that these things are not allowed on Conservapedia, who should we see about getting the page unlocked and rewritten in an honest and truthful manner? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 22:33, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

::: "Rutm", your comment is off-topic because the issue here is Wikipedia bias and Conservapedia accuracy. Our entry about Obama is accurate and your comment is misleading in claiming that our Obama entry is otherwise. Proper questions have been raised by an objective Israeli news service about the authenticity and type of Obama's birth certificate (why is the certificate number blotted out, for example, which would reflect the time the certificate was issued?). Also, "Rutm", as I've indicated before, your insulting name is getting tiresome. Request a change to your real first name and last initial or your account will be blocked, and you can push your liberal POV on Wikipedia instead.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Excuse me for being unable to reply more quickly, Aschafly, as someone seems to have blocked my normal account. So you meant “both” as in “the citations fail to meet both objectives” instead of “both citations fail to meet the objectives”. You know as well as I do that these are equally valid interpretations. My apologies for being such a liberal idiot that I picked the wrong one.

::::So, to be clear, instead of having an honest and open discussion of the other editor’s views and thoughts on his work, you would have me arbitrarily remove it without discussing it? That is completely contrary to the purpose of a wiki-based project. The wiki format only really works if people collaborate and discuss their differences, openly and publicly. You’ve made it clear that you are not comfortable with any working conditions in which you exercise less than complete control. I even offered to defend ''your side'' in this issue and you still brand me as your enemy by locking out my account.

::::I really did hope to learn about conservatives and their conflicts with liberals here. And, in a way, I guess I still did. I already knew that radical liberals could be hostile and repressive toward people with views they disagree with, now I know that radical conservatives are just as bad. It’s kind of ironic that in that way, at least, the two extremes are exactly alike. Signed, [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]], aka [[User:OneAgainstRepression|OneAgainstRepression]] 13:42, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Ok, another idea, since you probably still need convincing on my good intentions, let's talk about an interesting caveat in Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Contrary to popular opinion, WP:NPOV indicates that all majority or large minority views on an issue should be presented in the relevant article, preferably in proportion to their level of support. It does not state that only neutral views should be presented. I imagine you had already read such policies carefully, but it's good to remember for context. So, to prove my goodwill, do you know of a source that supports Conservapedia's factual accuracy? If you do, post a link on my talk page and I will add mention of it to the Wikipedia article and defend the source if/when it is removed. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 22:02, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

'''Issue 4: Liberal Criticism'''

I believe that any liberal bias present in Wikipedia is far less systematic than Conservapedia admins would have us believe, but I’m not going to go read every Wikipedia article to try to evaluate such a general claim. More specifically, the article on Debbie Riddle is fairly short, so the ‘free education comes from Russia’ quote will easily dominate the article until it is expanded. I highly doubt that any Wikipedia editor would object to more information on her accomplishments being added. Chuck Schumer’s article does indeed speak favorably of him at several points; there is a healthy discussion of the article’s neutrality in the discussion page. I’ll look for sources critical of the senator and add them to that discussion soon. Of course, any and all Conservapedia users are welcome to do the same.

'''Issue 5: Obama’s selection as an editor on the Harvard Law Review'''

Your own source makes this issue clear; in 1982, the Review adopted a policy that allowed editors to consider race while selecting new editors but did not provide for specific racial quotas. This source does discuss a short-lived quota-like policy, created in 1981, that was quickly replaced by the much less specific 1982 racial consideration policy. It cannot be clearly established how much this policy contributed to Obama’s selection as an editor, and as the Wikipedia article in question does not and should not focus on the specific policies of the Review, it seems acceptable to me that this article does not highlight this policy.

'''Issue 6: Censorship'''

The Wikipedia article on censorship does need to be expanded by an expert. I am not familiar with any specific cases of prayer, pro-life advertisements, or conservative newspapers being successfully censored, but I know that attempts to censor these things are made and they should be mentioned in the article. Let me know if any of you know of good sources of more detailed information on this kind of censorship. However, the article does discuss the issue of censoring discussion of creationism in public schools. The article indicates that many religious groups feel that not being allowed to teach creationism is censorship; it goes on to reference two court cases that established, first, that teaching creationism is equivalent to promoting the Christian faith and is illegal in public schools, and second, that intelligent design is a form of creationism. Regardless of your opinion on these issues, the Wikipedia article does cite and explain (in separate articles) the relevant court cases, which seems to me to be a completely legitimate way to discuss censorship of intelligent design.

'''Issue 7: Smearing Conservapedia'''

Wikipedia’s article on Conservapedia appears to have been discussed and improved a lot in recent months, and I would consider the current version ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=221432211 13:49, 24 June 2008]) to be at least decently written and sourced. Wikipedia’s article no longer cites that particular New York Times source. There are, indeed, a great many sources that criticize Conservapedia as biased or just plain humorous, and I have not yet found any sources of serious support for Conservapedia. If any of you know of such a source, it may be worth adding to Wikipedia’s article. You may be technically correct that criticisms of Conservapedia’s factual accuracy, specifically, are rare, but that would only be because so many of the critical articles out there just skip straight to denouncing Conservapedia as a joke and don’t really seriously analyze it. Whether this is fair and proper or not is a separate debate. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 10:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Issue 8: Homosexual Agenda'''

The Wikipedia article on Robert Maplethorpe does mention criticism of his “sexually-charged photographs of black men” and the “racial undertones of [his] imagery”; this article could benefit from being expanded generally, and a reference to the biographer cited here could be a useful addition. The Wikipedia article on the American Family Association’s section on the group’s anti-Semitism now has many citations, most of which seem to legitimately support their claims. It is possible that some of these are recent additions.

Regarding the alleged “homosexual agenda” in general: I believe that both sides are handling this issue badly. The anger and indignation on both sides become harder and harder to calm as the conflict goes on. There are always moderate solutions to be found if both sides are willing to look for them and negotiate with each other. Being "anti-gay" and "anti-Christian" are both pointless positions; the average viewpoint of society will, inevitably, end up somewhere between the extremes.

I'll continue to add more as I have time to do so.

== Reactions ==

I look forward to your feedback. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 15:02, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== There were some notable incidents in the media ==

One was the SlimVirgin/Linda Mack stuff. A lot of press. Then there was the Gary Weiss/Mantanmoreland socking that for years he got away with using lots of sock puppets to spin biases in favor of illegal activity and anyone who tried to stop him was banned. This was in the media a lot, but not as much as the Linda Mack spy stuff. Then there was the Harsbara Fellowships, a group that hired people to insert biases into the encyclopedia and was led by one of their top administrators, Jayjg, though this doesn't have as much news article as the other two. Anyone else familiar with these? They are well known. I don't have any news articles right offhand, but could dig some up. It would help if others were familiar with this, too. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 15:14, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I forgot, Rachel Marsden, there were some stuff about this in one online newspaper. She had an affair with Jimbo Wales and so he let her have her way in her biography. Then when news about this got out, Jimbo broke up with her on-wiki, instead of telling her in person and she found out indirectly. So she then sold Jimbo's clothes he left at her apartment on ebay. One shirt even had a peculiar white stain on it. I forgot if Jimbo Wales also is still married, but I think he is. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 15:17, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
: This article is ''examples of bias'' in Wikipedia. I think you want the [[Wikipedia]] article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:21, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Six times==
I'm sorry, but this is funny. One of the accusations of bias is that Wikipedia states "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." However further down the ''same page'' I find "twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative". That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.".

The latter calculation is of such astonishing naivity, and so laughable in it's lack of rigor, that it is totally unsurprising that Wikipedia ridicules it. If we allow statements like this we deserve to be the object of derision. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Aschlafly==
Hi Aschlafly. I notice you just undid some changes I made to this page to reflect a) a logical inconsistency and b) something that was no longer true of Wikipedia. Would you like to explain what the problem was with my edits? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:53, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Barak Obama==
I removed some stuff about Barak Obama being selected as Harvard Law Editor on racial grounds. There was no reference to back it up, so it is not verifiable according to the Conservapedia commandments. The only reference described the affirmative action system of selection, but did not say that Obama benefitted from it (the description makes it clear that only about 20% of people selected are on the basis of affirmative action). [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 09:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Title of the article==
I was reading the manual of style, and it says "Titles should be in lowercase except for proper nouns". Shouldn't "bias" be lowercased? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== "Expelled" the only WP movie article which includes the phrase "nominal dollars" ==

Parenthetical statement in the second sentence of the second paragraph [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed here]. I Googled "nominal dollars" for WP articles [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=frT&q=%22nominal+dollars%22+site:wikipedia.org&start=0&sa=N&filter=0 here] and found that the only movie that shows up is ''Expelled''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed#.22In_nominal_dollars.3F.22 My complaint] against the use of the phrase has been met with lackluster defenses. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:30, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:So I went ahead and added the same phrase into the top 5 documentary films' articles on WP just to see what would happen. Two of the edits remain untouched. Two have been relegated to the status of being turned into bottom-of-the-page reference note. The last one resulted in a disagreement between other editors whether or not the phrase could be applied to such a new movie (''An Inconvenient Truth''), with the deletion of the phrase winning out so far. Let the record show that ''Expelled'' is newer than ''An Inconvenient Truth''. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:54, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

== Wikidrama due to anti-ID bias ==

A request for arbitration regarding the behavior of an anti-ID editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin here], which resulted in his threat to leave, his leaving and then his immediate return and the other anti-ID editor named leaving. In fact, lots of the anti-ID editors are involved. I believe it's all an extension of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design this]. As long as ID is treated as it is on Wikipedia, this will continue to be a perfect storm of contempt, bias and controversy. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 02:25, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==Should out-n-out fraud be considered bias in Wikipedia?==

Or maybe just to common. That story of the fired WP editor, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257340,00.html , Fox News, Wikipedia Editor Out After False Credentials Revealed, March 8, 2007</ref> --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:20, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

:Kind of old. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:40, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

== WP "Quote-mining" article nothing more than an anti-Creationism hit piece ==

Check it out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining here]. Also see the discussion page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quote_mining here]. Lots of claims of this supposedly being a "well-documented" practice among Creationists, but little if any evidence of that is provided. Try to edit the article to reflect this fact and the evolutionist cabal is quick to revert it under false pretenses. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:54, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

== Username "ChristianityMeansFreedom" judged to be "profane, disruptive, or otherwise inappropriate" ==

Holy cow! I wouldn't have believed it without seeing it for my own eyes.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianityMeansFreedom Block message on user page]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=223450235#Disruptive_editor_User:ChristianityMeansFreedom Admin noticeboard history]

The guy's edits weren't even that horrible. Certainly not vandalism. They might have taken some time to discuss the edits with the user, but they judged the user name to be offensive. Right. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:10, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:That user was blocked for his provocatively anti-semitic edits, not his name. Perhaps he should have stuck to posting his right wing garbage over on the [[Stormfront]] forums. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|שועל]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:19, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::But that's not the reason given for blocking him. And I looked at his edits. I saw nothing that was obviously anti-Semitic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:30, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::It says in very clear letters: '''"This account has been blocked indefinitely because it has become apparent that the account is only being used for vandalism."''' The fact that the name could be further construed as an anti-semitic sentiment, given the edit history of the vandal, was mentioned as an additional support for the user account being blocked. The discussion on the admin board is about his propensity for altering articles dealing with Christianity and Judaism to make digs at Jews and Judaism. And they're blatantly obvious. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|שועל]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:49, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Jinxmchue you said "I saw nothing that was obviously anti-Semitic". Did you not see this one here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_and_Judaism&diff=prev&oldid=211498797]
or do you not think it is anti-semitic? A quick glance through his contributions show them almost all to be anti-semitic [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=ChristianityMeansFreedom&namespace=&year=&month=-1]--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 11:03, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

== Antisemitism in the New Testament? ==

This is cleanly mislead, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_New_Testament]. All I found is people got wrong ideas. I was thinking about adding to the list, but I'm not sure, yet. --[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 21:28, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia acknowledges all subjects and opinions. Conservapedia does not. Hmmm, which one is biased? ==

TSIB. Step back a minute & think about what you are really objecting to in Wikipedia. What you perceive as bias is the exact opposite. Wikipedia explores all subjects and acknowledges diverse attitudes to them, without jumping to conclusions. It maintains a neutral point of view, since any additions have to be backed up with reliable evidence. You may choose to regard this as "liberal bias", but that is only because Wikipedia does not censor and interpret its subjects as Conservapedia does. Conservapedia does not even pretend to have a neutral point of view. It wears its bias on its sleeve and openly propogates intolerant viewpoints. And it's for this exact reason that Conservapedia, unlike Wikipedia, will never be regarded as a factual or "trustworthy" reference source by the wider community. [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 20:43, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
:Please read [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Everything you level as accusations is freely admitted and explained. And incidentally, Wikipedia is not regarded as a factual or trustworthy reference source by most educators and experts. Try to use it as a source on a term paper and you will more than likely get called on it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:37, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

Of course wikipedia is not a "trustworthy" reference with regards to the scientific/academic community, and by no means is CP. Any website that is openly editable is inherently un-trustowrthy for academia. Wikipedia, however, is a trustworthy reference for the average user, the user who wants a good overview of the subject in question, the user that wants the facts with as little bias or spin as possible. Wikipedia never claims to be an academic resource (and no decent academic would ever consider it as such, even in highschool, wikipedia is never considerd a "citable" source) but rather a means to get the "gist" of a topic and a gateway to more reliable sources. Do not try and put words in the wikipedia mission statement. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 11:13, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Homosexuality and choice

2008-06-19T12:48:02Z

AndrasK:

Hi, I found a link where the APA officially state that [[http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#cantherapychange homosexuality is not changeable]]. It's scary that even the largest group of psychologists in the world can be so wrong on this topic. Do you think it's part of a homosexual conspiracy? We should mention this conspiracy in the article. --[[User:Huffers|Huffers]] 10:32, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Why is it that if you ask almost any gay person, including myself, they will tell you that it is not a choice. Do you choose to be straight if you are? Can you force yourself to be gay? It is really a quite stupid question, considering that the one group that has any authority in the matter is consistently ignored. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 22:02 16 January 2008 (EST)

The two most outspoken men in America on this topic are psychologist [[Charles Socarides]] and therapist [[Richard Cohen]] (an ex-gay). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:08, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Socarides was not a psychologist. And he died a few years ago. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:52, 24 February 2008 (EST)

One of the former presidents of APA is involved in organizations helping homosexuals leave homosexuality, and the University of Columbia published statistics recently that showed that if one twin is gay the chance the other one is gay is about 7%. So yes it is a choice. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 10:36, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

May I ask how your statistic is at all evidence for the idea that homosexuality is a choice? The leading medical organizations all agree that "conversion" programs (which are consistent with the idea that homosexuality is a choice) are ineffective and potentially harmful. These include (among others) the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, World Health Organization, and the Council on Child and Adolescent Health. The following is a quote from one of these organizations denouncing such programs "The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable." ~American Psychological Association 1998. Now, where is your scientific evidence that such programs are indeed effective? Please do not offer and example or two of people who have "successfully" changed because I can come up with equal if not greater numbers of failures. There is no firm basis for such belief as every credible medical and psychiatric organization directly contradicts the idea, as does the only community with direct experience with the topic. (I find it ironic that this website is perfectly willing to quote the AMA or WHO when they offer statistics of increased STD rates in the gay community, but not when it comes to the idea that homosexuality is a choice and can be altered). As a gay man, I can tell you that I in no way made the choice to be so. Even at the young age of eight, I began having same-sex attractions. I did not know what heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or any other form of sexuality even was. I did not even know what sex was, yet I still felt attractions to boys where others my age felt it for girls. Your ignorance on the topic is harmful for my community, and the society as a whole. It is people like you who cause the psychological problems among the homosexual community as well as trying to convince them that it is something that needs to be altered.
[[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 14:07 23 April 2008 (EST)

:You apparently are assuming that the following two positions cover every aspect of the subject:
:#homosexuality is not changeable
:#[[homosexuality is a choice]]

:This looks like the [[fallacy]] of the "[[excluded middle]]". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:12, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:#

Treatment for alcoholism also has many failures that does not mean it is not worth it to go through the process still, any chance of leaving alcoholism/homosexuality is a sufficient amount-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 18:21, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

However, no credible medical/scientific organization denies an alcoholic's ability to quit drinking, most promote it. The same medical organizations that encourage treatment of alcoholism condemn attempts to "treat" homosexuality. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 20:20 23 April 2008 (EST)

Because of pressure for them to say otherwise, APA changed their view after a big controversy involving homosexuals being hurt by some means by cops happened npt because of research, if I was a teacher and I said homosexuality for example, was wrong I'd get fired-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 20:53, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's why in an encyclopedia we cannot rely on appeals to authority. Organizations are beset by politics. What we need is hard science, such as research into cure rates. Alcoholics tell us they were cured, by [[Twelve Steps]] or medicine or detox facilities. Homosexuals are beginning to say the same, but AA started in 1935; they've had 7 decades of experience and continued religious and political and legal support.

:Homosexuality is tied to [[moral relativism]], [[feminism]], [[communism]], etc. A well-funded campaign is lobbying for its legitimacy. This affects votes within organizations like the APA.

:I'm not debating here - merely listing facts that need to go into the article. You '''are''' here to help us write the article, aren't you? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:57, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Many prisoners choose homosexuality in prisons-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Kiss20 you have convinced yourself that an unhealthy beahvior is an acceptable behavior to such an extent you refuse to leave it, for example I used to mastrubate, until I till stopped being a slave to my body, and instead practiced self-discipline and thought myself not to do it-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

It was very hard but I took control instead of being a slave to me body, and I can imagine it is hard to get rid of one's homosexual thoughts but that does not mean it should not be done-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:45, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

First of all, I couldn't if I wanted to to. Second of all, I don't even want to. I have absolutely no problem with who I am. In fact, being gay has made me a stronger and better person. It has taught me how to deal with problems on my own, it has taught me to never be ashamed of who I am, never to let other people's definition of who I am superceed my own. If there was a way for me to "go straight" I wouldn't choose it. Why you ask? Because this is who I am, this is who I have found myself to be. I do not seek your or anyone else's approval, I do not need it. I have my own approval, that is all that I need. There is no way you can convince me otherwise, I am merely trying to bring some objectivism to this site. I personally don't care if you hate me, if you disapprove of my lifestyle, because I know that you have no right to judge me. I only work to build tolerance in that my community can finally be given all the rights that society has thusfar denied us. You can continue on hating us, I am not attempting to change your beliefs. I am merely working to ensure that one day people like me are considered equal under the law. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 23:32 23 April 2008 (EST)

I don't hate homosexuals, I disprove of their lifestyle, major difference-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 23:37, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Hate, disapprove, take your pick. My message is still the same.[[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 23:56 23 April 2008 (EST)

==Edits by Conservative==
Conservative, can you please explain why you removed what you did? It was properly cited and met the Conservapedia quality standards.

Talk:Taft-Hartley Act

2008-06-18T21:58:11Z

AndrasK:

This article should be rewritten in a more factual manner. Or at least get some citations for it's claims. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 15:32, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Agreed, and "perhaps the greatest legislative achievement of the 20th century." According to who? There have been a lot of acts passed in the 20th century, a few of which are considered much more significant. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 17:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative style

2008-06-18T17:40:31Z

AndrasK: /* Edits by Bugler */

==Stuff==
Before anyone just goes and deletes this is hould be know that this was said -

If that is the case, then you would have no objection to the creation of a "Conservative style" entry? --AndrasK 00:59, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

If the proposed entry is truthful as the liberal style entry is, then I don't mind. In fact, I welcome it. But the proposed entry becomes a magnet for liberal vandalism and liberals won't watch and police their own, then it will be deleted.--Aschlafly 08:25, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Just a heads up, and it is truthful as far as conservative positions on this site.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:No comment neccessary! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:26, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::If you are not willing to discuss then you are in no position to delete, it has long been accepted that a person must justify their removals rather than simply doing it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The material included is indeed Liberal vandalism. The contents will be deleted. If you wish to make accurate and truthful additions, these will be welcomed. If you restore the article as currently written, you will be blocked. Thank you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Please elaborate on exactly what is liberal vandalism, and why the contents you keep deleting are untruthful. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:42, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Constant demands for further and further elaboration of arguments by you and your Liberal chums are not intended to spread enlightenment, nor to answer rational questions, but are purely disruptive in intent. The libellous and untrue nature of the deleted content is obvious to anyone with even half a brain. It has gone, it will stay gone. And if you do not wish to join it, tread carefully. Finis. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:45, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Perhaps we have just found the first example for the new entry. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::A humourist! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

First off, Bugler, British spellings are not allowed here. Secondly, the article simply summarizes the style used by conservatives on Conservapedia. Please explain how "demonizing negative traits as 'liberal ______'" is not an example of a style used on this website. Saying that my requests for information are "liberal" will only prove my point, and will not contribute to the willingness of you as a conservative to "learn together." --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 18:41, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Also, calling conservative style the antithesis of liberal style actually validates the original point made about conservatives establishing clear dichotomies on any issue. Making claims based on actual examples of conservative argumentation does not "amount to liberal vandalism." --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 18:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree and I took a 2 hour (ideological) block for it.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==Delete, really?==
Blog or encyclopedia?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:44, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:Does this page look like an encyclopedia article? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:45, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::Does the liberal style page? Please demonstrate how this page, in any way, is different than the Liberal Style page. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:47, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:Please don't answer a question with a question. Yes or no, does this article ([[Conservative Style]]) look like something you would find in an [[encyclopedia]]? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:50, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Yeah buddy, what he said. Henry, you seem to think that this should be less forum, more encyclopedia. Which side of the line does Liberal style fall on? Let's have some formal equality. Nuke 'em both I say, and let God sort them out.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::I would if I could. But WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and this is no reason to keep this page. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:50, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
There is no reason to delete it. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:So you think it is encyclopedic? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:53, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::It's better than encyclopedic...it's Conservapedic! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::I think it's up to par with the rest of the material. And when you're putting your dirty laundry in plain sight, and in fact making it the sole ''raison d'etre'' of the site, it's hard to argue OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Henry.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:58, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::No, no this is not something you would find in an [[encyclopedia]]. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Is [[Liberal hysteria|this]], friend?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 23:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::No, it isn't. Go start a deletion discussion. Make convincing arguments and see if you can get any support. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:07, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Well said AShephard. This entry meets the de facto quality standards of this site. One might argue that it does not appear encyclopedic, but then others on this site will argue that goal of this site is not to be an encyclopedia in the stylistic sense but rather in the sense that it is a place to gain knowledge. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:02, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks!-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 23:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::There is absolutely no value to this "article". You, or whoever created it, simply made it to be disruptive and to protest the existence of [[Liberal Style]]. That is not the way to go. Please go start a deletion discussion at Liberal Style. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Please see DanH's talk page regarding assuming the motivations of the author. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:13, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:I already did. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:29, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Since all such "deletion discussions", when they involve the pet projects of sysops, inevitably end in the banning of any and all who bring up the issue for "talk, talk, talk" or "trolling" or any of the other numerous excuses sysops use to bully other users, what pray tell would be the point in that? If you think these articles aren't encyclopaedic, you delete them. You have the power, use it to actually improve the tone of the project. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 09:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Please assume good faith. That is not how deletion discussions work. I am not going to unilateraly delete an article, much less one that has existed for quite some time. Be polite and civil, make good and concise arguments, try to gain support, and if consensus is clearly against you be prepared to let it go. If you do these things, you will not be blocked. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 18:14, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

==Edits by Bugler==
Mr. Bugler (for lack of better address) I find your removal of content purely ideological and inappropriate with keeping the idea of a fair and accurate encyclopedia. As per Mr. Schlafly's talk page, both an actual example and citation were used. Please explain why you felt that this material deserved deletion, but the 50+ statements WITHOUT example or citation on the Liberal Style page do not. Your inability to communicate your logic and reasoning behind your changes is completely inappropriate to the MO of all wiki pages. You seem to hide behind a facade of creating balance, when in fact, you are removing it. Please explain your actions. If you are indeed in the right, you should have no problem explaining why you did what you did. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 09:22, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:AndrasK, you make some assumptions in the title which I have removed. I am not beholden to you that I have to obey your orders. I would also point out that I have not edited Liberal Style and am not responsible for any of the content of that article. If you have a problem with it, contact its authors. With best wishes, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I am slightly confused. First of all, let me establish I never ordered you to do anything. I requested clarification, which you have yet to provide. Secondly, you say you are not responsible for the content on that article. Are you, as a member with some admin privileges, not responsible for all articles on the site? --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 13:40, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative style

2008-06-17T13:22:23Z

AndrasK:

==Stuff==
Before anyone just goes and deletes this is hould be know that this was said -

If that is the case, then you would have no objection to the creation of a "Conservative style" entry? --AndrasK 00:59, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

If the proposed entry is truthful as the liberal style entry is, then I don't mind. In fact, I welcome it. But the proposed entry becomes a magnet for liberal vandalism and liberals won't watch and police their own, then it will be deleted.--Aschlafly 08:25, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Just a heads up, and it is truthful as far as conservative positions on this site.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:No comment neccessary! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:26, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::If you are not willing to discuss then you are in no position to delete, it has long been accepted that a person must justify their removals rather than simply doing it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The material included is indeed Liberal vandalism. The contents will be deleted. If you wish to make accurate and truthful additions, these will be welcomed. If you restore the article as currently written, you will be blocked. Thank you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Please elaborate on exactly what is liberal vandalism, and why the contents you keep deleting are untruthful. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:42, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Constant demands for further and further elaboration of arguments by you and your Liberal chums are not intended to spread enlightenment, nor to answer rational questions, but are purely disruptive in intent. The libellous and untrue nature of the deleted content is obvious to anyone with even half a brain. It has gone, it will stay gone. And if you do not wish to join it, tread carefully. Finis. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:45, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Perhaps we have just found the first example for the new entry. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::A humourist! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

First off, Bugler, British spellings are not allowed here. Secondly, the article simply summarizes the style used by conservatives on Conservapedia. Please explain how "demonizing negative traits as 'liberal ______'" is not an example of a style used on this website. Saying that my requests for information are "liberal" will only prove my point, and will not contribute to the willingness of you as a conservative to "learn together." --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 18:41, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Also, calling conservative style the antithesis of liberal style actually validates the original point made about conservatives establishing clear dichotomies on any issue. Making claims based on actual examples of conservative argumentation does not "amount to liberal vandalism." --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 18:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree and I took a 2 hour (ideological) block for it.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==Delete, really?==
Blog or encyclopedia?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:44, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:Does this page look like an encyclopedia article? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:45, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::Does the liberal style page? Please demonstrate how this page, in any way, is different than the Liberal Style page. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:47, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:Please don't answer a question with a question. Yes or no, does this article ([[Conservative Style]]) look like something you would find in an [[encyclopedia]]? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:50, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Yeah buddy, what he said. Henry, you seem to think that this should be less forum, more encyclopedia. Which side of the line does Liberal style fall on? Let's have some formal equality. Nuke 'em both I say, and let God sort them out.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::I would if I could. But WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and this is no reason to keep this page. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:50, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
There is no reason to delete it. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:So you think it is encyclopedic? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:53, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::It's better than encyclopedic...it's Conservapedic! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::I think it's up to par with the rest of the material. And when you're putting your dirty laundry in plain sight, and in fact making it the sole ''raison d'etre'' of the site, it's hard to argue OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Henry.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:58, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::No, no this is not something you would find in an [[encyclopedia]]. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Is [[Liberal hysteria|this]], friend?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 23:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::No, it isn't. Go start a deletion discussion. Make convincing arguments and see if you can get any support. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:07, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Well said AShephard. This entry meets the de facto quality standards of this site. One might argue that it does not appear encyclopedic, but then others on this site will argue that goal of this site is not to be an encyclopedia in the stylistic sense but rather in the sense that it is a place to gain knowledge. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:02, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks!-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 23:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::There is absolutely no value to this "article". You, or whoever created it, simply made it to be disruptive and to protest the existence of [[Liberal Style]]. That is not the way to go. Please go start a deletion discussion at Liberal Style. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Please see DanH's talk page regarding assuming the motivations of the author. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:13, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:I already did. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:29, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
==Superfluous and Ideological Edits by Bugler==
Mr. Bugler (for lack of better address) I find your removal of content purely ideological and inappropriate with keeping the idea of a fair and accurate encyclopedia. As per Mr. Schlafly's talk page, both an actual example and citation were used. Please explain why you felt that this material deserved deletion, but the 50+ statements WITHOUT example or citation on the Liberal Style page do not. Your inability to communicate your logic and reasoning behind your changes is completely inappropriate to the MO of all wiki pages. You seem to hide behind a facade of creating balance, when in fact, you are removing it. Please explain your actions. If you are indeed in the right, you should have no problem explaining why you did what you did. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 09:22, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative style

2008-06-17T03:13:01Z

AndrasK: /* Delete, really? */

Talk:Conservative style

2008-06-17T03:06:48Z

AndrasK: /* Delete, really? */