Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

British Broadcasting Corporation

2008-01-11T17:10:24Z

ArthurDent: /* Regional bias */ copyedit, added sources

[[Image:BBC Logo 1997-Present.png|right|thumb]]
The '''British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)''' is the major national public service broadcaster of the [[United Kingdom]]. It is the leading broadcaster in the UK and is regarded as one of the leading broadcasters in the world. In terms of audience figures, it is the largest broadcaster in the world. It was founded in [[London]] in 1927.

The BBC is often criticized for political bias, particularly liberal, and for being overly politically correct.

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

The BBC produces many well known television programmes, including ''Eastenders'', ''Planet Earth'', ''Holby City'', ''Casualty'', ''Match of the Day'', ''Have I Got News For You'' and ''Doctor Who''.

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

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

== Funding ==
The BBC is a Crown corporation supported by a licensing fee applied to television owners<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/</ref> of £135.50 (US$270 approx) per year. All owners of TV receiving equipment are obliged to pay the fee whether they watch BBC content or not. As such it is often criticised as a tax.

In practice, funding by the licence fee means that BBC programmes are advertisement free. While it has some obligations to transmit statements by political parties and it advertises its own programmes, BBC channels transmitted in the UK are completely free from commercial advertising. This results in much greater non-advertising broadcasting time and break-free feature films.

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

== Ownership ==
The BBC is an independent body which is held in trust for the British people.

The BBC has a ten-year royal charter that defines its purposes and allows it to act somewhat autonomously, free from commercial and government influence. The BBC is ultimately responsible to its readers and listeners as well as to the [[BBC Trust]].

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

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

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

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

Competitors have also criticised the BBC website due to it's ability to fund itself non-commercially without advertising to the detriment of its commercial competitors such as on-line versions of national newspapers and other news broadcasters such as Sky and ITN.

==Cultural Impact==
As the only TV broadcaster until the mid fifties and only radio broadcaster until the mid seventies, the BBC had a monopoly in the UK of broadcasting in those media. As such its content was highly influential. Since then the BBC, while exposed to high volumes and variable quality of competition, has remained extremely popular with the British public and its cultural influence is still a major force. While it is often accused of political bias, the vast majority of its programming is non-political and therefore has had enormous influence over British attitudes to comedy, multi-culturalism, travel, natural history, international culture, popular trends, fashion and even the way the British speak. Through its foreign broadcasts, it has also had significant cultural influence outside the UK.

==Accusations of Bias==

The BBC has a long history of criticism of bias. As well as persistent criticisms of liberal bias, it also receives accusations of cultural bias, regional bias, political correctness, bias towards multiculturalism and minority interests, and anti-government bias.

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

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

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

During a 2006 internal "impartiality summit", BBC executives said they would happily broadcast an image of a [[Bible]] being thrown away, but would not do the same with a [[Koran]]. At the summit, the BBC's Washington correspondent Justin Webb also accused the executives of being anti-American, saying they treated the nation with scorn and derision and no moral weight.

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

===Liberal bias===
Details of the BBC's alleged bias were further tabled in an official report<ref>'''Revoir, Paul''', ''BBC comes under fire for institutional Left-wing bias'' [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=462679&in_page_id=1770&ct=5 Daily Mail] June 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml BBC report finds bias within corporation], Gary Cleland,''Telegraph'', June 18, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/13530 BBC Report: Network’s Bias Due to 'The Inherent Liberal Culture of its Staff’], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], June 17, 2007</ref> - in preparation since 2005 - which found that the BBC:
'''*has an "institutional Left-wing bias"
*has “a tendency to 'group think’ with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone.”
*promotes anti-Christian sentiment
*promotes anti-American sentiment
*allows schedules to be "hijacked by special interest groups promoting trendy issues"
*over-represents homosexuals
*over-represents ethnic minorities
*fails to reflect the views of the [[British]] public on issues such as [[capital punishment]]
*fails to reflect the broader views of British people
*allows itself to be used by "sinister" campaign groups
*finds it difficult to understand there may be alternative views of the world'''

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

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

===Regional bias===
The BBC also systematically discriminates against [[Scots]] speakers<ref>[http://www.scotchirish.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=3284&mode=threaded BBC accused of Scots language snub]</ref>. Although over 1.5 million<ref>[http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/schule25.pdf Language Policy in Scotland and Northern Ireland]</ref> people speak it there is no service in the language of those licence fee payers<ref>[http://www.scotslanguage.com/article/Trust_the_BBC%3F.html/translate/english Trust the BBC?]</ref><ref>[http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/departs/all/report/research/art_of_ulster_scots.rtf BBC NI less than generous]</ref>. The English speaking [[liberal]] elite in charge of the BBC try to excuse themselves with the argument that the various regional dialects of Scots makes programming unviable, although to Scots-speakers these dialects are mutually intelligible<ref>[http://www.scots-online.org/grammar/lang.htm Language or Dialect?]</ref>.

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

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

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

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ BBC official site]
*[http://www.tvlicensing.biz/ BBCresistance - Campaigns against the television licence]
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article1942930.ece Bias at the Beeb - official], June 17, 2007, ''UK Times Online''.

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

[[Category:Broadcasting]]

Oor Wullie

2008-01-11T14:01:41Z

ArthurDent: wikilink

Oor Wullie ('Our Willie') is a long-running comic strip published in the Scottish family newspaper the [[Sunday Post]]. It charts the adventures of a small boy in small town Scotland (the fictional town of ''Auchenshoogle''), with his friends Soapy Souter, Fat Boab and Wee Eck. Other characters include the local policeman P.C. Murdoch, and Wullie's would-be girlfriend Primrose Patterson. Members of [[The Broons]] occasionally appear as minor characters. Wullie's favourite clothes are his dungarees and clacketty boots, and he is often depicted sitting on an upturned bucket in the yard of his long-suffering parents' house, waiting for his favourite meal is mince and dumplings or eating a 'jeely piece' (jam sandwich). Much of the dialogue is conducted in [[Scots]], and his expostulations ('Help ma boab!' 'Crivvens!' and 'Jings!' have become indelibly associated with him)

[[Category:Comic Strips]]
[[Category:Scottish Culture]]

Deutsche Telekom

2008-01-11T00:39:08Z

ArthurDent: Add fact and sources.

'''Deutsche Telekom AG''' is the largest European telecommunications company and is headquartered in Bonn, Germany.

Deutsche Telekom includes many subsidiaries, all with names starting with "T-".

* T-Home (formerly T-Com), a legacy telephone and fixed network carrier and IPTV operator
* T-Online, an internet service provider (ISP)
* T-Mobile, a cell phone provider
* T-Systems, a business division focused on providing to large customers

It is impossible to register<ref>Blocked range: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AIpblocklist&action=search&limit=&ip=84.135.0.0%2F16] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AIpblocklist&action=search&limit=&ip=%2322523]</ref> with Conservapedia using one of T-Online's allocated [[IP address]]es<ref>[http://www.ripe.net/whois?form_type=simple&full_query_string=&searchtext=84.128.0.0&do_search=Search Telekom IP range]</ref>.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Telecommunications]]

Wing nut

2008-01-11T00:06:06Z

ArthurDent: more content and cat,

[[Image:Nut-hardware.jpg|right]]
A '''wing nut''' helps fasten a [[bolt]]. It is similar to a standard machine nut and threaded in the same way, but is equipped with a pair of "wings" that make it possible to grip the nut with the fingers; wing nuts are intended to be tightened with fingers rather than with a wrench.
 
[[Image:wingnut.jpg|left]]Wing nut is also used by [[liberals]] as derogatory term for a person they perceive to hold strongly right-wing [[Liberal Style|political beliefs]].

[[Category:Tools]]

Conservapedia talk:Contest4

2008-01-10T23:52:26Z

ArthurDent: Alternative contest

Many things need to be worked out until this is finalized. Among them are:
*How to do selection of teams[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=365755&oldid=365750]
*What the role of team captain comes down to[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Contest3&diff=next&oldid=343798]
*How to ensure all players understand the rules[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Contest3&diff=next&oldid=343798]
*How to mandate clear point tallies[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Contest3&diff=next&oldid=343798]
*How to word the purpose of the contest[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Contest3&diff=next&oldid=343798]
*How to enact a system that would solve rule conflicts[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Contest3&diff=next&oldid=343798]
*How to rewrite the Wanted pages rule[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Contest3&diff=next&oldid=343798]
Please feel free to create a section for other concerns - and for more specifics on the above, simply visit the link to the right of each item, where clarification is given.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:37, 6 January 2008 (EST)
==Relating to Teams==
===Selections of Teams===
===Role of Team Captain===
I suggest that team captains have as small a role as possible. They should be selected based on who were the top contributers in the previous contest (in this case [[Contest3]]) and they should pick teams. After the Contest as started, however, there role should become nominal.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:37, 6 January 2008 (EST)

: I think the captains should have some responsibilities to watch and curb what team players are doing. Good sportsmanship starts with the captain in directing his team in the proper way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:58, 7 January 2008 (EST)
::I agree with Andy in this regard, we need accountability within the teams. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 17:54, 10 January 2008 (EST)

==Relating to Rules==
===Ensuring the Rules are Understood===

===Point Tallies===
Perhaps the best way to do this is a general format. Geo and HelpJazz were kind enough to point out [[User:Iduan/Contest3|my layout]] as suitable - however I agree with them that it is far too specific. Perhaps something like this would be better:
<pre>
<nowiki>
==Type of Edit(Points the edit is Worth)(Number of this type made)==
links to diff (no organization necessary).
</nowiki>
</pre>--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:37, 6 January 2008 (EST)

==Purpose==
I believe the purpose of the contest is to improve Conservapedia by tapping into the competitive side of our editors--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:37, 6 January 2008 (EST)

: I agree. Like all sports competitions, however, fostering sportsmanship is also a goal. "Winning at any price" may be true in war, but not in good-spirited competitions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:59, 7 January 2008 (EST)

:: Right. This contest should be fun and competitive, but everyone needs to keep in mind that the ultimate goal is to improve Conservapedia. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 09:11, 8 January 2008 (EST)

==Specific Point Issues==
Please place all disagreements with regards to point values here (i.e. if you think "x" should get 20 points instead of 5) - and try to separate by section--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:43, 6 January 2008 (EST)
===Active(3)===
====Wanted Pages Rule====
I think that in order to avoid cheating - only wanted pages that exist at the start of the contest should be allowed to count - these pages would be recorded on a page (and the page would be protected) to ensure accuracy. That way we won't have people artificially creating wanted pages they can create--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:37, 6 January 2008 (EST)

: I don't know that have to limit it that sharply. But obviously creating wanted pages simply to extinguish them is silly and unacceptable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:00, 8 January 2008 (EST)

: I think Iduan's idea of putting all the wanted pages on a list would work pretty well. I can't really think of anything better. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 09:11, 8 January 2008 (EST)

: Personally, I don't think it's necessary. It is understood at this point what a wanted page is and the honor system should suffice. The difficulty last time was with a concerted effort to bend the rules. With the spirit of the contest being more clear this time, I don't think you would run into the same issues. Treat everyone like trusted positive contributors, and chances are they will live up to your expectations. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:51, 10 January 2008 (EST)

====Scoring Examples====
Perhaps we should have links "guideline" articles which meet the minimum qualifications for each level. This way there would be something specific to look at when there are questions. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:15, 7 January 2008 (EST)
==== Copy & Pasted pages ====

I'm of the opinion that these should score one point, not two. The phenomenally miniscule amount of effort that is required for these, and the fact that they are almost always allowed to remain dead-ends and such until after a contest… --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 16:12, 9 January 2008 (EST)
===Resolved===
==== Redirects should be very low value ====
I am not even sure why this is controversial. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia%3AContest4&diff=365801&oldid=365799] [[User:StephenW|StephenW]] 23:46, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:Firstly, the reason I reverted was because the change wasn't brought up here first - and in order to AVOID a bunch of reverts we should try and discuss point changes before doing them. I do think redirects should get two points, though, because while it is easy to do a redirect, it is just as easy to, say, add a period to an article, which is also worth two points (minor edit).--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:49, 6 January 2008 (EST)
::You're the only one reverting. Sounds like you should have lowered the value of adding a comma to an article. [[User:StephenW|StephenW]] 23:51, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:::Again - I reverted because it wasn't brought up here first. And per precedent the value of minor edits has alway been 2 points--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:53, 6 January 2008 (EST)
::::Fine, if you want to vet minor points on the talk page first, you are basically asking me not to collaborate with you. Just put a notice at the top of the page "This is a work by Iduan, please do not edit, it's mine." [[User:StephenW|StephenW]] 00:08, 7 January 2008 (EST)
:::::I reverted you because all changes should be discussed here first. You started discussing here - I said I disagreed with you - but I'm not the authority on this - when more people start commenting on this talk page then it might end up that we do make redirects worth one point.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:41, 7 January 2008 (EST)
::::::I agree that redirects should be less than 2 points. It's easier than even copy/pasting an article.[[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:15, 7 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Ok, though then should we make minor edits less than two points? Because really it's incredibly easy ot just find an article that, say, doesn't have the title bolded in the intro-sentence, and then change that and claim 2 points. --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:09, 7 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::Personally, I never counted bolding on its own as a minor edit; the article would need to have some other change as well. You may wish to consider implementing a similar standard. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:04, 7 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::I should add as well that as someone who does a lot of redirects, that I also believe they should be 1 point. A redirect is usually an afterthought to help those who use this site find what they are looking for more easily, but the thought that goes into it is not the same as for article creation or for true edits which should, at least in theory, include reading through the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:57, 10 January 2008 (EST)

====Quality New Article====
There is a 14-point difference between a QNA and the next level down. I think this level should be lowered (to, say, 15 points) or raise the requirements a bit. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:15, 7 January 2008 (EST)
:I agree--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:10, 7 January 2008 (EST)

==Placement of this page==
Shouldn't this be [[Conservapedia:Contest 4]]? --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 23:24, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:Probably so. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:26, 6 January 2008 (EST)
::Thank you :). --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 23:29, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:::Yes I suppose you're right - I was actually going to make it this - but I noticed that we had done [[Contest3]] in the namespace - so in order to avoid any conflict I figured I should go with the precedent - but in hindsight I should've placed it here - thanks for the heads up.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:37, 6 January 2008 (EST)

==Judges==
If you have judges or something of the sort, put me on the list!! --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 17:21, 7 January 2008 (EST)

: You'd be great! I "second" your "motion" to be a judge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:01, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Players ==

So, can I participate? --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 16:11, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:The teams will be eventually selected through a draft by captains (although like last time, we'll have a "those interested" area where you can put yoru name) - although this won't be for a while as we have to work out scoring, rules etc.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:40, 9 January 2008 (EST)
::When does the contest start? --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 21:49, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:::There's no date yet - we have to get all the rules straightened out first--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:52, 9 January 2008 (EST)
::::That's cool, thanks for informing me. --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 22:26, 9 January 2008 (EST)

== Alternative contest ==

I found CillaHunt's suggestions for a [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Thoughts contest] to generate more conservative visitors, future editors and improved search-engine rankings rather good. Perhaps it should be taken up for the next contest after more educational, clean, and concise information has been added. [[User:ArthurDent|ArthurDent]] 18:52, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Deutsche Telekom

2008-01-10T23:42:30Z

ArthurDent: create

Human rights

2008-01-10T23:32:37Z

ArthurDent: add content

'''Human rights''' are generally held to be the basic [[rights]] and [[freedoms]] to which all [[humans]] are entitled, entirely by virtue of their status as human beings.

The U.S. [[Declaration of Independence]] says that people are "endowed by their [[Creator]] with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are [[Life]], [[Liberty]] and the pursuit of [[Happiness]]."
<ref>http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html</ref>

This is based on the statement that every person is entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of [[property]]", which was altered to "happiness" to avoid conflicts with [[slavery]] (slaves could not own property).

The [[United Nations]] issued, in 1948, a [[UDHR|list of human rights]] they deem inherent and inviolable.<ref>http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html</ref>

:"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
::—Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The [[Pope]] is a well known supporter of human rights, especially upholding the right to life and abolition of the death penalty<ref>http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2008a/011108/011108p.htm</ref>. This is in direct contradiction of the holy [[Bible|scriptures]] where it is clearly stated "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (Leviticus 24:20; also Exodus 21:24). This follows a more direct passage: "Whoever takes the life of any human being shall be put to death" (Leviticus 24:17). Other crimes which merit the death penalty are working on the sabbath (Exodus 31:15), cursing one's parents (Exodus 21:17) and teenage rebelliousness (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

A number of [[totalitarian]] regimes continue to violate human rights, even when they have ratified the United Nations list.

The UN has done little since the [[Korean War]] to investigate or expose [[human rights]] violations, and in the early 21st century it rebuked America by voting it out of the [[Human Rights Council]].{{fact}}

Many organisations and [[NGO]]s such as [[Amnesty International]], [[Human Rights Watch]], and [[Freedom House]] had abysmal records reporting on and exposing human rights violations during the Soviet era.{{fact}}

==References==

<references/>

[[category:political terms]]

The Economist

2008-01-09T18:38:20Z

ArthurDent: add more

'''''The Economist''''' is a weekly British news magazine which generally promotes [[free market]]s, personal [[liberty]] and [[human rights]].

==External Links==
[http://www.economist.com/ www.economist.com]
[[category: publications]]

The Economist

2008-01-09T18:14:04Z

ArthurDent: clarified

'''''The Economist''''' is a weekly British news magazine which generally promotes [[free market]]s and personal [[liberty]].

==External Links==
[http://www.economist.com/ www.economist.com]
[[category: publications]]

Talk:Evangelical Christians

2008-01-01T23:33:22Z

ArthurDent: No and thanks!

Are you suggesting that deceit can advance Christianity? I hope not! [[User:Bradlaugh|Bradlaugh]] 18:29, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:No. But thank you for pointing out how badly worded that was. Hope it is better now. Godspeed [[User:ArthurDent|ArthurDent]] 18:33, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Evangelical Christians

2008-01-01T23:32:00Z

ArthurDent: better wording

'''Evangelical Christians''' are those who accept the authority of the [[Bible]] and who spread the joy and [[faith]] of [[Christianity]] to others.

Evangelical Christians tend to be patriotic and politically [[conservative]]. They are not content merely with their own [[faith]] but are also obsessed with (i) censoring expressions of lack of faith by others and (ii) attempting to sow belief in others around them.

Examples of techniques used by [[evangelical]] Christians include:

* insisting that morality is dependent on religion

* claiming that goodness is achieved through attending religious services or reading the [[Bible]]

* affirming the atrocities committed by anti-[[Christian]] zealots

* affirming the correlation between crime, depression, anxiety, immorality, insanity and rejection of [[Christianity]]

* insisting that it is not hypocrisy for a sinner to attend church

* never utilizing [[deceit]] to advances the [[Christian]] goal

* never claiming to be smarter or superior than people who have no [[faith]]

* claiming [[evolution]] is a weapon against Christianity

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:religion]]
[[category:Christianity]]

Evangelical

2008-01-01T23:29:38Z

ArthurDent: /* See Also */

Generically, '''evangelical''' is a person whose beliefs are in agreement with [[Gospel]] and who communicates his [[faith]] to others so that they may benefit also. It may also describe a person whose beliefs are marked by an ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause<ref>[http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=evangelical Princeton University]</ref> such as [[Christianity]].

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

==See Also==
*[[Evangelical Christians]]
*[[Evangelical atheist]]

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Christianity]]

Evangelical Christians

2008-01-01T23:27:49Z

ArthurDent: Expand

'''Evangelical Christians''' are those who accept the authority of the [[Bible]] and who spread the joy and [[faith]] of [[Christianity]] to others.

Evangelical Christians tend to be patriotic and politically [[conservative]]. They are not content merely with their own [[faith]] but are also obsessed with (i) censoring expressions of lack of faith by others and (ii) attempting to sow belief in others around them.

Examples of techniques used by [[evangelical]] Christians include:

* insisting that morality is dependent on religion

* claiming that goodness is achieved through attending religious services or reading the [[Bible]]

* affirming the atrocities committed by anti-[[Christian]] zealots

* affirming the correlation between crime, depression, anxiety, immorality, insanity and rejection of [[Christianity]]

* insisting that it is not hypocrisy for a sinner to attend church

* never utilizing [[deceit]] if it advances the [[Christian]] goal

* never claiming to be smarter or superior than people who have no [[faith]]

* claiming [[evolution]] is a weapon against Christianity

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:religion]]
[[category:Christianity]]