Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Liberal Party of Australia

2010-07-17T23:42:19Z

AusRight: Minor changes

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name = Liberal Party of Australia
| party_articletitle = Liberal Party of Australia
| party_logo = [[Image:Lpa.jpg|200px|"The Liberal Party of Australia logo"]]
| website = [http://www.liberal.org.au/ www.liberal.org.au/]
| headquarters = Cnr Blackall & Macquarie St, Barton [[Canberra]] 2600
| chairman = [[Alan Stockdale]]
| senateleader = N/A Leader = [[Tony Abbott]]
| houseleader = N/A Deputy Leader = [[Julie Bishop]]
| foundation = 1944
| ideology = [[moderate|Centrism]] [[Conservative|Conservatism]] [[Fiscal Conservative|Fiscal conservatism]] [[Liberal conservatism]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Free Market]]
| socialpolicy = [[Conservative]]
| international = [[International Democrat Union]]
| colors = [[Blue]] (unofficial)
| footnotes =
}}

The '''Liberal Party of Australia''' is the main [[conservative]] political party based in the Commonwealth of [[Australia]]. The Liberal Party was founded in 1944 by [[Robert Menzies|Sir Robert Menzies]]. Robert Menzies kept the Liberal Party in power during much of the post-war boom. As with many other Western democracies the winds of change swept through Australia and the Liberal Party was ousted from power by [[Gough Whitlam]] and the [[Australian Labor Party]] in 1972.

The Liberals in general believe in low levels of government interference in the economy and are understood to be more socially conservative than their more left wing political opposition, the [[Australian Labor Party]]. Thus in this sense, the term "liberal" refers to neo-liberalism rather than the social liberalism that is implied in the American context.

Until the 1970s the Liberal Party occupied the centre of Australian politics. However, the breakway of left-wing groups meant that the Liberals have moved to the right of politics with the Labor Party occupying the centre-left.

The Liberal Party is divided into state-based divisions. The Liberals contest both state and federal elections, but do not officially contest local government elections. However many party members stand for local council elections in their own right.

The current leader of the Liberal Party is [[Tony Abbott]]<ref>http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/01/2758221.htm</ref>, while Julie Bishop serves as deputy leader.

==Government==

The Liberal Party is one of the two main parties of government at both state and federal level. Although it was the principal government party at federal level from 1996 to 2007, by the end of that period it had lost power to the Labor Party in every state and territory. Its low point arrived in November 2007 when it lost the federal election, leaving itself out of power nationwide. However since Labor took office federally, the Liberals have returned to power in the state of [[Western Australia]].

==Possible Merger==
In March 2008, the then leader of the federal Liberal Party, [[Brendan Nelson]], indicated that he was in favour of a merger between his party and the [[National Party of Australia|National Party]]. <ref>http://news.theage.com.au/nelson-stakes-leadership-on-merger/20080309-1y5t.html</ref>

== Reference ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Australian Political Parties]]

Australia

2010-06-14T00:54:04Z

AusRight: /* Economy */ Added a link

{{Country
|name =''Commonwealth of Australia''
|map =Australia rel 1999.jpg
|map2 =Australia location.png
|flag =Flag of Australia.png
|arms =Australia coat-of-arms.jpg
|capital =Canberra
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Kevin Rudd
|pm-raw =
|area =2,988,888 sq mi
|pop =21.8 million
|pop-basis =2009
|gdp =A$1.17 trillion
|gdp-year =2009
|gdp-pc =A$36,000
|currency =Australian dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
The [[Commonwealth]] of Australia is an independent nation that occupies the continent of Australia, with its west coast on the [[Indian Ocean]], east coast on the [[Pacific Ocean]] facing [[New Zealand]], southern coast on the [[Southern Ocean]] facing [[Antarctica]], and northern coast bordering [[Indonesia]] and [[Papua New Guinea]]. Australia is considered geographically as part of [[Oceania]], but has been establishing its place politically and commercially in [[South East Asia]].

==Geography==
Australia is the only country to occupy an entire continent<ref>This refers just to the Australian mainland. Some authorities now include [[Papua New Guinea]], [[New Zealand]], and various other [[Pacific Ocean]] islands in the continent of "Oceania". See [http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/au.htm WorldAtlas.com].</ref>, the smallest of the planet's seven continents.<ref>Some people count six, combining North and South America or Europe and Asia. See [http://worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/contnent.htm WorldAtlas.com].</ref>
It is 2,400 miles, (3,860 km) from east to west and 2,000 miles (3,220 km) from north to south, and covers an area of 2,967,877 sq miles (7,686,810 sq km). The Australian coastline is 22,812 miles long (36,735 kilometers), roughly the size as the mainland 48 states of the USA.

Australia has six states and two internal territories. The states are [[New South Wales]], [[Victoria]], [[Queensland]], [[Western Australia]], [[South Australia]] and [[Tasmania]]. The internal territories are the [[Northern Territory]] (responsible government since 1978) and the [[Australian Capital Territory]] (responsible government since 1988) which is the location of Australia's capital city, [[Canberra]]. External territories include [[Christmas Island]] and the [[Australian Antarctic Territory]].

====Low density====
80% of Australia's population, of just over 20,000,000 people, live on the coast line. It is one of the world's most sparsely populated countries (2.7 people per square kilometre)<ref>[http://www.abs.gov.au ABS]</ref>. Water is scarce and some cities have some form of water restrictions in place.

====Weather====
Weather extremes are common in Australia with temperatures sometimes measured into the high 40s Celsius (45 degrees Celsius = 113 degrees Fahrenheit). The city of Darwin was heavily damaged by Cyclone Tracy on Dec. 25, 1974, killing 66 people, and destroying 80% of the buildings. Darwin's utilities were knocked out and 35,000 people were evacuated.

Bush fires often ravage the southern states - one of the worst occurring on Ash Wednesday in 1983 when over 2,000 homes were destroyed and over 70 people lost their lives in Victoria and South Australia. In 2009 severe fires hit much of Victoria, worsened by hot dry winds and a severe drought.

====Flora and fauna====
Australia is noted for its unique biodiversity. Many animals are found only in Australia, the most well known examples are the group of marsupials ([[kangaroo]]s, [[wombat]]s, [[wallaby|wallabies]] and [[koala]]s), and the only two [[monotremes]], the [[platypus]] and the [[echidna]]. Examples of plants that are native to Australia are the [[banksia]], [[yellow wattle]] and [[gum tree]].

Current evolutionary studies indicate that Australia's unique wildlife is the result of Australia becoming an island, being cut off from the Asian land bridge between 40,000 t0 250,000 years ago on the uniformitarian timescale.

==People==
===Aborigines and Torres Straits Islanders===
Australia's indigenous inhabitants, a hunting-gathering people collectively referred to today as Aborigines and Torres Straits Islanders, arrived more than 40,000 years ago. Although their technical culture remained static--depending on wood, bone, and stone tools and weapons--their spiritual and social life was highly complex. Most spoke several languages, and confederacies sometimes linked widely scattered tribal groups. Indigenous population density ranged from one person per square mile along the coasts to one person per 35 square miles in the arid interior. When Captain James Cook claimed Australia for Great Britain in 1770, the native population is estimated to have numbered between 318,000 and 750,000 in as many as 500 tribes speaking many different languages. In 2006 the indigenous population was approximately 517,200, representing about 2.5% of the population. Since the end of World War II, the government and the public have made efforts to be more responsive to aboriginal rights and needs, most recently with Prime Minister Rudd's historic apology to the indigenous people in February 2008.

===Immigrants===
Immigration has been vital to Australia's development since the beginning of European settlement in 1788. For generations, most settlers came from the British Isles, and the people of Australia are still predominantly of British or Irish origin, with a culture and outlook similar to those of Americans. a "White Australia" policy operated from 1901 to the 1960s; it encourages immigration by Europeans and blocked almost all other immigration.

The Chinese who arrived in the late 19th century to work in the gold mines left voluntarily or were expelled. Likewise most of the "Kanakas" --Polynesians--who came to work in the sugar fields were expatriated after 1901. Many Germans settled in South Australia, but those without Australian citizenship were put in camps during World War I and most were sent back to Germany after the war.
===Recent trends===
Since the end of World War II, Australia's population has more than doubled.

Non British/Irish immigration has increased significantly since World War II through an extensive, planned immigration program. Since 1945 around 6.6 million migrants have settled in Australia, including 690,000 refugee and humanitarian entrants. About 80% have remained; 24%--almost one in four--of Australians are foreign-born. Britain, Ireland, Italy, Greece, New Zealand, and the former Yugoslavia were the largest sources of post-war immigration, but New Zealand is closing on Britain as the largest source country for permanent migrants to Australia.

The barriers against Asians fell in the 1970s and thousands of immigrants from the Chinese diaspora resettled in Australia. Immigrants from India and the Philippines were numerous as well. ===Refugees===
Australia's humanitarian and refugee program of about 13,000 per year is in addition to other immigration programs. In recent years, refugees from Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia have comprised the largest element in Australia's refugee program. Although Australia has scarcely more than three people per square kilometer, it is one of the world's most urbanized countries. Less than 2.5% of the population lives in remote or very remote areas.
*Population (2009 est.): 21.8 million.
*Annual population growth rate: 1.7%.
*Ethnic groups: European 92%, Asian 6%, Aboriginal 2%.
*Religions (2006): Catholic 26%, Anglican 19%, other Christian 19%, other non-Christian 1%, Buddhist 2.1%, Islam 1.7%, no religion 19%, and not stated 12%.
*Languages: English.
*Education: Years compulsory--to age 16 in all states and territories except New South Wales and the Northern Territory where it is 15, and Western Australia where it is 17. Literacy--over 99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--4.7/1,000. Life expectancy--males 78 yrs., females 83 yrs.
*Work force (10.8 million): Agriculture--3.3%; mining--1.5%; manufacturing--9.8%; retail trade--11.3%; public administration, defense, and safety--6%; construction--9.2%

====Religion====
Australia is a [[secular]] nation, in that it has no established religion associated with the Government.

According to the 2006 census, 64% of citizens consider themselves to be Christian, including 26% Roman Catholic, 19% Anglican, and 19% other Christian. Buddhists constitute 2.1% of the population, Muslims 1.7%, Hindus 0.7%, Jews 0.4%, and all others professing a religion 0.5%. Of Australia's 21 million people, about 1.5 million attend weekly religious services <ref>[http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?docid=2250&track=82083| National Church Life Survey 2004]; U.S. State Department, "International Religious Freedom Report 2008" [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108400.htm online]</ref>.

In 1911, during the first census, 96% identified themselves as Christian. In recent decades traditional Christian denominations have seen their total number and proportion of affiliates stagnate or decrease significantly, although from 2001 to 2006, the total number of Pentecostal and charismatic Christians increased by 12.9%. Over the past decade, increased immigration from Southeast Asia and the Middle East considerably expanded the numbers of citizens who identify themselves as Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims, and increased the ethnic diversity of existing Christian denominations. Between 2001 and 2006, the numbers increased for Buddhists by 17% (to 418,000), Muslims by 21% (to 340,393), Jews by 6% (to 89,000), and Hindus by 55% (to 148,131). In 2006 approximately 18.7% of citizens considered themselves to have no religion, up from 17% in 2001, and 11.2% made no statement regarding religious affiliation. According to a 2002 survey, 23% of adults had participated in church or religious activities during the previous 3 months.

The Australian public school system is "free, secular and compulsory" with the secular meaning without favour to any particular religion - most primary schools, however, do offer some form of non-compulsory religious education according to the parents' wishes. The state systems of a number of states offer studies in religion at the senior level.

There is a large Catholic school system in Australia with most parishes having their own primary school and many hundreds of Catholic high schools across the country. There are also a large number of independent schools founded by various religions or denominations of the Christian faith - some hold that religious background to be more important than others. All schools, state or religious, receive government funding, as funding is provided for every student that is an Australian resident.

At the time of European settlement, aboriginal inhabitants followed religions that were animistic, involving belief in spirits behind the forces of nature and the influence of ancestral spirit beings. According to the 2006 census, 5,206 persons, or less than 0.03% of respondents, reported practicing aboriginal traditional religions, down from 5,244 in 2001. The 2006 census reported that almost 64% of Aborigines identify themselves as Christian and 20% listed no religion.

====Culture====
[[Image:Sidney opera house.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The Sydney Opera House, an iconic symbol of the nation]]
Much of Australia's culture is derived from European roots, but distinctive Australian features have evolved from the environment, [[Indigenous Australians|Aboriginal]] culture, and the influence of Australia's neighbors. The vigor and originality of the arts in Australia--film, opera, music, painting, theater, dance, and crafts--have achieved international recognition.

Australian actors and comedians such as Nicole Kidman, Rachel Griffiths, Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush, Paul Hogan, Hugh Jackman, the late Heath Ledger, and Dame Edna Everage (Barry Humphries) have achieved enormous popularity in the United States. Directors such as Peter Weir, Philip Noyes, and Russell Mulcahy, the conductor Sir Charles Mackerras, and singers and musicians such as Olivia Newton-John, Men At Work, The Wiggles, AC/DC, Dame Joan Sutherland, Dame Nellie Melba, and Kylie Minogue are well known.

Australian artists with international reputations include Sidney Nolan, Russell Drysdale, Pro Hart, and Arthur Boyd. Writers who have achieved world recognition include Thomas Keneally, Colleen McCullough, Nevil Shute, Morris West, Jill Ker Conway, Peter Carey, Robert Hughes, Germaine Greer, and Nobel Prize winner Patrick White.

====Sports====
Australia is known as a sporting nation with success worldwide in [[swimming]], [[tennis]], [[rugby union]], [[cricket]], [[netball]],and [[basketball]]. Australians are very keen horse racers with the Melbourne Cup <ref>[http://www.melbournecup.com.au| Melbourne Cup]</ref> attracting up to 120,000 spectators at Flemington Race Course on the first Tuesday in November. There is a public holiday for the cup race in Melbourne, while the remainder of the country virtually pauses during the running.

Unique to Australia is a game known as [[Australian rules football]] or Aussie Rules, which is played on a [[cricket]] oval in winter. Australian rules football is the sport most attended in the states of [[Victoria]], [[South Australia]] and [[Western Australia]], and most attended overall in Australia; in 2006 2.5 million people had attended at least one Aussie Rules game in the preceding 12 months.[http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyCatalogue/1F8FAC9C2C7B1623CA2568A900139417?OpenDocument] Australian Rules Football was written by persons educated at the [[Rugby School]] in England and [[Cambridge University]] before the organisation of uniform football codes. It is not as popular in [[New South Wales]] and [[Queensland]] although premiership teams are based in these two states.

The other national football code is [[rugby league]]. Rugby league football is the most attended sport in New South Wales and Queensland with its premier club competition being the [[National Rugby League]].

====Tourism====
Most tourists visit places such as Sydney Harbour, Uluru (Ayers Rock) in Central Australia and the Great Barrier Reef in Queensland. Other favourite destinations are the wine making areas of South Australia and northern Victoria, the Great Ocean Road in Victoria, the natural wonders of Tasmania and the huge outback expanses of Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Some cattle stations in Australia rival Texas in size and the distance between towns in some areas is enormous.

==Government==
Australia became a federated nation on January 1, 1901 under the [[Constitution of Australia]], and all former British colonies became states. The parliament met in Melbourne until the infrastructure was built for the capital city, [[Canberra]].

Australia has a [[Parliament|parliamentary system]] of government based on the British system with a [[bicameral]] system meeting as the [[Parliament of Australia]], consisting of the [[Australian House of Representatives]] and the [[Australian Senate]]. Each state and territory also has its own parliament.

The two other branches of government under the Constitution are the Executive ([[Governor-General of Australia]] taking advice from the Ministers) and the [[High Court of Australia]].

Australia is a democracy which has allowed men of European descent to vote since federation, with women gaining the vote in 1902 and Aboriginal men and women gaining suffrage in 1962. Voting is compulsory for all citizens who are 18 years old and over (with a few exceptions.)

Australia's Head of Government is the [[Prime Minister of Australia]]. The current Prime Minister is [[Kevin Rudd]], the leader of the parliamentary wing of the [[Australian Labor Party]] which won the federal election on 24 November 2007. The Deputy Prime Minister is [[Julia Gillard]], the first woman to hold the position, and the first woman to be Acting Prime Minister (during the temporary absence of Rudd on his first overseas trip.)

The Head of State is [[Queen Elizabeth II]], the Queen of Australia (who is the same person, but a different title, as the Queen of Great Britain.) Under the Constitution, and in practice, the authority of the Head of State is vested in the [[Governor-General of Australia]], currently Quentin Bryce AC, Previously Governor of [[Queensland]], who assents to acts of parliament, is the Commander in Chief of the military forces, and appoints all Ministers of the Government; all these various powers are normally exercised on advice from the Prime Minister.

The Government of Australia is exercised, day-to-day, by the Ministers through their various Departments of State.

====Voting====
{{main|Voting in Australia}}

Australia has [[preferential voting]], and voting is compulsory for adults (18 years and over), unless they have been deemed unfit to vote, either by mental illness or conviction for serious offences. Preferential voting encourages a multiplicity of parties and independent candidates, and counting the votes and allocating preferences can take some time where the results are close.

====Terms====
There is no limit on the time a person can be a Member of Parliament (MP) (elected, notionally, for 3 years, but the timing of elections is decided by the Prime Minister) or a Senator (elected for two cycles of the House of representatives.) The Prime Minister is normally a member of the House of Representatives, and the tenure is not limited by statute. Ministers may continue to serve for up to three months when not a Member or Senator, but must in that time be elected in order to continue. ([[John Gorton]] was a Senator when appointed leader of his party after the death of his predecessor. He immediately resigned from the Senate and stood for election to the House of Representatives, while remaining Prime Minister throughout.)

====Parliamentary political parties====
Currently, the main political parties in Australia are:
* [[Australian Greens]]
* [[Australian Labor Party]]
* [[Family First Party]]
* [[Liberal Party of Australia]]
* [[National Party of Australia]]
* One Nation Party

Despite the US connotation associated with the name, the Liberal Party is conservative in political stance. Robert Menzies helped found the Liberal Party in 1944 and was the Prime Minister from 1939 until 1941 and then again from 1949 until 1966.<ref> [http://www.liberals.net/liberalpartyhistory.htm History of the Liberal Party in Australia]</ref> The term "liberal" refers to the party's predominantly-[[free market|free-market]] approach to [[economics|economic management]].

The party currently in power is the [[Australian Labor Party]]. The Labor Party is also in government in all of the states and territories. The Prime Minister is Kevin Rudd.

Conservative Queensland polititian and businesswoman, Pauline Hanson formed the One Nation party to give a conservative voice to voters that were not being effectivly represented by the major partys. One Nation has held seats in both the Federal Senate and Lower House, and have been the subject of ridicule by left-leaning media commentators.

Though the Labor party is "social democratic" and the Liberals are "liberal conservatives", some of the smaller parties are more left leaning or more conservative than Labor and Liberal respectively.

''See also a [[list of Prime Ministers of Australia]].''

The Prime Minister of Australia is the most senior elected person in the country. The role is normally filled by the parliamentary leader of the party which forms the government.

===Principal Government Officials===
*Governor General--Quentin Bryce
*Prime Minister--Kevin Rudd
*Deputy Prime Minister--Julia Gillard
*Treasurer--Wayne Swan
*Foreign Minister--Stephen Smith
*Defense Minister--John Faulkner
*Trade Minister--Simon Crean

===Political Conditions===
Three political parties dominate the center of the Australian political spectrum. The Liberal Party (LP), nominally representing urban business interests, and its smaller coalition partner, The Nationals, nominally representing rural interests, are the more conservative parties. The Australian Labor Party (ALP) nominally represents workers, trade unions, and left-of-center groups. While the ALP, founded by labor unions, traditionally had been moderately socialist in its policies and approaches to social issues, today it is best described as a social democratic party. All political groups are tied by tradition to welfare programs. Over the last decade, Australia has increased welfare payments to families while imposing obligations on those receiving unemployment benefits and disability pensions. There is strong bipartisan sentiment on many international issues, including Australia's commitment to its alliance with the United States.

The ALP, under the leadership of Kevin Rudd, defeated the Liberal/National coalition, led by then-Prime Minister John Howard, in the November 24, 2007 election. The ALP now holds 83 seats in the House of Representatives, against 64 for the Liberal/National coalition, and 3 independents. The composition of the Senate is 37 seats for the coalition, 32 for the ALP, five seats for the Greens, one for Family First, and one independent.

Rudd and the ALP won the election with a message promising "new leadership" after 11 years of the Howard government. Rudd portrayed himself as an "economic conservative," while criticizing unpopular Howard government policies on workplace relations reform, climate change, and the war on Iraq. The Rudd government ratified the Kyoto Protocol and is working with the international community on combating climate change. It is undoing some labor market reforms instituted by the Howard government, such as statutory individual contracts. The Australian government's foreign policy shows strong continuity with that of its predecessors, stressing relations with four key countries: the United States, Japan, China, and Indonesia. The Rudd government strongly supports U.S. engagement in the Asia-Pacific region and increased Australia’s troop contribution in Afghanistan. It withdrew Australia's combat troops from Iraq in 2008; it intends to end its military mission in Iraq on July 31, 2009.

Australia has been an active participant in international affairs since federation in 1901, and Australian forces have fought beside the United States and other Allies in every significant conflict since World War I. On January 8, 1940, the governments of the United States and Australia announced the establishment of bilateral diplomatic relations. In 1944, Australia concluded an agreement with New Zealand dealing with the security, welfare, and advancement of the people of the independent territories of the Pacific (the ANZAC pact). After World War II, Australia played a role in the Far Eastern Commission in Japan and supported Indonesian independence during that country's revolt against the Dutch. Australia was one of the founding members of the United Nations, the South Pacific Commission, and the Colombo Plan. In addition to contributing to UN forces in Korea--it was the first country to announce it would do so after the United States--Australia sent troops to assist in putting down the 1948-1960 communist revolt in Malaya and later to combat the 1963-1965 Indonesian-supported invasion of Sarawak. The United States, Australia, and New Zealand signed the ANZUS Treaty in 1951, which remains Australia's pre-eminent formal security treaty alliance. Australia sent troops to assist South Vietnamese and U.S. forces in Vietnam, and joined coalition forces in the Persian Gulf conflict in 1991, in Afghanistan in 2001, and in Iraq in 2003.

Australia has been active in the Australia-New Zealand-U.K. agreement and the Five-Power Defense Arrangements--successive arrangements with Britain and New Zealand to ensure the security of Singapore and Malaysia.

One of the drafters of the UN Charter, Australia has given firm support to the United Nations and its specialized agencies. It was last a member of the Security Council in 1985-86, a member of the Economic and Social Council for 1986-89, and a member of the UN Human Rights Commission for 1994-96 and 2003-2005. Australia recently declared its intention to seek a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council for 2013-2014. Australia takes a prominent part in many other UN activities, including peacekeeping, nonproliferation and disarmament negotiations, and narcotics control. Australia also is active in meetings of the Commonwealth Regional Heads of Government and the Pacific Islands Forum, and has been a leader in the Cairns Group--countries pressing for agricultural trade reform in World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations--and in founding the APEC forum. In 2002, Australia joined the International Criminal Court.

Australia has devoted particular attention to relations between developed and developing nations, with emphasis on the ten countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the island states of the South Pacific. Australia is an active participant in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), which promotes regional cooperation on security issues, and has been a member of the East Asia Summit since its inauguration in 2005. In September 1999, acting under a UN Security Council mandate, Australia led an international coalition to restore order in East Timor upon Indonesia's withdrawal from that territory. In 2006, Australia participated in an international peacekeeping operation in Timor-Leste (formerly East Timor). Australia led a regional mission to restore law and order in Solomon Islands in 2003 and again in 2006. Australia is part of the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which also includes the United States.

The government is committed to increasing official development assistance to 0.5% of gross national income by 2015-2016. Australia budgeted A$3.79 billion (U.S. $3.03 billion) for FY 2008-2009 and has budgeted A$3.82 billion (U.S. $3.05 billion) for FY 2009-2010. The Australian aid program is currently concentrated in Southeast Asia (Papua New Guinea and Indonesia are the largest recipients) and the Pacific Islands. Selected aid flows are allocated to Africa, South Asia, and reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq. Contributions to multilateral organizations and other expenses account for about one-third of the foreign assistance budget.

===ANZUS and Defense===
The Australia, New Zealand, United States (ANZUS) security treaty was concluded at San Francisco on September 1, 1951, and entered into force on April 29, 1952. The treaty bound the signatories to recognize that an armed attack in the Pacific area on any of them would endanger the peace and safety of the others. It committed them to consult in the event of a threat and, in the event of attack, to meet the common danger in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The three nations also pledged to maintain and develop individual and collective capabilities to resist attack.

In 1984, the nature of the ANZUS alliance changed after the Government of New Zealand refused access to its ports by nuclear-weapons-capable and nuclear-powered ships of the U.S. Navy. The United States suspended defense obligations to New Zealand, and annual bilateral meetings between the U.S. Secretary of State and the Australian Foreign Minister replaced annual meetings of the ANZUS Council of Foreign Ministers. The first bilateral meeting was held in Canberra in 1985. At the second, in San Francisco in 1986, the United States and Australia announced that the United States was suspending its treaty security obligations to New Zealand pending the restoration of port access. Since 1985, U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense and the Australian Foreign and Defense Ministers have held 20 Australia-U.S. Ministerial consultations (AUSMIN), alternating between Australia and the United States. The next AUSMIN is scheduled to take place in Australia in 2010.

The U.S.-Australia alliance under the ANZUS Treaty remains in full force. AUSMIN meetings are supplemented by consultations between the U.S. Combatant Commander, Pacific and the Australian Chief of Defense Force. There also are regular civilian and military consultations between the two governments at lower levels.

ANZUS has no integrated defense structure or dedicated forces. However, in fulfillment of ANZUS obligations, Australia and the United States conduct a variety of joint activities. These include military exercises ranging from naval and landing exercises at the task-group level to battalion-level special forces training to numerous smaller-scale exercises, assigning officers to each other's armed services, and standardizing, where possible, equipment and operational doctrine. The two countries also operate joint defense facilities in Australia.

Following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, then-Prime Minister Howard and U.S. President George W. Bush jointly invoked the ANZUS Treaty for the first time on September 14, 2001. Australia was one of the earliest participants in Operation Enduring Freedom. Australian Defense Forces participated in coalition military action against Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Australian combat forces began their withdrawal from Iraq in mid-2008 and forces are to be fully removed by July 2009. Australia has approximately 1,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan and also provides significant development and capacity building assistance to the country. Based on growing defense commitments, Australia decided to increase the Australian Army from 26,000 to 30,000 over the next several years. This will enable the reestablishment of two infantry battalions, as well as enabling troops, such as a new unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) unit.

The Australian Government has stated its intention to maintain its investment in future capability of the Australian Defense Force (ADF). To do so, the government has committed to a 3% annual growth in real defense funding through 2018--and 2.2% annual real growth beyond--to ensure the ADF can continue to meet capability and interoperability goals. The Australian Defense Force numbers about 54,000 active duty personnel, with planned increases to 57,000 within the next decade. The Royal Australian Navy's (RAN) front-line fleet currently includes 12 frigates, including 4 of the Adelaide class and 8 Australian-built ANZAC class. In August 2004, Australia selected the Aegis Combat Control System for its three air warfare destroyers (AWD), which will start coming into service in 2014. The F/A-18 fighter, built in Australia under license from the U.S. manufacturer, is the principal combat aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force, backed by the U.S.-built F-111 strike aircraft. In October 2002, Australia became a Level III partner in the U.S.-led Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. Additionally, the Australian Government signed the JSF Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development MOU in 2006. Australia is projected to buy up to 100 JSF aircraft with deliveries starting in 2013 and running through 2020. The F-111 strike aircraft are scheduled to exit service by 2010 and will be replaced by 24 McDonnell Douglas F/A-18F Super Hornet fighters as an interim strike capability with deliveries commencing in 2010. The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) took delivery of the last aircraft in its buy of 4 Lockheed C-17 strategic airlift aircraft in 2008. In addition, Boeing will provide the Commonwealth of Australia's RAAF with an Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) system based on the Next-Generation 737-700 aircraft as the airborne platform. Recent U.S. sales to the Australian Army include the M1A1 AIM tank, as well as Hellfire and JAVELIN munitions. Future opportunities include CH-47 helicopter replacements, navy helicopter replacements, light and medium cargo aircraft replacements and artillery systems.

In May 2009, the Australian Government released its Defense White Paper, outlining Australia’s long-term strategic outlook. In addition to buying the JSF aircraft, the White Paper proposes to double Australia’s submarine fleet to 12, replace the ANZAC class frigates, and replace the army’s armored personnel carriers.

==Economy==

For more see: [[Australian economy]]

Since the 1980s, Australia has undertaken significant structural reform of its economy and has transformed itself from an inward-looking, highly protected, and regulated marketplace to an open, internationally competitive, export-oriented economy. Key economic reforms included unilaterally reducing high tariffs and other protective barriers to free trade, floating the Australian dollar, deregulating the financial services sector, including liberalizing access for foreign banks, increasing flexibility in the labor market, reducing duplication and increasing efficiency between the federal and state branches of government, privatizing many government-owned monopolies, and reforming the taxation system, including introducing a broad-based Goods and Services Tax (GST) and large reductions in income tax rates.

Australia enjoys a higher standard of living than any G7 country other than the United States. Australia's economic standing in the world is a result of a commitment to best-practice macroeconomic policy settings, including the delegation of the conduct of monetary policy to the independent Reserve Bank of Australia, and a broad acceptance of prudent fiscal policy where the government aims for fiscal balance over the economic cycle. Largely due to the fall in revenue as a result of the global economic downturn, net government debt is projected to reach about A$188 billion (U.S. $150.4 billion) in four years. The previous government, drawing from budget surpluses, created the “Future Fund” to provide for future liabilities resulting from the retirement of civil servants. The Government of Australia is predicting negative 0.5% growth in the 2009-2010 fiscal year; the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicted growth to be negative 1.4% for 2009.

Over 2008, unemployment has risen to around 5.5% from 4.2%, and the labor market participation has remained at around 65%. Both the federal and state governments have recognized the need to invest heavily in water, transport, ports, telecommunications, and education infrastructure to expand Australia's supply capacity. The largest river system in Australia, the Murray-Darling, and related coastal lakes and wetlands in South Australia are critically threatened and the government has developed a plan to improve irrigation infrastructure and efficiency and buy back unused water allocations along the river.
*GDP (2009-2010 estimate): A$1.17 trillion (U.S. $893.6 billion).
*Inflation rate (year to March 2009): 2.5% per annum.
*Reserve Bank official interest rate (May 2009): 3.00%.
*Trade: Exports ($178.9 billion, 2008 estimate)--coal, iron ore, gold, meat, wool, alumina, wheat, machinery and transport equipment. Major markets--Japan, China, South Korea, U.S. ($10.7 billion), and New Zealand. Imports ($187.2 billion, 2008 estimate)--machinery and transport equipment, computers and office machines, telecommunication equipment and parts; crude oil and petroleum products. Major suppliers--China, United States ($23.96 billion), Japan, Singapore, and Germany.
*Exchange rate (2009): U.S. $1 = A$1.25.

====Energy====
Australia is rich in natural resources with significant petroleum, natural gas and coal reserves. Australia’s energy consumption is dominated by coal, which fuels most of the country’s power generation. Petroleum accounts for a large share of energy consumption, but due to declining output, Australia is facing a growing dependence on petroleum imports. Over the past two decades, Australia has steadily consumed increasing amounts of natural gas, which is likely to continue over the medium term.<ref> See Energy Information Administration, "Australia" (2009) [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Australia/Background.html online]</ref>

Australia is one of the four countries (along with Norway, Canada and Mexico) belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that is a significant net energy exporter. Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter and is the fifth largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Australia’s prospects for expanding energy exports in the future are promising as Asian demand for both coal and LNG rises. However, Australia can expect increasing export competition from China (coal) and Indonesia (coal and LNG).

In July 2005, the Australian government formed the Australian Energy Regulator (AER). The AER is responsible for economic regulation in Australian energy markets. In addition, the AER promotes investment in the energy sector to ensure supply security, while monitoring prices faced by end users. In 2006, Australia’s 13 government bodies transferred energy regulation responsibility to the AER. The AER is seeking $23 billion in infrastructure investments over the next 15 years.

====Comparing Australian and U.S. Economic and Health statistics====
Whilst the Australian society is similar in many aspects to those of the U.S., a comparison of key economic (in $U.S.) and health indicators highlights some interesting fundamental differences:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !!Australia!!U.S.
|-
| '''GDP Per Capita'''
| $32,900.00
| $43,500.00
|-
| '''Budget Deficit/Surplus''' Per capita
| $444.00 surplus. Australia has had budget surpluses every year since 2001
| $841.00 deficit
|-
| '''Public Debt'''
| 14.1% of GDP
| 64.7% of GDP
|-
| '''Military Expenditure'''
| 2.5 % of GDP
| 4.06% of GDP
|-
| '''Life Expectancy at Birth''' (combined male and female)
| 80.5 years
| 77.85 years
|-
| '''Infant Mortality Rates''' deaths/1,000 live births
| 4.63
| 6.43
|-
| '''HIV/AIDS Prevalence Rates'''
| 0.1% of population
| 0.6% of population
|}
Australia has a universal health scheme and significant subsidies on most prescription medications.

== History==
''see main article [[History of Australia]]''

Australia was uninhabited until stone-culture peoples arrived, perhaps by boat across the waters separating the island from the Indonesia archipelago more than 40,000 years ago. Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, and English explorers observed the island before 1770, when Captain Cook explored the east coast and claimed it for Great Britain.

On January 26, 1788 (now celebrated as Australia Day), the so-called '''First Fleet''' landed at Sydney and the Colony of New South Wales was established. Many, but by no means all, of the first settlers were convicts, some condemned for offenses that today would often be thought trivial. From the mid-19th century convict transportation to Australia significantly declined; the last ship to arrive was in 1868. Many officers of the Royal Navy received grants and established large farms and ranches. Ranchers who used government lands for their herds of sheep were informally called "squatters"; despite the term, most were wealthy. The discovery of gold in 1851 led to increased immigration, wealth, and trade. A third of the new arrivals were Irish Catholics, and there emerged a political and cultural tension between them and the Protestant British.

The six colonies that became the states of the Australian Commonwealth were established in the following order: New South Wales, 1788; Tasmania, 1825; Western Australia, 1829; South Australia, 1836; Victoria, 1851; and Queensland, 1859. Settlement preceded these dates in most cases.

Negotiations between Australians and the government in London led Parliament to create the '''Commonwealth of Australia''' in 1900, effective January 1, 1901.

Australia came of age in World War I, when it supported the British war effort, and imprisoned German citizens living their. he great defeat at Gallipoli focused Australia's herois self image.

In May 1927, the seat of government was transferred to Canberra, a planned city designed by American Walter Burley Griffin. Australia passed the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act on October 9, 1942 (with effect as of September 3, 1939), which officially established Australia's complete autonomy in both internal and external affairs and formalized a situation that had existed for years.<ref> The Australia Act (effective March 3, 1986) eliminated almost all remaining vestiges of British legal authority, including the ability to appeal to the British Privy Council.</ref>

In World War II Australia again rallied to the British cause, but were left practically undefended when at fall of Singapore in 1942 the Japanese captured much of the Australian army. The rest of the army was rushed back from the Middle East to defend against a possible Japanese invasion. Britain was no help, so Australia turned, permanently, to the United States for its defense.

In practice the monarch is only symbolic--a symbol especially of ties to the [[british Empire]] that the Irish and new immigrants are unwilling to continue. In 1998,republicans were given a free hand to choose the form of republic they wanted. This was put to a referendum in 1999, and enjoyed strong support among the politicans and in the mainstream media. But a campaign led by a group, [http://www.norepublic.com.au Australians for Constitutional Monarchy ] resulted in the defeat of the referendum in all states and 72% of electorates. Republicans remain unable to agree on how to replace the present system--whether with a powerful elected president responsible directly to the people, or with a weak president chosen by the government (as in Germany), the model which was rejected in 1999 because of distrust of politicians.

== See also ==
* [[Australian dollar]]
* [[Currency#Australia|Currency: Australia]]

==Bibliography==

===References===
* Bambrick, Susan ed. ''The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Australia'' (1994)
* Davison, Graeme, John Hirst, and Stuart Macintyre, eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian History'' (2001) online at many academic libraries; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Australian-History/dp/019551503X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* O'Shane, Pat et al. ''Australia: The Complete Encyclopedia'' (2001)
* Shaw, John, ed. ''Collins Australian Encyclopedia'' (1984)
* Serle. Percival, ed. ''Dictionary of Australian Biography'' (1949) [http://gutenberg.net.au/dictbiog/00-dict-biogIndex.html online edition]
[[File:Aussie1.jpg|thumb|280px]]
===Guides===
* ''Australia For Dummies'' by Marc Llewellyn and Lee Mylne. (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Australia-Dummies-Travel-Marc-Llewellyn/dp/0470178345/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126338&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
* '' Central Australia: Adelaide to Darwin'' by Charles Rawlings-Way and Meg Worby (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Central-Australia-Adelaide-Darwin-Regional/dp/1741046637/ref=sr_1_17?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-17 excerpt and text search]
* ''Frommer's Australia 2009'' by Lee Mylne et al. (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Frommers-Australia-2009-Complete/dp/0470345446/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126132&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* ''Moon Living Abroad in Australia'' by James M. Lane (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Moon-Living-Abroad-Australia-James/dp/1598801392/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* ''The Rough Guide to Australia'' by Margo Daly et al. (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-Australia-Travel-Guides/dp/1848360738/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-13 excerpt and text search]
* Vaisutis, Justine et al. ''Lonely Planet Sydney & New South Wales'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Australia-Country-Guide-Justine-Vaisutis/dp/174179160X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126132&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]

===Economics and business===
* Kelly, Paul. ''The End of Certainty: Power, Politics and Business in Australia,'' (1994)
* McLean, Ian W. "Consumer Prices and Expenditure Patterns in Australia 1850-1914." ''Australian Economic History Review''(1999) 39(1): 1-28; includes a consumer price index (CPI) for the period 1850 to 1914. Issn: 0004-8992 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Moran, Anthony. ''Australia: Nation, Belonging, and Globalization'' Routledge, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108858937 online edition]
*Robinson GM, Loughran RJ, and Tranter PJ. ''Australia and New Zealand: economy, society and environment''.(2000)

===Environment and Geography===
* Appleton, Richard, and Barbara Appleton. ''The Cambridge Dictionary of Australian Places'' (1993)
* Dovers, Stephen. ''Australian Environmental History: Essays & Cases'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Environmental-History-Essays-Cases/dp/0195534824/ref=sr_1_8/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
* Garden, Don. ''Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific: An Environmental Hisory.'' ABC-CLIO, 2005. 398 pp.
* Hutton, Drew, and Libby Connors. ''History of the Australian Environment Movement'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Australian-Environment-Movement-Hutton/dp/052145686X/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Lines, William. ''Taming the Great South Land: A History of the Conquest of Nature in Australia'' (1992)
*Powell JM . ''An Historical Geography of Modern Australia: The Restive Fringe''. (1988)
*Robinson GM, Loughran RJ, and Tranter PJ. ''Australia and New Zealand: economy, society and environment''.(2000)

===History===
see [[History of Australia]] for more detaile guide
* Atkinson, Alan. ''The Europeans in Australia: A History. Vol. 2: Democracy.'' (2005). 440 pp.
* Barker, Anthony. ''What Happened When: A Chronology of Australia from 1788.'' Allen & Unwin. 2000. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108433410 online edition]
* Basset, Jan. ''The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary of Australian History'' (1998)
* Bolton, Geoffrey. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 5: 1942-1995. The Middle Way'' (2005)
* Clarke, Frank G. ''The History of Australia'' (2002). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101344125 online edition]
* Davison, Graeme, John Hirst, and Stuart Macintyre, eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian History'' (2001) online at many academic libraries; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Australian-History/dp/019551503X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* Day, David. ''Claiming a Continent: A New History of Australia'' (2001);
* Edwards, John. ''Curtin's Gift: Reinterpreting Australia's Greatest Prime Minister,'' (2005) [http://www.questia.com/read/108661368 online edition]
* Hughes, Robert. ''The Fatal Shore: The Epic of Australia’s Founding'' (1988). [http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Shore-Robert-Hughes/dp/0099448548/ref=pd_bbs_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Kemp, Rod, and Marion Stanton, eds. ''Speaking for Australia: Parliamentary Speeches That Shaped Our Nation'' Allen & Unwin, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=110168653 online edition]
* Kingston, Beverley. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 3: 1860-1900 Glad, Confident Morning'' (1993)
* Kociumbas, Jan. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 2: 1770-1860 Possessions'' (1995)
* Macintyre, Stuart. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 4: 1901-42, the Succeeding Age'' (1993)
* Macintyre, Stuart. ''A Concise History of Australia'' (2nd. ed. 2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Concise-History-Australia-Cambridge-Histories/dp/0521735939/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-14 excerpt and text search]
* Martin, A. W. ''Robert Menzies: A Life'' (2 vol 1993-99), online at ACLS e-books
* Megalogenis, George. ''The Longest Decade'' (2nd ed. 2009), politics 1990-2008
* Schreuder, Deryck, and Stuart Ward, eds. ''Australia's Empire'' (Oxford History of the British Empire Companion Series) (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Australias-Empire-History-British-Companion/dp/0199273731/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226788019&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Serle. Percival, ed. ''Dictionary of Australian Biography'' (1949)[http://gutenberg.net.au/dictbiog/00-dict-biogIndex.html online edition]
* Taylor, Peter. ''The Atlas of Australian History'' (1991)
* Welsh, Frank. ;;Australia: A New History of the Great Southern Land'' (2008)

===International Relations and Military===
* Bridge, Carl ed., ''Munich to Vietnam: Australia's Relations with Britain and the United States since the 1930s,'' Melbourne University Press 1991
* Dennis, Peter, Jeffrey Grey, Ewan Morris, and Robin Prior. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History.'' 1996)
* Firth, Stewart. ''Australia in International Politics: An Introduction to Australian Foreign Policy'' (2005) [http://www.questia.com/read/108662470 online edition]
* Grant, Ian. ''A Dictionary of Australian Military History - from Colonial Times to the Gulf War'' (1992)
* Lee, David. ''Search for Security: The Political Economy of Australia's Postwar Foreign and Defence Policy'' (1995)
* McLean, David. "From British Colony to American Satellite? Australia and the USA during the Cold War," ''Australian Journal of Politics & History" (2006) 52 (1), 64–79. Rejects satellite model. [http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2006.00408a.x online at Blackwell-Synergy]
* McLean, David. "Australia in the Cold War: a Historiographical Review." ''International History Review'' (2001) 23(2): 299-321. Issn: 0707-5332
* Murphy, John. ''Harvest of Fear: A History of Australia's Vietnam War'' (1993)
* Watt, Alan. ''The Evolution of Australian Foreign Policy 1938–1965,'' Cambridge University Press, 1967

===Culture and society===
* Bebbington, Warren. ''A Dictionary of Australian Music'' (1999)
* Bennett, Bruce et al. ''The Oxford Literary History of Australia'' (1999)
* Bennett, Tony, and David Carter. ''Culture in Australia: Policies, Publics and Programs'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Australia-Reshaping-Australian-Institutions/dp/0521004039/ref=sr_1_47/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193533775&sr=8-47 excerpt and text search]
* Breward, Ian. ''A History of the Churches in Australasia.'' (2002). 474 pp.
* Carey, Hilary. ''Believing in Australia: A Cultural History of Religions'' (1996)
* Horton, David. ''The Encyclopedia of Aboriginal Australia: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander History, Society and Culture'' (2001)
* Huggan Graham. ''Postcolonialism, Racism, Transnationalism'' (Oxford Studies in Postcolonial Literatures) (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Literature-Postcolonialism-Transnationalism-Postcolonial/dp/0199274622/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-10 excerpt and text search]
* Jupp, James, ed. ''The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, its People and their Origins'' (2nd ed. 2002) 960pp [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521807891/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Jupp, James. ''The English in Australia'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521542952/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Kleinert, Sylvia. and Margo Neale. ''The Oxford Companion to Aboriginal Art and Culture'' (2001)
* Leitner, Gerhard. ''Australia's Many Voices: Australian English--the National Language'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/3110181940/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Love, J.W. ed. ''Australia and the Pacific Islands'' (Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, Volume 9) (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Australia-Pacific-Islands-Garland-Encyclopedia/dp/0824060385/ref=sr_1_14/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193533487&sr=8-14 excerpt and text search]
* McAllister, Ian, Steve Dowrick, Riaz Hassan; ''The Cambridge Handbook of the Social Sciences in Australia'' Cambridge University Press, 2003 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108131347 online edition]
* McCulloch, Alan. ''Encyclopedia of Australian Art'' 2 vol (1984)
* McDonald, John. ''Federation: Australian Art and Society, 1901-2001. Natl. Gallery of Australia, 2002. 264 pp.
* Moran, Albert. ''Historical Dictionary of Australian Radio and Television'' (2007)
* Nile, Richard. ''The Making of the Australian Literary Imagination.'' (2002). 315 pp.
* Rickard, John, ''Australia: A Cultural History'' (1988)
* Webby, Elizabeth. ''The Cambridge Companion to Australian Literature'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Companion-Australian-Literature-Companions/dp/0521658438/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]
* Wilde, William H. et al eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian Literature'' (1995) online at [[OUP]] [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Australian-Literature/dp/019553381X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* ''The Oxford Literary History of Australia.''
* Samuels, Selina, ed. ''Australian Writers, 1915-50.'' (2002). 510 pp.
* Sayers, Andrew. ''Australian Art'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Art-Oxford-History/dp/0192842145/ref=sr_1_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search]
* Webby, Elizabeth, ed. ''The Cambridge Companion to Australian Literature'' (2006)
* Wannan, Bill. ''A Dictionary of Australian Folklore: Lore, Legends, Myths and Traditions'' (1988)

==Primary sources==
* [http://samizdat.stores.yahoo.net/auslitandhis.html Australia: Literature and History 136 e-books]

==External links==
* [http://www.fed.gov.au Australian Government portal]
* [http://www.aph.gov.au Australian Parliament House (Reps & Senate) portal]
* [http://www.gg.gov.au Governor-General of Australia]
*[http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/oceania.htm Australia and Oceania]
* [http://www.norepublic.com.au Australians for Constitutional Monarchy]
* [http://www.crownedrepublic.com.au The Crowned Republic ]

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

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| Some of the text for this article is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2698.htm]}}}.
|}

[[Category:Oceanian Countries]]
[[Category:Continents]]
[[Category:Australia]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:British Empire]]
[[Category:Bibliographies]]

Tony Abbott

2010-02-08T10:58:15Z

AusRight: Added polling

'''Tony Abbott''' (b. 4 November 1957) is a conservative [[Australian]] politician, who is currently the head of the [[Liberal Party of Australia]]<ref>http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/national/new-liberal-leader-tony-abbott-to-focus-on-battlers-economy/story-e6frg15u-1225805944477</ref>. He is representing a seat in parliament for the state of [[New South Wales]] since 1994. He had risen to prominence under the Howard Government as Minister for Health and Ageing from 2003 - 2007 where he was outspoken in issues such as Abortion saying several times that it is as 'a national tragedy' <ref>http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/16/1079199229752.html</ref>. In terms of public perception, Abbott is generally seen as a devout Catholic and has the nickname 'Mad Monk' as he wanted to be a priest.

==Early life==
He was born in [[London]] on November 4, 1957 to Australian parents and in 1960 they moved back to take up residence in [[Sydney]]. He attended 2 private Catholic, only boys schools in Sydney and completed a Bachelor of Economics and a Bachelor of Law at Sydney University where he was an active student politician and boxer. He then attended Queen's College in Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar and gained a Master of Arts. When he came back he entered the St Patrick's Seminary in Manly where he studied to become a Catholic priest but left before completion to take up a role as a journalist for the Bulletin (a now discontinued weekly political and cultural magazine) and The Australian (a Monday to Saturday conservative newspaper).

He is married to Margaret Abbott and they have 3 daughters.

==Politics ==
He was elected to the [[Australian House of Representatives]] in 1994 and has had various portfolios including Minister for Employment Services, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Health and Ageing. As Minister for Health and Ageing he was known for speaking out against Abortion and the use of Embryonic stem cell research. He was always against the drug RU486 which is used for non-surgical abortions and only by a conscience vote in 2005 was the ban lifted from 1996. <ref>http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1571075.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1507408.htm</ref>. Like most conservatives in Australia he supporters the constitutional monarchy in Australia. As of recent with the Climate change debate in Australia he has stated that it is 'absolute crap' but later he said it wasn't his 'considered position' on the subject. <ref> http://www.theage.com.au/national/we-will-have-climate-policy-abbott-says-20091201-k3vb.html </ref>.

On 1 December 2009 after more than 15 years in the [[Liberal Party of Australia]] he became leader due to much hate over then leader [[Malcolm Turnbull]] and his acceptance of the Australian [[Cap and trade]] equivalent called ETS (emission trading scheme) which has been called 'the single worst piece of legislation to be foisted on the Australian public' by respected environmental scientist Professor Bob Carter who has been as an expert witness on climate change before the U.S. Senate Committee of Environment & Public Works, the Australian and N.Z. parliamentary Select Committees into emissions trading and in a meeting in parliament house, Stockholm. He was also a primary science witness in the U.K. High Court case of Dimmock v. H.M.'s Secretary of State for Education, the 2007 judgement from which identified nine major scientific errors in Al Gore's film [[An Inconvenient Truth]]. <ref>http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=690</ref> <ref>http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/news/local/news/general/scientist-hits-out-at-emissions-bill/1548894.aspx</ref> <ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/</ref>. The bill was later rejected by the [[Australian Senate]] and only 2 Liberal Party senators voted for the bill while even the [[Australian Greens| Greens]] voted against it. <ref>http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/australian-senate-rejects-ets-115811</ref> <ref>http://www.smh.com.au/national/dead--ets-to-rise-again-20091202-k4c1.html?autostart=1</ref>

==Popular culture & Polling==
In the Australian public he is known for his being socially conservative, his obsession with fitness <ref>http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-clear-view-of-hindsight/2007/07/20/1184560040338.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2</ref> and his colorful language. <ref>http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26465464-27197,00.html</ref> <ref>http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/abbotts-language-doesnt-faze-gillard-20090911-fk1h.html</ref> Due to Abbott's arguably populist image he has struck a chord with many conservative suburban voters who previously supported [[John Howard]] and has closed the gap in the polls with the Coalition overtaking [[Australian Labor Party|Labor]] on primary votes for the first time since 24-26 November 2006 and his climate change policy has also won the opinions of moderates who previously thought that the Coalition had no credential with 45% of those polled preferred Mr Abbott's plan compared to 39% who supported Kevin Rudd's ETS. <ref>http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/08/2812660.htm?section=justin</ref> <ref>http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling/display_poll_data.pl</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politicians]]

Gun control

2010-01-22T02:27:25Z

AusRight: Added some more information

'''Gun control''' laws restrict the purchase or ownership of guns, weapons acquired mostly for defensive or sporting purposes. Gun control is unique among social programs in increasing the emotional and physical dependency of ''all'' citizens on government. Because gun control raises the dependence of citizens on government, its political effect is to shift the electorate leftward. The primary supporters of gun control are the [[liberal media]] and [[leftist]] politicians.<ref>[http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/repeal.html Quotes of Leftists Demanding Gun Control]</ref> In the [[United Kingdom]], which already has the strictest gun control in Europe, [[leftists]] demand control over 120,000 ''deactivated'' guns, even though their activation and use constitute only 0.04% of all gun offenses there; fewer guns means greater dependency on government.<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3168607.ece</ref>

Gun control is a denial or limitation by [[government]]s of the right to armed [[self-defense]],<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"> "In contrast to most other weaponry, firearms are preeminently defensive in effect." [http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/76holo.htm Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref> as promised by the [[Second Amendment]] of the Constitution of the [[United States of America]]. Genocide has occurred only after gun control first disarmed the citizenry.<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"/>

Proponents use the discredited - but superficially appealing - claim that fewer lawfully-owned guns leads to less crime.<ref>People who support gun control generally believe that gun control laws significantly reduce violent crime. [http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/irrationality.htm Why People Are Irrational about Politics]</ref><ref>Gun control primarily restricts the lawful acquisition and use of guns. Over 99% of the guns restricted by most gun control regulation are used in a lawful manner.</ref>

In the United States the three primary [[federal]] gun control laws are:
* [[National Firearms Act]] (1934)
* [[Gun Control Act]] (1968)
* [[Brady Bill]] (1993)

These laws have further been amended by other laws such as the [[Firearms Owners Protection Act]] (1986) and the [[Omnibus Crime Bill]] (1994).

Fed up with federal gun control, in 2009 States began considering (Utah) or passing (Montana) laws "making guns that are made and kept within state boundaries exempt from federal regulations" including "background checks, licensing and registration."<ref>http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6367553</ref>

== The Fallacy and Motivation for Gun Control ==
[[Image:No Weapons Allowed.gif|right]]
Gun control potentially causes an increase in crime by restricting its main deterrent: [[self-defense]]. In the United States, law-abiding uses of guns outnumber criminal uses by about a factor of 1000 to 1,<ref>http://www.americanselfdefense.com/gunfacts3.0.pdf (p. 60)</ref> and the removal of guns from everyone eliminates the lawful use of self-defense and its deterrent effect. "[[Americans]] use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year."<ref name="Gallup_LAT">"This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times." (Just Facts - [http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Gun Control])</ref> Specific examples of guns being used successfully in [[self-defense]] are easy to find.<ref>Two 70-ish store owners stopped armed robberies of their stores by shooting at the bandits. "The person came in and pointed the gun at him and my father shot him. I'm proud of him." [http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/253849.html Buffalo News]</ref> "In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> When [[Florida]] began allowing its citizens to carry a concealed weapon, [[Florida]]'s firearm homicide rate fell by 37% while the national average ''increased'' by 15%.<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> As explained below, the political effect of gun control is to cause voters to become more dependent emotionally on government and more supportive of bigger government.

Studies by [[John Lott]] and others indicate that gun control causes higher crime rates.<ref>[http://www.johnrlott.com/ John Lott's Website]</ref> [[Washington, D.C.]] has one of the highest crime rates in [[America]] even though it completely bans private handguns.<ref>[http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm District of Columbia Crime Rates 1960 - 2006]</ref> "Switzerland, Israel, Denmark and Finland, all of whom have a higher gun ownership rate than America, all have lower crime rates than America, in fact, their crime rates are among the lowest in the Western World."<ref>Slashdoc - [http://www.slashdoc.com/documents/71244 gun control]</ref> Lott demonstrates that in [[Britain]], [[Australia]] and [[Canada]], increased gun control in the late 1990s led to increased crime, the exact opposite of what the proponents of the gun control promised.<ref>John R. Lott Jr. and Eli Lehrer - [http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html Add Gun Control To Litany Of Misbegotten Gov't Plans]</ref> States in the [[U.S.]] that have enacted concealed-carry laws enjoy lower crime rates.<ref>[http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706 Cato report]</ref>

[[image:Robbery victims per 100K.png|300px|thumb|Source data: Australian Bureau of Statistics]]
[[image:Robbery victims.png|300px|thumb|Source data: Australian Bureau of Statistics]]

In [[Australia]], where gun ownership was less widespread and the gun control measures were less strict, there was an immediate increase in robbery and armed robbery after the gun control went into effect in 1996 (see chart at right).<ref>

Gun control passed in Australia because "public was immediately whipped into a gun control frenzy by the press" after the "Port Arthur massacre" in Tasmania on April 28, 1996, in which 32 were shot dead and 19 injured. "Although polls done prior to the massacre indicated that the public was satisfied with the amount of 'gun control' they already had, a major newspaper did a poll just a few days after the massacre (while all minds were "clear") and, not surprisingly, found high levels of support for extreme gun control measures. This poll would be used forever by the commonwealth government and other gun controllers to claim that Australians supported the new gun laws to come." - [http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html Gun Control in Australia] (by gunsandcrime.org)</ref>

There is no clear evidence supporting a decrease in crime from gun control.<ref name="Results">[http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html Results of the Australian Gun "Buyback" & New Gun Laws], October 2001</ref><ref>[http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/azl084v1 Study showing lack of promised benefits from gun control]</ref> Although from 1979 to 1996, 11,110 Australians died by gunshot representing an annual average of 617. In the seven years after new gun laws were announced (1997 to 2003), the yearly average almost halved, to 331. In the decade up to and including Port Arthur There have been 11 mass shootings where 100 people were shot dead and another 52 wounded, while in In the 10 years since 1996 and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting (more than five victims) has occurred in Australia (although in 2002 a gunman killed two and wounded four at Monash University) <ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1</ref>

Subsequent to gun control in England:<ref>http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html</ref>

:"from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now [as of 2002] six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people."<ref>However this increase in recorded violent crime between 1997 and 2001 is explained by the Home Office as a result of changes in the definition of violent crime and new counting rules introduced in 1998. [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf Violent Crime in England and Wales] According to the British Crime Survey, which is considered a more reliable guide to trends in crime[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/crime-statistics-independent-review-06.pdf], violent crime fell 24% between 1997 and 2001/02, and burglary fell 40% over the same period.[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb1105tab201.xls Trends in BCS incidents of crime]</ref>

Gun control in [[Britain]] and [[Australia]] has been followed by a predictable shift to the left politically by voters as they lost their instrument of self-defense and became more emotionally dependent on government. Contrast that with the [[United States]], where an effort to push gun control after the [[Columbine massacre]] failed in 2000 and the government has remained as [[conservative]] -- if not more so -- ever since.

The emasculation of the citizenry by gun control also arguably reduces the resistance of a society to intimidation, and exacerbates fear of consequences from causing offense. Subsequent to the passage of strict gun control in [[England]] some teachers have avoided teaching controversial subjects such as the [[Holocaust]], the Arab-Israeli conflict and the [[Crusades]] during history classes.<ref>http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RW100.pdf</ref>
Teaching Emotive and Controversial History 3-19] (p.15) The anti-self-defense attitude of British authorities has also turned criminals into "victims" and victims who fight back into "criminals." One particularly egregious case involved a farmer being sentenced to life imprisonment for defending himself in his home after the home was repeatedly burglarized <ref>http://www.theinternetparty.org/commentary/c_s.php?td=200107200000&section_type=com</ref>

== Trends ==
After decades of increasing gun control laws, the current trend in the [[United States]] is in the direction of more gun rights. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain new rifles labeled assault rifles solely because of features of their appearance, and on new high-capacity magazines. This law recently expired and was not renewed by [[Congress]]. Also, Washington D.C.'s gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/washington/09cnd-gun.html?hp Appeals Court Says Gun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment]</ref><ref>The Washington Post - [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416.html D.C.'s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out]</ref>

By removing the deterrent effect of guns, gun control causes dramatic increases in crimes committed with other weapons:<ref name="bbc">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm</ref>

:You are now six times more likely to be mugged in [[London]] than [[New York]]. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Supporters of gun control argue that homicide with guns is much less in [[England]] than in the [[United States]],<ref>In 2005/06, the total number of victims of homicide by shooting (including crossbows) in England and Wales was 50 and there were 212 victims of homicide by sharp instruments. [Home Office Statistical Bulletin - [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005/2006][http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pdf] The data for gun deaths in the United States include guns used in self-defense, as in fending off an assault, robbery or rape, and there were a total of 11,350 gun deaths (including deaths of criminals) in 2005.[US Department of Justice, FBI - [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005]</ref> but that was true even before gun control and is likely due to cultural reasons. "A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms. When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million."<ref name="bbc" />

Gun control laws are often seen to conflict with the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which recognizes the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The "right to keep and bear arms" is a right guaranteed to the American citizen by the Bill of Rights through the virtue of a selective reading of said Bill. The phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" precedes the statement, and most federal Courts of Appeals have held that this phrase requires that the "right to bear arms" relates to the collective rights of state militias, as opposed to the individual's rights to have any weapon desired. Just recently, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit went against nine other circuits in holding that the Second Amendment constitutes an individual right.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Court Rejects Strict Gun Law as Unconstitutional]</ref><ref>FOX News - [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html Appeals Court Strikes Down Washington, D.C. Handgun Ban]</ref> However, according to the judge writing for the majority in this case, its decision does still allow for "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership and use, such as carrying of guns by intoxicated individuals, or in churches.

Only six cities in the [[United States]] ban handguns: [[Washington, D.C.]], [[Chicago]], and four of its suburbs.<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

==Overview==
"Gun control" can include:

* Restricting which persons can own firearms.
* Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period
* Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government.
* Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, "handguns" or assault rifles
* Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices
* Requiring a "background check" and/or a "waiting period" to purchase a firearm
* Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail
* Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm
* Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly
* Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public, which was used in several southern states.
* Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
* Outright bans on private possession of firearms, though this has never occurred in the United States

==Constitutional Debate==
The [[Second Amendment]] reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Most constitutional scholars agree that since the amendment refers to "the right of the People" instead of the right of the militia, it protects an individual right to own guns. The extent of that right was something hotly debated for decades, until the Supreme Court ruling of 26 June, 2008, Heller v District of Columbia.

The majority opinion, written by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], held for the first time that the Constitution provides an individual right to bear arms, such as for self-defense, rather than a right that applies only to a state militia.

The decision upheld an appellate court ruling striking down Washington, D.C.'s 1976 handgun ban. The case marked the first time in more than 70 years that the Supreme Court had addressed the Second Amendment ''and the first time it spoke directly about the implication of an individual right''. The court struck down two of the District of Columbia's gun control laws: its handgun ban and its requirement that other firearms kept at home have a trigger lock or be disassembled.

Relying on the broader historical record, Justice Scalia wrote:
{{cquote|'''putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.'''}}

Scalia noted that the ruling should not be interpreted to "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." <ref>[http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf Supreme Court Opinion, District of Columbia v Heller]</ref>

==Racism of gun control==
In the [[United States of America]], gun control has a strong racist origin and reasoning. Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President [[Abraham Lincoln]] issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in its infamous 1857 decision in ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]'' to uphold slavery.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights."<ref>Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal (GMU CR LJ), Vol. 2, No. 1, "Gun Control and Racism," Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75.</ref> Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.

Today, "gun control" laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist effect if not intent:

* Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among "unpopular" populations.
* Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out for gun bans.
* "Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods" whereby vehicles and "pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon" are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the [[U.S. Department of Justice]] as "Operation Ceasefire."
* Some U.S. cities with high minority populations, such as Washington, D.C., are singled out for gun bans.
* "Project Exile" began in the U.S. city of Richmond, Virginia and mandated that people arrested for technical firearms violations (note: not for violent crimes committed with a firearm, but for technical violations of the law) be tried in federal court where they would be subject to lengthy mandatory minimum sentences rather than in state court under the more lenient Virginia laws. As with many other restrictions this was aimed primarily at the city's Black residents. It has since been copied in many other cities.

== Sexism of gun control ==

Firearms, especially lower recoiling ones such as handguns, allow any person to wield enough power to stop another person from attacking them.<ref name="genderDiscrimination1">http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/03/19/firearms-rights-are-a-gender-equality-issue-too/ </ref> Many women (quite reasonably) fear the threat of attack by a physically stronger man, and a firearm could prevent many of these attacks, but gun bans leave these women vulnerable. Take the case of the “North Side Rapist” in Chicago, a city where hand guns are banned, as an example: The rapist broke in to the womens homes, and at least one of the women heard him break in and then climb the stairs. Had this woman had a handgun, she almost certainly could have stopped the rapist before it was too late. This would have prevented her from enduring such a horrific crime, as well as preventing the rapist’s future victims from experiencing the same thing. Instead, Chicago law prevented her from being able to defend herself, and gave the advantage to the rapist/home-invader. This is not an isolated incident, and similar events happen every day across the county.

== Elitism of gun control ==

Many of the most ardent American anti-gun politicians, such as Chicago’s Mayor Daley, are protected by taxpayer-sponsored armed body guards, but deny law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves with a gun. <ref name="classDiscrimination1">http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/04/16/a-double-standard-anti-gun-politicians-and-their-gun-toting-bodyguards/ </ref> These politicians seemingly believe themselves to be part of an elite group who deserve to be protected against violent criminals, while ordinary law-abiding citizens are left with less-effective means to defend themselves, and must instead rely on the police arriving in time.

== Gun control outside the USA ==

Gun control advocates cite foreign countries to argue that gun control can reduce crime, but such comparison can be difficult due to the presence of other factors. For example, they cite [[Singapore]] as having gun control and a lower crime rate than the [[United States]], but Singapore has less than 5 million persons and one of the highest literacy and average wealth in the world. It lacks many of the freedoms found in the [[United States]] and strictly imposes harsh physical punishment, such as caning and the [[death penalty]], for crimes that are not punished so harshly in the [[United States]]. The real issue of the security in Singapore is its tight criminal control, not the gun control itself.

Gun control supporters also cite [[Gun Control in Japan|Japan's gun control laws]], which severely restrict gun ownership and crime rates are relatively low. But [[Japan]] also lacks many freedoms and diversity which exist in the [[United States]], and [[Japan]] has strong cultural deterrents to crime. Ironically, [[Japan]] is home to [[Tokyo Marui]], the world's largest [[airsoft]] gun manufacturer, which designs airsoft guns that are made to the same scale and with the same materials as the real counterpart and which have been mistaken by police for real guns.

In the [[European Union]], gun control is more strict than in the United States, but gun ownership differs widely between member states, from 36 per 100 people in [[Cyprus]] to one per 100 in [[Poland]].<ref name="EU">http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/29/europe/union.php EU legislators push tougher gun controls</ref> In November 2007, the [[European Parliament]] passed legislation to tighten and harmonize gun control across the EU, and oblige each member state to set up a computerized database of firearms, as it "hoped to prevent Europe from becoming a gun-friendly culture like the United States".<ref name="EU" /> Parliament wanted to limit cross-border trade from states with less control to those with tougher laws, such as from [[Lithuania]], where replica guns can cost as little as [[Euro|€]]100 (US$150), to the [[United Kingdom]], where all replicas are outlawed.<ref name="EU" />

In Australia, gun violence has always been significantly lower than other types of violence.<ref>http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html</ref>. Australia has not experienced considerable violence problems with legally purchased guns. It has always had a much lower homicide rate than the more violent culture in the [[United States]].<ref>In Australia the gun related homicide rate is 0.44 per 100,000 of population. In the US it is about 8 times as high at 3.72 per 100,000 of population.</ref> From 1979 to 1996, 11,110 Australians died by gunshot representing an annual average of 617. In the seven years after new gun laws were announced (1997 to 2003), the yearly average almost halved, to 331. In the decade up to and including Port Arthur There have been 11 mass shootings where 100 people were shot dead and another 52 wounded, while in In the 10 years since 1996 and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting (more than five victims) has occurred in Australia (although in 2002 a gunman killed two and wounded four at Monash University)<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1</ref>

Gun control began in Australia in response to fears that guns would be used by home-grown Communist Revolutionaries.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1083528 This study discusses the parallel policies of early-mid 20th century Britain and Australia.</ref> The most restrictive reforms were made in 1996 and 2002, following highly publicised shootings<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html</ref>

Both sets of reforms (1996 and 2002) were lead by Prime Minister [[John Howard]] of the Coalition(Australia’s conservative government). Howard was well known as an anti-gun advocate.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/anger-lingers-among-those-who-lost-their-firearms/2006/04/27/1145861489398.html</ref> The move offended gun supporters, many of whom had traditionally supported the Coalition.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/anger-lingers-among-those-who-lost-their-firearms/2006/04/27/1145861489398.html</ref> Despite the loss of this voting group, Howard won elections following both reforms (in 1998 and 2004).

There is controversy over the success of Australia’s gun restrictions. Studies suggest overall gun violence has decreased since the 1996 and 2002 bans.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html</ref> However, Australia’s bikey and drug gangs, the main perpetrators of gun violence, still easily access illegal firearms.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/a-disarming-cause/2006/04/27/1145861489519.html</ref> Further, the overall homocide rate remains constant.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04
/27/1145861484114.html?page=2</ref>

== Gun Control and Genocide ==

Gun control "contributes to the probability of its government engaging" in [[genocide]], including the three worst instances in the 20th century:<ref>"[A] society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage. ... [I]t is [] an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed." [http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref>

*In 1911, [[Turkey]] imposed gun control and then, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million defenseless Armenians were killed.

*In 1929, the [[Soviet Union]] imposed gun control and over the next 24 years about 20 million defenseless dissidents were killed.

*In 1938, [[Germany]] imposed gun control and then over the next seven years 13 million defenseless Jews and other victims were exterminated. <ref>[http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html The True Face of Gun Control], Dean Speir, The Gun Zone RKBA, Accessed December 26, 2007</ref>

"The Nazis made only two important changes to the Weapons Law that was in place when they came to power. First, they forbade Jews from owning guns or any other weapon. Second, they exempted members of the Sturmabteilung (SA) and many Nazi party officials from the law's strictures."<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"/> The German Firearms Act of 1937 stated "No civilian is to have a firearm without a permit and permits shall not be issued to persons suspected of acting against the state. ''For Jews, this permission will not be granted.'' Those people who do not require permission to carry weapons include the whole of the SS, and the SA - including the Deaths Head group, and the officers of the Hitler youth." <ref name="Volokh">[http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38d04d5c7c40.htm The Journalist's Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and Second Amendment Scholars], Professor Eugene Volokh, FreeRepublic.com, March 15, 2000</ref>

Adolf Hitler said, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." <ref name="Volokh" />

[[Josef Stalin]], former dictator of the [[USSR]] and murderer of over 20 million people, infamously supported Gun control in the fear that his evil regime might be torn down and so only soldiers could have gunpowder weapons.

== Gun Control and young mass murderers ==

''Main article: [[Young mass murderers]]''

Strict gun control failed and still fails to prevent mass murderers from starting killing sprees while the victims are unable to defend themselves.

Compare the cases of Pekka-Eric Auvinen ([[Finland]]) and Robert Steinhäuser ([[Germany]]) with the case of Matthew Murray. The latter was stopped by an armed citizen before he could harm more victims; Auvinen killed 8 people and Steinhäuser killed 16. Both Finland and Germany have gun control laws.

==Other terms==
Other terms sometimes used by those who are opposed to gun control include:
* Rights restriction
* Victim disarmament

==See Also==
* [[Gun control quotes]]
*[[Essay:US Armed Citizens and Crime Control]]
*[[John Lott]]

==External Links==

=== Opposed to gun control ===
*[http://www.2asisters.org/ Second Amendment Sisters]
*[http://www.nra.org/ The National Rifle Association]
*[http://www.nrapublications.org/AC/index.asp Armed citizens defending themselves.]
*[http://www.a-human-right.com/ A Human Right] Discussion of the human right to self defense with a firearm.
*[http://www.learnaboutguns.com/ Learn About Guns] Firearm information and politics.
*[http://www.gunowners.org/ Gun Owners of America] A no-compromise pro-gun lobby in Washington, D.C.
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/gun-control/ What Liberals Say - Category: Gun Control]
*[http://www.guncite.com/ GunCite: Gun Control and Second Amendment Issues]
=== In favor of gun control ===
*[http://www.guninformation.org/ Gun Control and the Second Amendment]
*[http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm Myth: Switzerland proves that high gun-ownership doesn't increase murder]
*[http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html Coalition for gun control]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[category:Second Amendment]]
[[Category:gun control]]
{{liberalism}}

Gun control

2010-01-22T01:38:04Z

AusRight: /* The Fallacy and Motivation for Gun Control */ Added image to show where it spiked and provide more insight

'''Gun control''' laws restrict the purchase or ownership of guns, a weapon acquired mostly for defensive or sporting purposes. Gun control is unique among social programs in increasing the emotional and physical dependency of ''all'' voters on government. Because gun control raises the dependence of voters on government, its political effect is to shift the electorate leftward. The primary supporters of gun control are the [[liberal media]] and [[leftist]] politicians.<ref>[http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/repeal.html Quotes of Leftists Demanding Gun Control]</ref> In the [[United Kingdom]], which already has the strictest gun control in Europe, [[leftists]] demand control over 120,000 ''deactivated'' guns, even though their activation and use constitute only 0.04% of all gun offenses there; fewer guns means greater dependency on government.<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3168607.ece</ref>

Gun control is a denial or limitation by [[government]]s of the right to armed [[self-defense]],<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"> "In contrast to most other weaponry, firearms are preeminently defensive in effect." [http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/76holo.htm Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref> as promised by the [[Second Amendment]] of the Constitution of the [[United States of America]]. Genocide has occurred only after gun control first disarmed the citizenry.<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"/>

Proponents use the discredited - but superficially appealing - claim that fewer lawfully-owned guns leads to less crime.<ref>People who support gun control generally believe that gun control laws significantly reduce violent crime. [http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/irrationality.htm Why People Are Irrational about Politics]</ref><ref>Gun control primarily restricts the lawful acquisition and use of guns. Over 99% of the guns restricted by most gun control regulation are used in a lawful manner.</ref>

In the United States the three primary [[federal]] gun control laws are:
* [[National Firearms Act]] (1934)
* [[Gun Control Act]] (1968)
* [[Brady Bill]] (1993)

These laws have further been amended by other laws such as the [[Firearms Owners Protection Act]] (1986) and the [[Omnibus Crime Bill]] (1994).

Fed up with federal gun control, in 2009 States began considering (Utah) or passing (Montana) laws "making guns that are made and kept within state boundaries exempt from federal regulations" including "background checks, licensing and registration."<ref>http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6367553</ref>

== The Fallacy and Motivation for Gun Control ==
[[Image:No Weapons Allowed.gif|right]]
Gun control potentially causes an increase in crime by restricting its main deterrent: [[self-defense]]. In the United States, law-abiding uses of guns outnumber criminal uses by about a factor of 1000 to 1,<ref>http://www.americanselfdefense.com/gunfacts3.0.pdf (p. 60)</ref> and the removal of guns from everyone eliminates the lawful use of self-defense and its deterrent effect. "[[Americans]] use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year."<ref name="Gallup_LAT">"This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times." (Just Facts - [http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Gun Control])</ref> Specific examples of guns being used successfully in [[self-defense]] are easy to find.<ref>Two 70-ish store owners stopped armed robberies of their stores by shooting at the bandits. "The person came in and pointed the gun at him and my father shot him. I'm proud of him." [http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/253849.html Buffalo News]</ref> "In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> When [[Florida]] began allowing its citizens to carry a concealed weapon, [[Florida]]'s firearm homicide rate fell by 37% while the national average ''increased'' by 15%.<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> As explained below, the political effect of gun control is to cause voters to become more dependent emotionally on government and more supportive of bigger government.

Studies by [[John Lott]] and others indicate that gun control causes higher crime rates.<ref>[http://www.johnrlott.com/ John Lott's Website]</ref> [[Washington, D.C.]] has one of the highest crime rates in [[America]] even though it completely bans private handguns.<ref>[http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm District of Columbia Crime Rates 1960 - 2006]</ref> "Switzerland, Israel, Denmark and Finland, all of whom have a higher gun ownership rate than America, all have lower crime rates than America, in fact, their crime rates are among the lowest in the Western World."<ref>Slashdoc - [http://www.slashdoc.com/documents/71244 gun control]</ref> Lott demonstrates that in [[Britain]], [[Australia]] and [[Canada]], increased gun control in the late 1990s led to increased crime, the exact opposite of what the proponents of the gun control promised.<ref>John R. Lott Jr. and Eli Lehrer - [http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html Add Gun Control To Litany Of Misbegotten Gov't Plans]</ref> States in the [[U.S.]] that have enacted concealed-carry laws enjoy lower crime rates.<ref>[http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706 Cato report]</ref>

[[image:Robbery victims per 100K.png|300px|thumb|Source data: Australian Bureau of Statistics]]
[[image:Robbery victims.png|300px|thumb|Source data: Australian Bureau of Statistics]]

In [[Australia]], where gun ownership was less widespread and the gun control measures were less strict, there was an immediate increase in robbery and armed robbery after the gun control went into effect in 1996 (see chart at right).<ref>Gun control passed in Australia because "public was immediately whipped into a gun control frenzy by the press" after the "Port Arthur massacre" in Tasmania on April 28, 1996, in which 32 were shot dead and 19 injured. "Although polls done prior to the massacre indicated that the public was satisfied with the amount of 'gun control' they already had, a major newspaper did a poll just a few days after the massacre (while all minds were "clear") and, not surprisingly, found high levels of support for extreme gun control measures. This poll would be used forever by the commonwealth government and other gun controllers to claim that Australians supported the new gun laws to come." - [http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html Gun Control in Australia] (by gunsandcrime.org)</ref>
There is no clear evidence supporting a decrease in crime from gun control.<ref name="Results">[http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html Results of the Australian Gun "Buyback" & New Gun Laws], October 2001</ref><ref>[http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/azl084v1 Study showing lack of promised benefits from gun control]</ref>

Subsequent to gun control in England:<ref>http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html</ref>

:"from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now [as of 2002] six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people."<ref>However this increase in recorded violent crime between 1997 and 2001 is explained by the Home Office as a result of changes in the definition of violent crime and new counting rules introduced in 1998. [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf Violent Crime in England and Wales] According to the British Crime Survey, which is considered a more reliable guide to trends in crime[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/crime-statistics-independent-review-06.pdf], violent crime fell 24% between 1997 and 2001/02, and burglary fell 40% over the same period.[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb1105tab201.xls Trends in BCS incidents of crime]</ref>

Gun control in [[Britain]] and [[Australia]] has been followed by a predictable shift to the left politically by voters as they lost their instrument of self-defense and became more emotionally dependent on government. Contrast that with the [[United States]], where an effort to push gun control after the [[Columbine massacre]] failed in 2000 and the government has remained as [[conservative]] -- if not more so -- ever since.

The emasculation of the citizenry by gun control also arguably reduces the resistance of a society to intimidation, and exacerbates fear of consequences from causing offense. Subsequent to the passage of strict gun control in [[England]] some teachers have avoided teaching controversial subjects such as the [[Holocaust]], the Arab-Israeli conflict and the [[Crusades]] during history classes.<ref>http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RW100.pdf</ref>
Teaching Emotive and Controversial History 3-19] (p.15) The anti-self-defense attitude of British authorities has also turned criminals into "victims" and victims who fight back into "criminals." One particularly egregious case involved a farmer being sentenced to life imprisonment for defending himself in his home after the home was repeatedly burglarized <ref>http://www.theinternetparty.org/commentary/c_s.php?td=200107200000&section_type=com</ref>

== Trends ==
After decades of increasing gun control laws, the current trend in the [[United States]] is in the direction of more gun rights. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain new rifles labeled assault rifles solely because of features of their appearance, and on new high-capacity magazines. This law recently expired and was not renewed by [[Congress]]. Also, Washington D.C.'s gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/washington/09cnd-gun.html?hp Appeals Court Says Gun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment]</ref><ref>The Washington Post - [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416.html D.C.'s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out]</ref>

By removing the deterrent effect of guns, gun control causes dramatic increases in crimes committed with other weapons:<ref name="bbc">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm</ref>

:You are now six times more likely to be mugged in [[London]] than [[New York]]. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Supporters of gun control argue that homicide with guns is much less in [[England]] than in the [[United States]],<ref>In 2005/06, the total number of victims of homicide by shooting (including crossbows) in England and Wales was 50 and there were 212 victims of homicide by sharp instruments. [Home Office Statistical Bulletin - [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005/2006][http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pdf] The data for gun deaths in the United States include guns used in self-defense, as in fending off an assault, robbery or rape, and there were a total of 11,350 gun deaths (including deaths of criminals) in 2005.[US Department of Justice, FBI - [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005]</ref> but that was true even before gun control and is likely due to cultural reasons. "A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms. When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million."<ref name="bbc" />

Gun control laws are often seen to conflict with the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which recognizes the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The "right to keep and bear arms" is a right guaranteed to the American citizen by the Bill of Rights through the virtue of a selective reading of said Bill. The phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" precedes the statement, and most federal Courts of Appeals have held that this phrase requires that the "right to bear arms" relates to the collective rights of state militias, as opposed to the individual's rights to have any weapon desired. Just recently, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit went against nine other circuits in holding that the Second Amendment constitutes an individual right.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Court Rejects Strict Gun Law as Unconstitutional]</ref><ref>FOX News - [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html Appeals Court Strikes Down Washington, D.C. Handgun Ban]</ref> However, according to the judge writing for the majority in this case, its decision does still allow for "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership and use, such as carrying of guns by intoxicated individuals, or in churches.

Only six cities in the [[United States]] ban handguns: [[Washington, D.C.]], [[Chicago]], and four of its suburbs.<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

==Overview==
"Gun control" can include:

* Restricting which persons can own firearms.
* Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period
* Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government.
* Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, "handguns" or assault rifles
* Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices
* Requiring a "background check" and/or a "waiting period" to purchase a firearm
* Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail
* Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm
* Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly
* Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public, which was used in several southern states.
* Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
* Outright bans on private possession of firearms, though this has never occurred in the United States

==Constitutional Debate==
The [[Second Amendment]] reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Most constitutional scholars agree that since the amendment refers to "the right of the People" instead of the right of the militia, it protects an individual right to own guns. The extent of that right was something hotly debated for decades, until the Supreme Court ruling of 26 June, 2008, Heller v District of Columbia.

The majority opinion, written by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], held for the first time that the Constitution provides an individual right to bear arms, such as for self-defense, rather than a right that applies only to a state militia.

The decision upheld an appellate court ruling striking down Washington, D.C.'s 1976 handgun ban. The case marked the first time in more than 70 years that the Supreme Court had addressed the Second Amendment ''and the first time it spoke directly about the implication of an individual right''. The court struck down two of the District of Columbia's gun control laws: its handgun ban and its requirement that other firearms kept at home have a trigger lock or be disassembled.

Relying on the broader historical record, Justice Scalia wrote:
{{cquote|'''putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.'''}}

Scalia noted that the ruling should not be interpreted to "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." <ref>[http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf Supreme Court Opinion, District of Columbia v Heller]</ref>

==Racism of gun control==
In the [[United States of America]], gun control has a strong racist origin and reasoning. Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President [[Abraham Lincoln]] issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in its infamous 1857 decision in ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]'' to uphold slavery.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights."<ref>Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal (GMU CR LJ), Vol. 2, No. 1, "Gun Control and Racism," Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75.</ref> Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.

Today, "gun control" laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist effect if not intent:

* Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among "unpopular" populations.
* Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out for gun bans.
* "Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods" whereby vehicles and "pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon" are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the [[U.S. Department of Justice]] as "Operation Ceasefire."
* Some U.S. cities with high minority populations, such as Washington, D.C., are singled out for gun bans.
* "Project Exile" began in the U.S. city of Richmond, Virginia and mandated that people arrested for technical firearms violations (note: not for violent crimes committed with a firearm, but for technical violations of the law) be tried in federal court where they would be subject to lengthy mandatory minimum sentences rather than in state court under the more lenient Virginia laws. As with many other restrictions this was aimed primarily at the city's Black residents. It has since been copied in many other cities.

== Sexism of gun control ==

Firearms, especially lower recoiling ones such as handguns, allow any person to wield enough power to stop another person from attacking them.<ref name="genderDiscrimination1">http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/03/19/firearms-rights-are-a-gender-equality-issue-too/ </ref> Many women (quite reasonably) fear the threat of attack by a physically stronger man, and a firearm could prevent many of these attacks, but gun bans leave these women vulnerable. Take the case of the “North Side Rapist” in Chicago, a city where hand guns are banned, as an example: The rapist broke in to the womens homes, and at least one of the women heard him break in and then climb the stairs. Had this woman had a handgun, she almost certainly could have stopped the rapist before it was too late. This would have prevented her from enduring such a horrific crime, as well as preventing the rapist’s future victims from experiencing the same thing. Instead, Chicago law prevented her from being able to defend herself, and gave the advantage to the rapist/home-invader. This is not an isolated incident, and similar events happen every day across the county.

== Elitism of gun control ==

Many of the most ardent American anti-gun politicians, such as Chicago’s Mayor Daley, are protected by taxpayer-sponsored armed body guards, but deny law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves with a gun. <ref name="classDiscrimination1">http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/04/16/a-double-standard-anti-gun-politicians-and-their-gun-toting-bodyguards/ </ref> These politicians seemingly believe themselves to be part of an elite group who deserve to be protected against violent criminals, while ordinary law-abiding citizens are left with less-effective means to defend themselves, and must instead rely on the police arriving in time.

== Gun control outside the USA ==

Gun control advocates cite foreign countries to argue that gun control can reduce crime, but such comparison can be difficult due to the presence of other factors. For example, they cite [[Singapore]] as having gun control and a lower crime rate than the [[United States]], but Singapore has less than 5 million persons and one of the highest literacy and average wealth in the world. It lacks many of the freedoms found in the [[United States]] and strictly imposes harsh physical punishment, such as caning and the [[death penalty]], for crimes that are not punished so harshly in the [[United States]]. The real issue of the security in Singapore is its tight criminal control, not the gun control itself.

Gun control supporters also cite [[Gun Control in Japan|Japan's gun control laws]], which severely restrict gun ownership and crime rates are relatively low. But [[Japan]] also lacks many freedoms and diversity which exist in the [[United States]], and [[Japan]] has strong cultural deterrents to crime. Ironically, [[Japan]] is home to [[Tokyo Marui]], the world's largest [[airsoft]] gun manufacturer, which designs airsoft guns that are made to the same scale and with the same materials as the real counterpart and which have been mistaken by police for real guns.

In the [[European Union]], gun control is more strict than in the United States, but gun ownership differs widely between member states, from 36 per 100 people in [[Cyprus]] to one per 100 in [[Poland]].<ref name="EU">http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/29/europe/union.php EU legislators push tougher gun controls</ref> In November 2007, the [[European Parliament]] passed legislation to tighten and harmonize gun control across the EU, and oblige each member state to set up a computerized database of firearms, as it "hoped to prevent Europe from becoming a gun-friendly culture like the United States".<ref name="EU" /> Parliament wanted to limit cross-border trade from states with less control to those with tougher laws, such as from [[Lithuania]], where replica guns can cost as little as [[Euro|€]]100 (US$150), to the [[United Kingdom]], where all replicas are outlawed.<ref name="EU" />

In Australia, gun violence has always been significantly lower than other types of violence.<ref>http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html</ref>. Australia has not experienced considerable violence problems with legally purchased guns. It has always had a much lower homicide rate than the more violent culture in the [[United States]].<ref>In Australia the gun related homicide rate is 0.44 per 100,000 of population. In the US it is about 8 times as high at 3.72 per 100,000 of population.</ref>

Gun control began in Australia in response to fears that guns would be used by home-grown Communist Revolutionaries.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1083528 This study discusses the parallel policies of early-mid 20th century Britain and Australia.</ref> The most restrictive reforms were made in 1996 and 2002, following highly publicised shootings<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html</ref>

Both sets of reforms (1996 and 2002) were lead by Prime Minister [[John Howard]] of the Coalition(Australia’s conservative government). Howard was well known as an anti-gun advocate.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/anger-lingers-among-those-who-lost-their-firearms/2006/04/27/1145861489398.html</ref> The move offended gun supporters, many of whom had traditionally supported the Coalition.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/anger-lingers-among-those-who-lost-their-firearms/2006/04/27/1145861489398.html</ref> Despite the loss of this voting group, Howard won elections following both reforms (in 1999 and 2004).

There is controversy over the success of Australia’s gun restrictions. Studies suggest overall gun violence has decreased since the 1996 and 2002 bans.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html</ref> However, Australia’s bikey and drug gangs, the main perpetrators of gun violence, still easily access illegal firearms.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/a-disarming-cause/2006/04/27/1145861489519.html</ref> Further, the overall homocide rate remains constant.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04
/27/1145861484114.html?page=2</ref>

== Gun Control and Genocide ==

Gun control "contributes to the probability of its government engaging" in [[genocide]], including the three worst instances in the 20th century:<ref>"[A] society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage. ... [I]t is [] an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed." [http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref>

*In 1911, [[Turkey]] imposed gun control and then, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million defenseless Armenians were killed.

*In 1929, the [[Soviet Union]] imposed gun control and over the next 24 years about 20 million defenseless dissidents were killed.

*In 1938, [[Germany]] imposed gun control and then over the next seven years 13 million defenseless Jews and other victims were exterminated. <ref>[http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html The True Face of Gun Control], Dean Speir, The Gun Zone RKBA, Accessed December 26, 2007</ref>

"The Nazis made only two important changes to the Weapons Law that was in place when they came to power. First, they forbade Jews from owning guns or any other weapon. Second, they exempted members of the Sturmabteilung (SA) and many Nazi party officials from the law's strictures."<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"/> The German Firearms Act of 1937 stated "No civilian is to have a firearm without a permit and permits shall not be issued to persons suspected of acting against the state. ''For Jews, this permission will not be granted.'' Those people who do not require permission to carry weapons include the whole of the SS, and the SA - including the Deaths Head group, and the officers of the Hitler youth." <ref name="Volokh">[http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38d04d5c7c40.htm The Journalist's Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and Second Amendment Scholars], Professor Eugene Volokh, FreeRepublic.com, March 15, 2000</ref>

Adolf Hitler said, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." <ref name="Volokh" />

[[Josef Stalin]], former dictator of the [[USSR]] and murderer of over 20 million people, infamously supported Gun control in the fear that his evil regime might be torn down and so only soldiers could have gunpowder weapons.

== Gun Control and young mass murderers ==

''Main article: [[Young mass murderers]]''

Strict gun control failed and still fails to prevent mass murderers from starting killing sprees while the victims are unable to defend themselves.

Compare the cases of Pekka-Eric Auvinen ([[Finland]]) and Robert Steinhäuser ([[Germany]]) with the case of Matthew Murray. The latter was stopped by an armed citizen before he could harm more victims; Auvinen killed 8 people and Steinhäuser killed 16. Both Finland and Germany have gun control laws.

==Other terms==
Other terms sometimes used by those who are opposed to gun control include:
* Rights restriction
* Victim disarmament

==See Also==
* [[Gun control quotes]]
*[[Essay:US Armed Citizens and Crime Control]]
*[[John Lott]]

==External Links==

=== Opposed to gun control ===
*[http://www.2asisters.org/ Second Amendment Sisters]
*[http://www.nra.org/ The National Rifle Association]
*[http://www.nrapublications.org/AC/index.asp Armed citizens defending themselves.]
*[http://www.a-human-right.com/ A Human Right] Discussion of the human right to self defense with a firearm.
*[http://www.learnaboutguns.com/ Learn About Guns] Firearm information and politics.
*[http://www.gunowners.org/ Gun Owners of America] A no-compromise pro-gun lobby in Washington, D.C.
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/gun-control/ What Liberals Say - Category: Gun Control]
*[http://www.guncite.com/ GunCite: Gun Control and Second Amendment Issues]
=== In favor of gun control ===
*[http://www.guninformation.org/ Gun Control and the Second Amendment]
*[http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm Myth: Switzerland proves that high gun-ownership doesn't increase murder]
*[http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html Coalition for gun control]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[category:Second Amendment]]
[[Category:gun control]]
{{liberalism}}

New South Wales

2010-01-22T00:56:07Z

AusRight: /* Politics */ Changed link

[[Image:Cezanne Les Bords de la Marne.JPG|thumb|A masterpiece by French impressionist Paul Cezanne has been bought for a record $16.2 million by the Art Gallery of NSW, in its most ambitious purchase ever.]]

'''New South Wales''' (abbreviated as NSW) is [[Australia]]'s oldest and most populous state. It was the first British colony in what is now Australia, established in 1788. The capital city is [[Sydney]].

Originally, New South Wales included the whole of the Australian mainland east of current [[Western Australia]]. When new colonies were founded in [[Brisbane]], [[Adelaide]] and [[Melbourne]], sections of New South Wales were carved out to be adminstered by the new colonies as [[Queensland]], [[South Australia]] and [[Victoria]], respectively. The [[Northern Territory]] was also carved out to be adminstered initially by the South Australian government. Modern day New South Wales is the fourth largest of Australia's six states.

The current boundaries of the state are with Victoria to the south, South Australia to the west and Queensland to the north. It also completely surrounds the [[Australian Capital Territory]] and the land side of the [[Jervis Bay Territory]].

==Politics==

New South Wales has its own bicameral parliament with a lower house (the New South Wales Legislative Assembly) and an upper house (the New South Wales Legislative Council). The lower house has 93 members representing each of the 93 single member-electoral districts, a format similar to that of the [[Australian House of Representatives]]. The upper house has 42 members elected on the basis of proportional representation. Like the [[Australian Senate]], it has more members from minor parties.

'''Current Composition'''

'''Legislative Assembly -- 93 members''' 

* [[Australian Labor Party]] -- 51 members or 55%
* [[Liberal Party of Australia]] -- 23 members or 25%
* [[National Party of Australia]] -- 13 members or 14%
* [[Independent]] -- 6 members or 6% 

'''Legislative Council -- 42 members''' 

* [[Australian Labor Party]] -- 19 members or 45%
* [[Liberal Party of Australia]] -- 10 members or 24%
* [[National Party of Australia]] -- 5 members or 12%
* [[Australian Greens]] -- 4 members or 10%
* [[Shooters Party]] -- 2 members or 5%
* [[Christian Democrats]] -- 1 member or 2%
* [[Family First Party]] -- 1 member or 2%

The NSW ALP branch is currently in power, but have been heavily criticized in the media and in the general public due to factional wars and the debt accumulated in recent years. There have been four premiers in as many years. On 3 December 2009 Kristina Keneally was elected leader of the Labour Party and ultimately premier, beating Nathan Rees who himself succeeded Morris Iemma after he resigned when his bill to privatize the states electricity was rejected by the majority of delegates within his own party. <ref>http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/03/2234589.htm</ref> She is the first American-born Austrian and the first woman to hold that position. Recent polls have placed her party at low levels--in some case close to 25% on primary votes. <ref>http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/sack-the-nsw-labor-executive-before-its-too-late/story-e6frg6zo-1225816066089</ref> <ref>http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/nsw-labor-to-be-wiped-out-at-poll-union-20091204-kap7.html</ref>.

A recent study has labelled the economy of NSW the worst in the country, having grown at only 0.2% compared to the national average of 1.1%. The region's share of the national economy has fallen from 36% during the 2000 Sydney [[Olympics]] to 32% in June, 2009 <ref>http://www.smh.com.au/business/nsw-still-the-dunce-in-the-economy-class-20100111-m2nq.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Australia]]
[[Category:Australian States and Territories]]

User:AusRight

2010-01-22T00:42:08Z

AusRight: 1 letter

{{User Christian1}} 

My political beliefs are as follows: I would consider myself a conservative especially socially and a firm believer of Capitalism.

Although I would call myself conservative I support Gun control as I believe that ordinary citizens should not take the law into their own hands (that is why we have police), I believe that Health Care is a right and that the Government has a '''moral responsibly''' to give basic care to all of its citizens. The military budget should be reduced as from an Australian context we should only need to keep good relations with neighbors and save money. I also support progressive taxation as it doesn't burden the poor who are already finding the mortgage/rent, utilities and food bills hard to pay off and the state can make decent money by taxing the rich.

Apart from that I am strongly conservative as I am strongly against Gay marriage as it is immoral and unnatural, I believe in restricting abortion rights and having less of them as it is not up to women to kill innocent children and it will harm these women so it should be seldom used. I am strongly for restricting immigration and setting up an official language and all immigrants will have to learn it to a sufficient degree. Finally I believe that Unemployment benefits should be scaled down because if you are able bodied and can work than you should work. 

{{User political compass|1.12 |5.08}} 
{{User CPLeader|Andy Schlafly}} 
{{User Barnstar?}} 
{{User 6000YearOldEarth}} 
{{User KnowsNoEvo}} 
{{User research}} 
{{User Worldconservative}} 
{{User Aussie}} 
{{User antigun}} 
{{User guncontrol}} 
{{User Republican}} 
{{User weapon|'RPD'}} 

 

Pages I have either created or contributed greatly to

Major pages:
* [[Politics of Australia and the US compared]]
* [[Australian economy]]
 
Australian politicians
* [[Tony Abbott]]
* [[Brendan Nelson]]
 
Australian political parties
* [[Liberal Party of Australia]]
* [[Australian Labor Party]]
* [[Australian Greens]]
 
Parliament
* [[Australian House of Representatives]]
* [[Australian Senate]]
 
Miscellaneous
* [[ABC (Australia)]]
* [[Preferential voting]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2010-01-21T06:23:02Z

AusRight: Added some bias

<big>The following is a growing list of examples of '''[[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], frivolous [[gossip]], and blatant errors on [[Wikipedia]].'''</big>
 
 
# On Wikipedia's article which lists most online encyclopedias an edit done from an anonymous IP address defamed Conservapedia by labeling it Far-right <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_online_encyclopedias&action=historysubmit&diff=326381379&oldid=315763628</ref> This edit lasted for close to 2 months until it was finally removed, ironically by a conservative editor.
# Wikipedia Homosexual agenda by its editors is clearly visible here <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:KAPITALIST88&action=historysubmit&diff=335800503&oldid=335420724</ref> where a userbox saying ''This user supports heterosexual marriage only is removed''. This user was later blocked and the official reason was for uploading a copyrighted image, but other users have uploaded many copyrighted images but who are not conservative and thus aren't blocked <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wad572</ref>.
#[[Barack Obama]] lost by a 2-1 margin in a congressional primary in 2000, but Wikipedia reduces that fact to merely one hard-to-find sentence amid its exaggerated praise.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama</ref>
#Wikipedia falsely states that there is "'''precise''' agreement"<ref>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1913%2B16 (emphasis added).</ref> between the data for [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] and predictions of the [[General Theory of Relativity]], when in fact the data are unmistakably different from the theoretical prediction, no data have been released since 2003 (perhaps due to such divergence), and even the authors of the study admit continuing imprecision by saying that "it seems unlikely that this test of relativistic gravity will be improved significantly."<ref>See [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]].</ref>
#Conservapedia posted the news about liberal corruption of [[global warming]] science ([[climategate]]) on its Main Page on the very first day: November 19th. But it took Wikipedia over two weeks to give priority to this bombshell, and even now its entry is remarkably biased against it.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate</ref>
#[[Isaac Newton]] ''translated'' parts of the [[Bible]], and considered this effort to be the source of his scientific insights, yet Wikipedia's 10,000-word entry completely omits this.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton . Newton also felt that everyone else who translated the Bible were also able to have insights.</ref>
#The "Pioneer anomaly" contradicts both the [[theory of relativity]] and Newtonian gravity, but the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly Wikipedia article] describes it as a potential defect for only Newtonian gravity.<ref>The anomaly is discussed in an unbiased way here in [[Essay:Quantifying Order]].</ref>
#Wikipedia uses anti-religious examples for its entry on "argumentum ad populum" (Latin for claiming that something is true if it is popular). Conspicuously absent from Wikipedia's examples are atheistic arguments based on popular opinion, such as misleading people into thinking the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] must be true if others accept it.
#Wikipedia's article on engineering<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering</ref> features a photo of ... an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient [[liberal]] boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the [[United States]] because they are not competitive.
#Amid the [[libel]] controversy against [[Rush Limbaugh]] during his bid to purchase an NFL team, the [[St. Louis Rams]], Newsbusters revealed the false quote's Web source appeared to be from [[Wikipedia]].<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112839 Limbaugh: Media 'scum' lying about fake racist quotes], WND, October 13, 2009.</ref> The quote has been removed and replaced several times since 2005. And the Wikipedia entry did not provide a transcript link to Limbaugh's show with the citation, because the quote did not exist but was part of a bias strategy by Wikipedia to label Limbaugh a racist. While the talk host criticized the website that bills itself as an "online encyclopedia," Wikipedia editors were busy discussing their strategy for handling the controversy.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rush_Limbaugh#Legal_threat</ref> It was later revealed that the quotes were added by a highly controversial, bias user with the IP address of 69.64.213.146.<ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/the_search_for_the_wikipedia_l.html The Search for the Wikipedia Libelist (important update)], American Thinker, October 21, 2009.</ref>
#Wikipedia has a large article detailing anti-abortion violence committed around the world,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence</ref> but there is no article about pro-abortion violence, like that which resulted in the September 11, 2009, death of peaceful protester Jim Pouillon. There is no article for "Pro-choice violence"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice_violence</ref> and "Pro-abortion violence" bizarrely redirects to the "Pro-life movement" article section about "Term controversy."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-abortion_violence</ref> Before being redirected, the "Pro-abortion violence" article was biased towards downplaying the reality of violence committed by supporters of abortion.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-abortion_violence&oldid=298226073</ref> For example, while the "Anti-abortion violence" article matter-of-factly begins: "Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion." ...the "Pro-abortion violence" article dismissingly began: "Pro-abortion violence (or pro-choice violence) is a term used in the pro-life movement to characterize acts of violence committed by abortion practitioners or abortion advocates against those who oppose abortion or against pregnant women. The former is regarded as factual while the latter is just "a term used in the pro-life movement."
#Wikipedia omits that there are serious contradictions within and objections to the [[Theory of Relativity]], instead presenting it as scientific gospel. (Example of contradictions and objections needed.)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity</ref>
#Wikipedia lists Factcheck.org as a "non-partisan" "'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics."<ref>ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck</ref> However, two attempted edits were deleted pointing out factcheck.org falsely claims that Barry Soetoro (''aka'' [[Barack Obama]]) has produced his birth certificate: "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate."<ref>ref: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html</ref> This claim contradicts the fact that the document they refer to is a copy of a Certificate Of Live Birth, produced in 2007, as opposed to a Birth Certificate. While later in the page, it states that detractors claim it is a "'certification of birth', not a 'certificate of birth'" (actually "Certificate Of Live Birth" and "Birth Certificate" respectively). Factcheck.org clouds the verbage by getting the actual terms wrong and presenting the two items as synonymous.<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>
#Wikipedia's article about [[Bernhard Riemann]], perhaps the greatest modern mathematician, contains little discussion of Riemann's [[faith]] and tries to downplay his fundamentalism as though it were merely a passing interest as a teenager.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann</ref><ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/bernhard-riemann</ref>
#Wikipedia savages anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]], such as Dr. [[William Dembski]], whom Wikipedia introduces with outlandish, unsupported quotations by [[liberal]] critics.<ref name="Wiki Dembski">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski</ref> For example, Wikipedia describes David H. Wolpert as a "prominent mathematician" in order to insert a scathing, unjustified quotation by him about Dembski.<ref name="Wiki Dembski"/> In fact, Wolpert does not even hold a math degree and his (non-math) doctorate was from the University of California at the weak Santa Barbara location.<ref>http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/dhw/cv.current.frame.pdf</ref> Dembski's PhD is in math from the preeminent University of Chicago.
#Noting that Al Gore's 2009 statement that he won a 2007 British court case about [[An Inconvenient Truth]] ran contrary to the actual ruling and, especially, the judge's statement that the claimant won the case against the film is considered "original research" and "POV" on Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills&diff=302098981&oldid=302092626</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] often treats [[conservative]] figures and sites with contempt, characteristic of the liberal [[double standard]]. Compare, for example, Wikipedia's smear of Conservapedia<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> with its straightforward description of Scholarpedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarpedia</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] cites vulgar blogs and liberal rants as though they are encyclopedic authorities. For example, its entry about [[Conservapedia]] claims that "[s]everal articles on the site have reputations for bias and inaccuracy,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> but its citations for that falsehood consist of a vulgar blog, a liberal rant, and an article that takes a neutral position. None of Wikipedia's three "authorities" make any statement about the "reputation" of Conservapedia as Wikipedia claims.
#[[Wikipedia]] bias against [[movement conservative]]s is intense. [[Michele Bachmann]] won reelection in 2008 by 3% in a state that went heavily [[Democratic]], but instead of crediting her [[conservative]] positions the biased Wikipedia entry states, "Despite fallout from controversial statements that she had made, Bachmann defeated her Democratic opponent Elwyn Tinklenberg in the 2008 election."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann#cite_ref-33</ref>
#In its entry on the heavily Christian Gothic architecture,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture</ref> [[Wikipedia]] credits [[Islam]] before [[Christianity]], does not even mention Christianity until after more than 1500 words, and then does not mention Christianity again.
#In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'', [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] supports his observation that [[Wikipedia]] "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>
#Wikipedia's [[evolution]] article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section its evolution article which is not surprising since [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position]] despite the [[evolution|evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it]].
# Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] fails to mention that [[United States|American]] [[atheist]]s [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per capita basis even when church giving is not counted for theists]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention [[Atheism and deception|how key proponents of atheism have been deceptive]]. Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] also fails to mention that [[Christianity and Science|Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science]]. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism is a causal factor for suicide]].
# The Wikipedia entry for [[homosexuality]] is adorned with the a rainbow graphic but fails to mention the following: the [[Homosexuality and health|many diseases associated with homosexuality]], the [[Homosexuality_Statistics|high promiscuity rates of the male homosexual community]], the [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|higher incidences of domestic violence]] among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples, and the [[Homosexuality and health|substantially higher mental illness and drug usage rates of the homosexuality community]]. In addition, the Wikipedia article on homosexuality fails to mention that the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet in May of 2000 stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality."<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf</ref>
#Wikipedia editors regularly and fiercely alter the use of the terms "he" or "she" in articles regarding [[cross-dressing]]/[[transsexual]] figures. Men attempting to pass as females are near-universally referred to as "she" while women attempting to pass as men are referred to as "he", despite this usage absolutely incorrect in both scientific and legal senses.
#Wikipedia made no mention of the fact that President [[Obama]]'s Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] called the United States a "nation of cowards"<ref>http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-090218.html?loc=interstitialskip</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&oldid=273538810</ref><ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/02/19/cnn-talking-heads-unanimously-praise-holders-coward-remarks</ref> when it comes to the discussion of race until about two weeks after Holder insulted America. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&diff=next&oldid=274455687</ref> In typical Wikipedia fashion, it was made to sound as if only conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh objected to the attorney general's crass insult and obvious contempt for the citizens of the United States of America. As of 3/8/09, there is no mention on Wikipedia of Obama's rebuke of Holder's "cowards" insult or of the fact that Holder wants an assault weapons ban. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&oldid=275247574</ref>
#''Alma mater'' normally refers to a college that a person actually graduated from. <ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alma%20mater</ref> However, at [[Wikipedia]], the biography for co-founder Jimmy Wales prominently lists two colleges he didn't graduate from as alma maters. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&oldid=272581018</ref> [[Sean Hannity]] attended but did not graduate from NYU. Wikipedia does not list NYU as Sean Hannity's alma mater because he is a conservative. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Hannity&oldid=272201242</ref>
#The Wikipedia page for Republican Mark Kirk<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263357766</ref> made no mention of the widely-reported and significant fact that, as a Navy reservist, he is the first U.S. Representative since WWII to make an overseas deployment to an imminent danger area (Afghanistan).<ref>http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il10_kirk/Kirk_Completes_Reserve_Tour.html</ref> Instead, the Wikipedia page devotes an entire section titled "contributors" that attempts to smear Kirk with tenuous associations to controversial figures because of relatively small campaign donations. A grammatically-incorrect acknowledgment of Kirk's deployment eventually appeared.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263472629</ref> Kirk's wikipedia page mentioned a $1,000 donation from Tony Rezko <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=268845790</ref>, but Obama's page does not mention the $54,416 <ref>http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353782,CST-NWS-rezpols23.article</ref> Rezko donation. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=272320979</ref> Only after this issue was brought up were issues corrected.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=274813568</ref>
#Wikipedia smears [[conservative]] groups with prominent "Criticism and controversy" sections,<ref>See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Criticism_and_controversy</ref> usually featuring name-calling by obscure groups, but Wikipedia flatters [[liberal]] groups by downplaying what it euphemistically entitles as "Controversial stances."<ref>See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU#Controversial_stances</ref>
#Wikipedia's entry about the [[Christian]] martyr at [[Columbine]] refuses to admit that she was murdered by an [[atheist]] as she was expressing her [[faith]] in [[God]], as confirmed by multiple witnesses.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassie_Bernall</ref><ref>http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cassie.htm</ref> Wikipedia is dominated by atheistic [[public school]] students who would be particularly biased against this truth.
#*Version of May 12, 2009:
#*:Initial reports suggested that one of the assailants, either Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold, asked Bernall if she believed in God moments before fatally shooting her. She was reported to have answered "yes". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cassie_Bernall&oldid=289313205]
#Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] contains four unsupported smears in its very first sentence,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> and conceals from readers how Conservapedia offers free online courses for teenagers.<ref>See [[Conservapedia:Index]]</ref> The result of this bias by Wikipedia, which raises money as a charity, is the concealing and demonizing of a free learning resource that Wikipedia itself does not offer.
#Wikipedia's entry on the [[Scopes trial]] downplays the fact that Darrow cowardly reneged in his agreement to take the witness stand, and pled his client guilty in order to avoid it. Instead, Wikipedia deceptively claims that "Darrow asked the judge to bring in the jury '''only''' to have them come to a guilty verdict."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial (emphasis added)</ref><ref>Thanks much to a student in our [[American_History_Lectures|American History course]] for pointing this out.</ref>
#[[California]]'s Proposition 8 states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)</ref> does not mention that only those marriages are recognized under federal law anyway, and editors have removed any mention of the federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:California_Proposition_8_(2008)#DOMA</ref>
#The articles on both [[Saul Alinsky]] and his book, ''Rules for Radicals'' make no mention of his dedication to "the original radical—Lucifer."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky</ref>
#[[Augusto Pinochet]], who overthrew [[communism]] in [[Chile]] and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a "dictator" by [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet</ref> but [[Fidel Castro]], the communist dictator of [[Cuba]] for four decades, is instead called a "leader" or even a "president".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&oldid=235182888</ref>
# 100's of other climatologists have been removed from the category "Global warming skeptics", which Wikipedia decided to delete.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Coleman_(news_weathercaster)&diff=232272809&oldid=227980118</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_7#Global_warming_and_ozone_hole_skeptics_categories</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[Gardasil]], an [[HPV Vaccine]] promoted by [[liberals]] and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil</ref> (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 '''cause''' about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.<ref>See [[HPV Vaccine]]</ref>
# Wikipedia tries to smear [[conservatives]] as "conspiracy theorists," even when they are not, and yet omits that epithet for [[liberals]] who insist there are vast conspiracies, such as [[Hillary Clinton]]'s claim of a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Compare Wikipedia's entry on [[Phyllis Schlafly]], which repeats a false assertion that she "veers off into conspiracy theories,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly</ref> with Wikipedia's entry on Hillary Clinton, which provides her quote of a "vast" conspiracy yet refuses to describe her as a conspiracy theorist.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[liberal]] [[Michael Moore]], the biggest conspiracy theorist of all, does not even include any reference to the word "conspiracy"!<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore</ref>
# The Wikipedia page on [[Phyllis Schlafly]] implies that she took a stance in favor of segregation in 1960, and that she used Jewish code words. The source is a NY Times book review of a book about her, but the review does not say those things. The book review criticizes the book author instead. The Wikipedia article does not identify the book reviewer as Jewish, even tho she is a Jew raising a Jewish issue. A user who tried to correct these errors was blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia, and a comment was even removed from the Talk page.
# Wikipedia's entry on the [[conservative]] [[Oklahoma]] legislator Sally Kern is seething with bias, unjustified smears and outright distortions.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Kern</ref> Wikipedia understates that over 1500 supporters rallied in support of her criticisms of the [[homosexual agenda]],<ref>http://newsok.com/article/3224704/1207238655</ref> and instead Wikipedia highlights predictable [[Hollywood Values|Hollywood]] criticisms of her stance. Wikipedia then smears her with false accusations about her family and emphasizes charges that were never brought against her. If that isn't enough, the Wikipedia entry even misrepresents a bill that Kern introduced to protect "a student's voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint"; Wikipedia relies on an anti-[[Christian]] blog to distort Kern's bill.
# The Wikipedia entry on [[baraminology]] (a form of taxonomy) describes it as "pseudoscience" and "unrelated to science" simply because it was devised by a creationist.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/baraminology</ref>
# If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296</reF>
# Wikipedia editors tried strenuously to come up with reasons to censor embarrassing stories about the [[liberal]] John Edwards,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Edwards</ref> despite frequently including smears against [[conservatives]].<ref>For example, Wikipedia ''does'' mention the [[liberal]] New York Times' poorly-researched allegations that John McCain had an affair [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign%2C_2008#Alleged_inappropriate_involvement_with_lobbyists] in spite of the fact that the NYT's own ombudsman said there was "no proof" the story was true.[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hiZBfIDZs3P-I5ERtItxUcQ8JwGw]</ref> Several sites have stories about Wikipedia's obvious liberal bias on this issue. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/28/wikipedia-disallows-any-mention-alleged-john-edwards-scandal</ref><ref>http://gawker.com/5029921/john-edwards-wikipedia-page-strangely-love-child+free</ref><ref>http://conservativepulse.com/home/2008/07/edwards-sex-scandal-still-hasnt-surfaced-in-the-mainstream-press/</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[cold fusion]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion</ref> presents it as a continuing controversy. [[Liberals]] hope that cold fusion will rescue us from our oil dependency without the need to drill for oil off our coasts. Cold fusion experiments are actually widely discredited. Wikipedia also presents the widely-discredited <ref>http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan09/7127</ref> Hydrino theory <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randell_Mills</ref> as a possible energy source so that politically incorrect sources of power such as coal and nuclear fission seem less necessary.
# [[Liberals]] loathe self-defense, and [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the national self-defense system of the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] is seething with bias and outright falsehoods.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative</ref> Long passages are devoted to irrational criticisms of the programs, with inexplicable prominence given to criticisms by Hans Bethe, a European-raised scientist who later endorsed [[John Kerry]] for president. The entry even claims that SDI brought "the nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union to its most critical point!"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] biographies for conservatives such as [[Rush Limbaugh]] and [[Michelle Malkin]] are usually saddled with large sections titled “controversies”. These “controversies” are often nothing but quotes or complaints by fringe [[liberal]] elements, and Wikipedia advises against such sections, but its liberal editors ensure the biased use of such sections.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criticism&oldid=225325117</reF> However, the Wikipedia page for “Hanoi” Jane Fonda describes her obviously controversial propagandizing for the North Vietnamese government during the Vietnam War as “political activism” rather than “controversy”. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] promoted to good status, or GA, its smear entry about Conservapedia, in which Wikipedia claims that Conservapedia "has received much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia#cite_ref-Clarke_6-0</ref> When Conservapedia pointed out the lack of support (which violates stated Wikipedia policy) for this false smear of Conservapedia, Wikipedia simply replaced its prior cite with a new one that also failed to support its smear. After this was pointed out, [[Wikipedia]] simply changed its sentence to try to smear Conservapedia in another way.
#[[Wikipedia]] will give often great prominence to [[liberal]] criticism of someone, while almost never giving such prominence to [[conservative]] criticism of a [[liberal]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry for [[conservative]] [[Texas]] legislator Debbie Riddle is devoted mostly to [[liberal]] criticism of an obscure quote of hers.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Riddle</ref> But Wikipedia's entry for [[liberal]] [[Chuck Schumer]] consists of glowing praise without including any [[conservative]] criticism of him.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Schumer</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Barack Obama]] claims that he "was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a writing competition,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama</ref> when in fact the Harvard Law Review has long used racial quotas for admission.<ref>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=513672 (partially explaining the race-based selection system)</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[censorship]] omits any reference to [[liberal]] censorship of [[classroom prayer]], [[pro-life]] advertisements, [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses, or mentioning [[intelligent design]] in school.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] falsely smears Conservapedia by claiming that it has "come under significant criticism for factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> In fact, such criticisms are rare or non-existent, and Wikipedia's former cite to a ''[[New York Times]]'' article for support actually criticizes [[Wikipedia]] because it "does dwell on the ''idea'' that 'others' have 'criticized and mocked the Conservapedia website for factual inaccuracy.'"<ref>http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/conservapedia-the-word-says-it-all/ (emphasis added)</ref> Wikipedia persists in asserting that falsehood about Conservapedia.
#[[Wikipedia]] gives favored treatment to anyone who promotes the [[homosexual agenda]], and smears those who oppose it. For example, [[Robert Mapplethorpe]] glorified [[homosexuality]] in photographs before himself dying of [[AIDS]]. His own biographer identified him as a racist, providing quotes to prove it.<ref>http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/mapplethorpe_a_biography_patricia_morrisroe/</ref> Yet the [[Wikipedia]] entry about him conceals any reference to his racism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapplethorpe</ref> Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] smears the [[American Family Association]] and claims it is racist for reasons not supported by its citation.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Anti-Semitism (March 2005 issue reference)</ref>
#Given that one of Wikipedia's co-founders, [[Jimbo Wales]], is an [[atheism|atheist]], it is not particularly surprising that [[Wikipedia]] is particularly biased against prayer in school, as illustrated by its description of Coach [[Marcus Borden]]'s attempts merely to bow his head while his football players pray. [[Wikipedia]]'s biased description disparages community support of Borden by saying it is "regardless of federal law"; the entry says he returned to coaching as urged by the community "ostensibly" to assert a right to bow his head during prayer.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Brunswick_Public_Schools#Controversy</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has an entry on "Gun Politics in the United States" that falsely claims that "Gun politics as a political issue dates to the earliest days of the United States."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States</ref> It shows a statue of a Revolutionary Minuteman carrying a rifle as "proof" of its claim! Wikipedia's entry is astoundingly biased, concealing how guns deter crime and refusing to cite [[John Lott]], the leading expert whose studies support guns.
#''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' is listed under the category "Propaganda films", alongside other [[conservative]] documentary films.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_films</ref> However, the lying, deceitful films of [[Michael Moore]] and other [[liberals]] are never described as "propaganda".
#Here's another example of why [[Wikipedia]] is declining: it locked its entry about [[Richard Dawkins]] to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862</ref> Perhaps the [[atheists]] on [[Wikipedia]] don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
# The body of the [[Islamic terrorism]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#.22Islamic.22_terrorism</ref> page opens with ''"Islamic terrorism" is itself a controversial phrase'' while the body of the Christian terrorism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Racism.2C_Sexism.2C_.26_Terrorism</ref> page opened with ''Juergensmeyer wrote, "It is good to remember, however, that despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity - like most traditions - has always had a violent side."'' <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Theological_justification_of_Christian_violence</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has an extensive entry on "[[Creation]] myth".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth</ref> Describing [[Creationism]] as a "myth" is yet another attempt to disparage [[Christian]]s, and although the [[Evolution]] satisfies Wikipedia's definition of "myth", Wikipedia never describes it as a "myth".
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Peter Singer]] downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were ''removed'' as being "POV",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933</ref> despite appearing in the like-minded ''[[New York Times]]''.<ref>Paul Zielbauer, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260 Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia]. ''The New York Times'': Oct. 13, 1999</ref> A week after this criticism,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152</ref> an editor restored the former quote.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718</reF>
# Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed</ref> In characteristic fashion, [[Wikipedia]] misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to [[demonize]] them. Also in [[Wikipedia]]-style, it quotes [[liberal]] newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by [[National Review]]).
# [[Wikipedia]] changes the meaning of a key quote from an [[abortion]]-breast cancer article in the Lancet medical journal (Beral, ''et al.''), falsely stating that it "concluded that [[abortion]] does 'not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref> The Lancet article said no such thing about a woman's decision to have an abortion, which does increase the woman's risk of breast cancer. Rather, the Lancet article limited its assertion to a claim about the overall effect of a ''pregnancy'' that terminates early.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] described the [[People for the American Way]], which is a [[liberal]] advocacy group,<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507060931.asp</ref> as a "progressive advocacy organization"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_For_the_American_Way</ref> and did not mention the term [[liberal]] in its lengthy description of it until well after this deficiency was first mentioned here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_For_the_American_Way&diff=198768678&oldid=195716955</ref>
# On Feb. 19, 2008, an editor removed bias in the form of incorrect and misleading information<ref>The article incorrectly refers to the sticker as "creationist", and claims that "Claiming that evolution is "only a theory" ... is a common creationist tactic.", ignoring that the largest creationists groups specifically reject this tactic.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/#just_theory]</ref> from the [[Wikipedia]] entry about evolution stickers in Cobb County, Georgia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=192393310&oldid=190591826</ref> The editor then predicted on [[Conservapedia]] that the [[liberal bias]] would inevitably be reinserted at Wikipedia, and it was: within 8 hours the liberal falsehoods and bias were reinserted by a Wikipedian.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=next&oldid=192393310</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh Such as the entry on D'oh]</ref> But within hours [[liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about [[Hollywood Values]], in order to censor examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1</ref> After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] often smears [[conservatives]] with falsehoods, using references that do not support its claim. For example, [[Wikipedia]] falsely claims that "children" wrote most of the initial entries on [[Conservapedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> but [[Wikipedia]]'s references for that claim do not even mention "children". The average age of contributors on [[Conservapedia]] is likely older than on [[Wikipedia]], so its smear is particularly hypocritical.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[conservative]] [[Ron Paul]] smears him with unsubstantiated statements (newsletter "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Paul&oldid=183792833</ref>), misleading attributions of statements (Paul renounced the statements in 2001), and an overall political hatchet job ... and then locks the page to prevent correction!<ref>The page was locked from January 8 to August 6, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=&page=Ron+Paul&year=&month=-1]</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Benazir Bhutto]] has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she was [[pro-life]] and led the movement against the [[United Nations]]' creating a new international right to [[abortion]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto</ref>
# Type in "[[conservative]]" on [[Wikipedia]] and you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion without any mention of [[marriage]], gun rights or personal accountability. [[Wikipedia]] even claims that [[conservatives]] opposed to [[abortion]] are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". [[Wikipedia]] removed this bias only after it was identified here.<ref>That statement remained on the article from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=173316636&oldid=173314241 November 23] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=next&oldid=179870132 December 26, 2007]</ref>
# The [[Wikipedia]] entry on [[conservative]] [[Rick Scarborough]] falsely claimed that he said that [[HPV]], a sexually transmitted disease, is [[God]]'s punishment for sexually active young women. [[Wikipedia]] admits it has no support for this claim, yet has allowed the statement to remain in his entry for most of 2007.
# [[Wikipedia]] entries contain [[liberal]] claims followed by citations that do not actually support the claims. For example, [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Michael Farris]] states that it "was speculated that Farris' close connection to [[conservative]] leaders ... alienated some voters" in his campaign for lieutenant governor,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Farris</ref> but its citation for that [[liberal]] claim actually attributes his loss to his opponent's [[television]] ads that (falsely) claimed Farris wanted "to ban children's books such as 'The Wizard of Oz', 'Rumpelstiltskin,' and 'Cinderella'."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_n1_v15/ai_14891141</ref>
# In a typical example of [[placement bias]] on [[Wikipedia]], it claims in its first sentence that [[Matthew Shepard]] was murdered "because of his [[homosexuality]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard</ref> Only near the end of the entry does [[Wikipedia]] quote a 20/20 report and knowledgeable sources which provide persuasive evidence that the crime was caused by drugs, not hatred towards [[homosexuality]].
# [[Wikipedia]]'s pervasive anonymous editing vandalizes numerous [[conservative]] entries, such as that of [[pro-life]] scholar [[Mary Ann Glendon]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Glendon</ref> For nearly two weeks her entry on [[Wikipedia]] has featured the disrespectful and unsupported statement that "She is a notable pro-life feminist, and ''a fan of the Dropkick Murphys," which is a punk rock group''. [[Liberal]] editors monitor anonymous editing, but often allow attempts to embarrass [[conservatives]] to remain for a long time.
# [[Wikipedia]] allows countless entries flattering obscure [[liberals]], but lacks many entries about leading [[conservatives]]. For example, the [[Wikipedia]] entry on pro-life leader [[Judie Brown]] was previously nothing but a redirect<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judie_Brown&redirect=no</ref> to an entry about an organization which barely mentions her.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Life_League</ref> A proper page for her has since been added<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judie_Brown</ref>.
# As far as [[Richard Dawkins]] title of professor while at [[Oxford]], [[Wikipedia]] fails to mention Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's contention that the special terms of the endowment for the position might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor".<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref> Rabbi Boteach stated a decree by Oxford seems to imply this.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Richard Sternberg]] has falsely stated that a journal "withdrew" a peer-reviewed [[intelligent design]] paper that he reviewed.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg</ref> In fact, the journal never withdrew the paper.
# [[Wikipedia]] has a strong bias against the [[Discovery Institute]], a prominent proponent of [[intelligent design]]. Wikipedia articles about the Institute's campaigns (Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_and_Surgeons_who_Dissent_from_Darwinism</ref> and A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism</ref>) devote most space to the criticism of the campaigns, instead of describing the campaigns themselves.
# [[Wikipedia]] displays a similar bias against the [[Institute for Creation Research]] and its affiliated graduate school--or else displays an appalling lack of critical thinking for a publication that calls itself an encyclopedia. Their reportage on the controversies surrounding the accreditation of the [[ICR Graduate School]], first in [[California]] and now in [[Texas]], relies almost totally on the rants and raves by the group calling itself Texas Citizens for Science and fails utterly to consider or even to mention several key facts about those controversies.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research Institute for Creation Research] by [[Wikipedia]]</ref><ref name="tes>Schafersman," Steven. "[http://www.texscience.org/reviews/icr-thecb-certification.htm The Institute for Creation Research and It's (''sic'') Quest for Official Texas Certification to Award Masters Degrees in Science Education]." ''Texas Citizens for Science'', December 17, 2007; updated January 6 and January 28, 2008. Accessed March 19, 2008.</ref><ref name="rae>Bergman," Jerry. "[http://www.rae.org/ICRcase.html The Religion of Vague: An Unsuccessful Attempt by the State of California to Close a College]." ''Revolution Against Evolution'', May 22, 2003. Accessed March 19, 2008.</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s [[gossip]] and policy allowing edits by anonymous IP addresses struck again: for over two weeks the entry on former [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[Byron White]] stated he was the father of former Cowboy great Danny White.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byron_White&diff=159734800&oldid=154431838</ref> The statement was utterly false, but misled everyone who read that.<ref>http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Are-They-Related-213708.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] displays pervasive bias in making [[liberal]] statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about [[Conservapedia]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> [[Wikipedia]] states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on [[Wikipedia]].
# A user named [[Richard Dawkins]] apparently edited his own article on [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RichardDawkins</ref> and even linked to a DVD being sold from his personal website. Illustrating [[Wikipedia]]'s favoritism towards [[liberals]], it took a long time (well over a year after he first edited his own article)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins</ref> for anybody to confront this well-known [[atheist]] for this conflict of interest, despite being against [[Wikipedia]]'s own rules.
# Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has once again deleted all content on the [[North American Union]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_american_union&redirect=no]. The old pages are inaccessible, and re-creation is blocked.
# For a long time [[Wikipedia]] led with a falsehood in describing [[Conservapedia]]: "Conservapedia is a wiki based web encyclopedia project with '''the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially and economically conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity and '''Young Earth creationism'''."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=160604712 (emphasis added).</ref> That was defamatory in attempting to smear [[Conservapedia]] in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[evolutionist]] audience. [[Wikipedia]] also welcomes edits by anonymous IP addresses to the [[Conservapedia]] and other entries, resulting in frequent defamation.
# [[Wikipedia]] has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. [[Wikipedia]] calls the term "often humorous," "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] often inserts bias by downplaying a [[liberal]] outrage or fallacy amid thousands of words of nearly irrelevant information. For example, no one credibly disputes that [[liberals]] forced [[Larry Summers]] to resign as president of [[Harvard]] because he dared to suggest that the under-representation of women in math, science and engineering may be due to innate differences between women and men.<ref>http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/09/14/news/114new1.txt</ref><ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19181-2005Jan18.html</ref> But the verbose entry for Larry Summers on [[Wikipedia]] implies that his obscure other positions were more important in causing his ouster.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Summers</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, [[Wikipedia]] classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Special Interests."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has two million entries, but not one for [[liberal]]. Users who go to that term are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); there has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide.
# [[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:
#* pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>
#* anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>
#* the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>
#* conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>
# In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Additionally, as of August 5, 2008, the Dravecky article no longer mentions anything about JBS.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=225907517</ref> Wikipedia left intact the smear against the AAPS. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then reinserted before being removed again.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&diff=156607328&oldid=156100194</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s last sentence on [[Human Life International]] claimed that a killer "confessed that pamphets (sic) from the group led" him to kill. This is a complete lie designed to smear a [[conservative]] group. But this was approved by [[Wikipedia]] and remained for over a month.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Life_International&oldid=138698827] Only in response to Conservapedia's criticism was the smear removed.</ref>
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# Wikpedia's entry on [[liberal]] former Vice President [[Al Gore]] contains no mention of the drug charges against his son.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore</ref> But Wikipedia's entry on [[conservative]] Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] prominently mentions his adult daughter's sexuality.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for seven weeks about [[Thad Cochran]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thad_Cochran&oldid=135420256 (revised only after being exposed on Conservapedia, but then the smear was reinserted again before being removed again)</ref> a conservative Republican member of the [[U.S. Senate]], smeared him with an offensive, unsupported quotation not of Cochran, but of a Democratic Mississippi governor for whom Cochran's mother campaigned when Cochran was age 14. The unsupported quote was never spoken or endorsed by Cochran, but Wikipedia featured it near the top of Cochran's entry to mislead the reader into thinking Cochran is somehow a racist.
# Wikipedia smears prominent [[Conservative Christianity|Christian conservatives]], including [[James Dobson]] and [[D. James Kennedy]], with an allegation that they are part of a grand scheme Wikipedia calls "Dominionism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</ref> The term was made up by [[liberals]] and this conspiracy theory has no factual basis, but Wikipedia smears these [[conservatives]] with elaborate templates in their own entries depicting them as part of this fictional scheme.<ref>See, e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy D. James Kennedy]</ref> This edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eagle_Forum&curid=3647552&diff=165330150&oldid=165044484] calls Eagle Forum dominionist, even though there is not even any source that says so. The Eagle Forum article now has a "criticism" section that alleges various associations with theocracy and dominionism citing various left-wing opinion web sites, but none of those sites even says that Eagle Forum supports theocracy or dominionism. One editor was blocked just for trying to fix it.
# Wikipedia's entry about the anti-[[Christian]] and anti-[[Semitic]] [[H.L. Mencken]] praises him profusely because he, Wikipedia's words, "notably assaulted America's preoccupation with [[Christian fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] [[Christianity]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencken</ref> After 3,500 words of adulation, Wikipedia then buries a concession that Mencken "has been referred to as anti-Semitic and misogynistic."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref> Wikipedians like Mencken's hostility to religion too much to admit that his biographer (Terry Teachout) and his close Jewish friend (Charles Angoff) described him as racist and anti-Semitic.<ref>http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2003/1/mencken-payne.asp</ref>
# Wikipedia's entries about the 2007 Masters<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Masters_Tournament</ref> and its champion [[Zach Johnson]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zach_Johnson&oldid=154500732</ref> who won an upset come-from-behind victory against Tiger Woods, omitted any reference to Johnson's public statements crediting his [[faith]] in [[Jesus Christ]] for strengthening him as he overcame enormous odds to prevail. Months later, after criticism here, Johnson's attibution to [[Jesus Christ]] was included, but with the [[Wikipedia]] trick of placing it late in a wordy entry so that few are likely to see it, and even then with a silly "citation needed" to suggest that the quote may not be true.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson</ref>
# 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."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution</ref> 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.<ref>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070519145312AACvfJA&show=7</ref> The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that a large majority of other scientists must support evolution.<ref>"By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987-06-29), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek CIX(26): 23-24, ISSN 0028-9604</ref> 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.
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was critized here</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia recently moved further away from Judaeo-Christian beliefs by complaining that "[t]he average Wikipedian ... is from a predominantly Christian country" and that Wikipedia was built on Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias (later "predominantly Christian" was changed to "nominally Christian")</ref> At the same time, Wikipedia complains about the "enormous significance" given by entries to "Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S., UK and Spain, killing slightly over 3,000 people."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the Wikia project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba</ref> Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing "to attend a golf tournament" rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: "Cuba has been ruled by a communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959."<ref>[[Cuba]]</ref>
# Often Wikipedia's biased assertions are unsupported by its citations. For example, the Wikipedia entry about Conservapedia states that it "has come under significant criticism for alleged factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> But check out Wikipedia's cited source for that statement: its citation does not identify a single factual inaccuracy on Conservapedia.<ref>http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=1910</ref> Thus Wikipedia relies on a factual inaccuracy to accuse someone else of factual inaccuracies! After this criticism was posted here, Wikipedia removed the said citation but replaced it with a few other biased citations.
# [[Liberal]] icon [[Bertrand Russell]] receives glowing adoration on Wikipedia, which calls him "a prophet of the creative and rational life," "one of the world's best-known intellectuals" whose "voice carried great moral authority, even into his mid 90s."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell</ref> After 7,700 words about [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Wikipedia]] finally mentions Russell's support of the communist revolution, but pretends that Russell quickly opposed it. Instead, Russell wrote that "I believe that [[Communism]] is necessary to the world, and I believe ... Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind."<ref>[[Bertrand Russell]]</ref>
# [[Conservapedia]] allows greater and easier copying of its materials than [[Wikipedia]] does, but Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] claims that its policy "has led to some concerns."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> And who supposedly had these concerns? In Wikipedia's citation, it was only the founder of Wikipedia in trying to find a way to criticize Conservapedia!<ref>http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501</ref>
# April 24th was the anniversary of [[Operation Eagle Claw]], which was President [[Jimmy Carter]]'s failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran. The Conservapedia [[Operation Eagle Claw|entry]] explains Carter's political motivation for this. But the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry] omits Carter's political motivation and instead implies that this bad luck cost Carter the election.<ref>Wikipedia states, "The operation was a failure, and had a severe impact on U.S. President Jimmy Carter's re-election prospects ...."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry]</ref> In fact, Newsweek did not even mention this after July 14th, and Reagan beat Carter for reasons other than bad luck.
# Wikipedia's entry on James Monroe<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe</ref> omits any mention of how he was a conservative and omits Monroe's veto of a key appropriation on the Cumberland Road Bill, when Monroe stated that "congress does not possess the power under the constitution to pass such a law."<ref>[[James Monroe]]</ref> After this criticism was posted here, an editor at Wikipedia added Monroe's Cumberland Road Bill opposition to the article,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Monroe&oldid=226448821#Presidency_1817.E2.80.931825:_The_Era_of_Good_Feelings</ref> but the article still has yet to mention that Monroe was politically conservative.
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with those in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]. Both categories were [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories deleted] on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox]" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=User%3AUBX%2Fliberal&namespace= liberal]" userbox than the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" userbox.</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more [[liberal]] than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of [[liberals]] to conservatives in a group, such that no [[liberals]] would equate to zero [[liberal bias]]. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for [[liberals]] to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# Wikipedia awarded "good article" status<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles</ref> to a biased description of [[liberal]] Balboa High School, saying it has "a progressively nurturing environment" undergoing "a steady renaissance marked by academic innovation."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balboa_High_School_(San_Francisco)</ref> Nowhere in Wikipedia's 4,468-word description does it admit that half the 9th graders lacked proficiency on a statewide English test.<ref>Jill Tucker, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/16/MNGE2KJB5K1.DTL Student Successes Defy Urban Trends]" San Francisco Chronicle (Aug. 16, 2006).</ref> Instead, Wikipedia editors apparently like how this public school converted its metal shop into a sex-based "health" clinic.
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref> Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization</ref>
# Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics</ref>
# In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.<ref>http://www.bede.org.uk/books,jmyth.htm</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[Jesus]] has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus</ref> But no credible historian makes such a claim.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Renaissance]] denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.<ref>Wikipedia has since updated its entry with a backhanded reference to Christianity, but even then not for inspiring the Renaissance but rather for providing subject matter for the works.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance&oldid=138439803]</ref>
# About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the [[Bible]].<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955-2061r.htm</ref> But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood</ref> Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark</ref>
# Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as [[atheist]]ic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, [[atheist]], agnostic, humanist, secular, other."<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[abortion]] reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref> Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf</ref> Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"!<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref>
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Voting Rights Act]] contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act</ref> This is a longtime [[liberal]] cause prohibited by the [[U.S. Constitution]]. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.
# Initially, in December 2006, a Wikipedia administrator named "Nearly Headless Nick" (the signature nickname for Wikipedia user "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington</ref>) deleted an entry about Conservapedia, following a discussion on the "Articles for deletion" section in which a horde of Wikipedia editors demanded and obtained deletion, claiming that the site failed a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web) notability guideline for websites]".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Conservapedia</ref> Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist [[Edward Teller]] promotes the [[liberal]] attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller</ref> In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the [[Manhattan Project]] and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another [[liberal]] journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Wikipedia's entry on the intelligent design court decision in ''Dover''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District</ref> distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the [[ACLU]]'s side (not $1 million), (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the [[ACLU]]'s briefs,<ref>''Id.''</ref> and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>''Id.''</ref>
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
# Edits to include facts against [[Evolution]] are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple [[The Conservapedia Commandments|rules]] are respected to the maximum extent possible.
# Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view</ref> Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on [[Young Earth Creationism]]? It currently offers an article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience".<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia]</ref> What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&action=history</ref>
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 2.9 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution Talk:Evolution - Wikipedia]</ref> Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias, as in mobs, where there are no restraints. [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action. As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.
#: The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this: "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory. CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective ... because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."
# Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]] until this omission was pointed out here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_proof</ref> Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Piltdown Man]] omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.
# Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of [[Jesus]], so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the [[CE]] deception.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on the longest-serving and most powerful Maryland official in its history, [[William Donald Schaefer]], contains about 1900 words, but over two-thirds of those words (1400/1900) are devoted to silly gossip, outright vulgarity and National Enquirer-type material.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Schaefer</ref> 406 words, which is over 20% of the entire entry, is devoted to a silly dispute Schaefer had one day with the local newspaper!
# Wikipedia's article about the late Senator John Tower includes a mean-spirited story whose only point seems to be to indicate the degree of his ex-wife's bitterness toward him. The article previously spelled his wife's name incorrectly. The article was in that state since it was first inserted in May 2006<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&oldid=101859325 John Tower], revision as of Jan 25</ref> and until it was corrected on January 26, 2007 <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&offset=20070208110937&limit=20&action=history</ref>. No real encyclopedia would print such silly gossip.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act</ref> Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,<ref>http://www.909shot.com/</ref> and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:
#: Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
#: "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
# What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia's entry for [[Johnny Appleseed]], a Christian folk hero, omits a discussion of his strong faith and instead features baseless speculation about his health, a year of death different from that of his obituary, and a silly story designed to make a Christian preacher look foolish.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Appleseed</ref>
# In a brief-lived example of pro-homosexuality bias, the category allowing users to self identify as Heterosexual was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007# Category:Heterosexual_Wikipedians deleted] because it served no useful purpose, yet the exact same category for Homosexuals was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007# Category:Gay_Wikipedians kept]. The latter was deleted after a month along with all other categories focused on the sexuality of Wikipedians. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] has revived itself after a delete but is still fighting to not be deleted.
# Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref> <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign makes no mention of her endorsement by the leadership of the terrorist group Hamas,<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58699</ref> but lists endorsements of Republican presidential candidates by the Ku Klux Klan.
#Wikipedia's entry for "Right to bear arms" mentions the discrepancies many have with the interpretation of the phrase. They begin by labeling the first section "Military service ''definition''" and go on to explain how the words "bear arms" had a different meaning a couple hundred years ago in European countries. After the 7 paragraph section that has little relation with the Second Amendment of the ''United States'', Wikipedia offers 2 paragraphs that talks about the "Insurrectionary ''Theory''". First thing, they call people that adhere to this concept "extremists" and attempt to prove why this viewpoint is false. The criticism was strangely missing from the military service section. So, in short, Wikipedia believes that the faultless, [[liberal]] "definition" is true and the sketchy, extremist, conservative "theory" is false.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Military_service_definition</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Insurrectionary_theory</ref>
#Wikipedia is sexist? Definitions of antonym words don't match up:
## '''Matriarchy''' is a term, which is applied to gynocentric form of society, in which the leading role is with the female and especially with the mothers of a community.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy</ref>
## '''Patriarchy''' describes a social structure where the actions and ideas of men and boys are dominant over those of women and girls.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on [[Jeremiah Wright]] repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
# Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref>
# For a period of time (January 4, 2008<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&oldid=182111544</ref> - April 5, 2008<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&diff=203433685&oldid=202851436</ref>), Wikipedia's page on Tobacco and health had a disclaimer in the pipe smoking section that stated three references (The American Cancer Society, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the National Cancer Institute) might not be reliable resources and should be reviewed.
# Wikipedia's main article on Communism does not mention any act of genocide in Communist countries, and any attempts to edit the page to include this information are deleted. The Nazism page, however, includes multiple mentions of the Holocaust. The only mention of communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.
# The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki]. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puerile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.<ref><http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)</ref>
# Wikipedia's most controversial pages are guarded by liberal elite. Thereby, accuracy is replaced with ideology. <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml Wikipropaganda On Global Warming] National Review, July 8, 2008</ref> The first one-hundred and sixty-eight words on Wikipedia's [[Global Warming]] page contains multiple conjectures, major errors and bias. ''"increase in the average measured [[temperature]] ... since the mid-twentieth century"'' that same paragraph "''solar variation combined with volcanoes ... and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward."'' Which is it, warmer or cooler from 1950? "''very likely due''" "''probably had''" or "''the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the [[IPCC]]'s main conclusions''"- unsubstantiated bias.
# Wikipedia trivializes the book ''Inventing the AIDS Virus'' by making it a redirect. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventing_the_AIDS_Virus</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Theological_Seminary Westminster Theological Seminary] demonstrates its anti-Christian bias when it states "with the vision of continuing the theological tradition of Princeton Theological Seminary '''in a militant and explicitly polemical manner''', from which the Westminster founders felt Princeton was departing."
# It's apparently okay to cast doubt on well-known evangelical Christian's claims of being former atheists, as was recently done repeatedly to Kirk Cameron's Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=262633707&oldid=262591086</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263109644&oldid=263063442</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263670595&oldid=263666117</ref>, but similar edits regarding claims made by famous atheists of being former Christians would never be tolerated (e.g. PZ Myers' Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pz_myers</ref>).
# The unofficial evolutionist cabal continues to control any and all pages covering or related to evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism, and they freely engage in edit-warring without fear of being blocked due to several editors helping each other subvert the "3 revert rule" and the help of admins who are biased to their side. Non-evolutionists are described with the non-referenced, non-neutral term "dogmatically"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=267885268</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=next&oldid=268115244</ref> and ID advocates are called "intelligent design creationists" despite the fact that neither they nor Creationists consider themselves alike.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=267130640</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=267873798</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=268116166</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267130755&oldid=267129633</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267875875&oldid=267874801</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267881496&oldid=267877410</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=268117670&oldid=268115954</ref>
# Wikipedia added a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=282227871#Controversies_and_criticism</ref> but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama</ref> It has since been removed.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&diff=282810799&oldid=282227871</ref>
# In addition to the previous example, there was a massive Wikipedia article for "Criticism of George W. Bush,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=278422248</ref> but the article for "Criticism of Barack Obama" had been deleted at least ''FOUR TIMES'' since October 2008 with excuses like "Article that has no meaningful, substantive content" and "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama</ref> Wikipedia has since redirected "Criticism of George W. Bush" and added "Public image of" articles for both presidents, however President Bush's article is heavily negative<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush</ref> while President Obama's is filled with glowing, pandering fluff with very few meaningful criticisms.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref>
# Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush</ref> Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', ''President Bush launched the War on Terrorism"'', ''"President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq"'' and ''"which President Bush viewed as..."''' No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.
# Wikipedia's presidential template for George W. Bush is a sterile presentation of his life and presidency<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:George_W._Bush</ref>, but the template for Barack Obama is filled with non-notable, forgettable fluff such as links to articles about songs about him, a list of artists who support him, a Super Mario-type video game based on him and a list of places named after him.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref> (Note that there is no mention on Wikipedia of George W. Bush Elementary in Stockton, CA.<ref>http://www.google.com/search?q=%22george+w.+bush+elementary%22+stockton&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a</ref>)
# The article about the legitimate questions surrounding President Obama's birth certificate is entitled "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories</ref> however one is hard-pressed to find such bold use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" in articles about Dominionism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</ref>, the 9/11 Truth movement<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth</ref>, and many other conspiracy theories that the left favors. The article also describes advocates of the questions as "fringe" several times despite including the likes of Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, but the same word is only used once in the 9/11 Truth movement article (and it uses it in a quote stating that the movement isn't fringe) and not at all in the Dominionism article.
# In the article for flood geology<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology</ref>, the section containing evidence in favor of a global flood has the header "Evidence cited to support a global flood"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_cited_to_support_a_global_flood</ref> while the section containing evidence against it has the header "Evidence against a global flood."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_against_a_global_flood</ref> Attempts to balance this disparity are met with quick reversions with excuses such as "I don't see this as an improvement"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=288093849&oldid=288042808</ref> and appeals referencing the so-called "scientific community" (i.e. the "scientific consensus").<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=next&oldid=288488331</ref> Additionally, in a recent edit, Hrafn (one of the "usual suspects" who gang up and protect their preferred version of evolution and Creation articles) revealed his unabashed bias by reverting an edit with the explanation "all creationists are WP:FRINGE/'cracked pot[s].'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=289076441&oldid=289074740</ref>
#The Carrie Prejean article on Wikipedia is carefully crafted however, major points tend to end with a liberals last word. 'Photograph controversy' last line quotes "go beyond what the Miss California pageant says are appropriate, and do not benefit Prejean's status." The section 'Crown retention', last line says- "she no longer believes in the organization," referring to a pageant official. The page is locked from mentioning other contestants who also had photos questionable under pageant rules. The last line of 'Miss USA 2009 controversy', plug the candidate for governor of Ca. and same-sex advocate SF mayor Gavin Newsom beliefs, supports Prejean. Wikipedia's non family-friendly presentation is complete with text of Hilton's foul-mouthed tirade.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Prejean&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Prejean&diff=] Wikipedia- Carrie Prejean</ref>
#Wikipedia's purity ring page is hopelessly biased against the concept. 573 characters describing the purity ring. Criticisms of purity rings- 1475 characters with three references. How does Wikipedia educate their readers when they only discredit purity rings? <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff=] Wikipedia- Purity ring</ref>
#The scope and depth of racism prevalent on Wikipedia is despicable. Over a thousand pages that include the ethnic slur 'Nigger', many in the page title. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&redirs=0&search=nigger&limit=500&offset=0]
#[[Wikipedia]] deleted [[9/12 Candidate]] page (twice) due to lack of notability<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/9/12_Candidate</ref>. Owner blocked because his real name does not meet username policy<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jacob_F._Roecker</ref> and editor (me) blocked<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WashingtonIsBroke#User:WashingtonIsBroke</ref> for spam/advertising and "conflict of interest, which is introducing a severe bias to your edits".
#[[VoteVets.org]] is a partisan political organization that seeks to elect Democrats and to replace Republicans in Congress. Wikipedia's erroneous entry labels the liberal group a "non-partisan" political action committee. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VoteVets.org&diff=293037611&oldid=293035975 VoteVets.org</ref>
#Just like the liberal-aligned [[MSM]], Wikipedia is consistent when hiding unflattering information about their fellow [[liberal]]s. Wikipedia purposely buried an important statement from Judge Sonia [[Sotomayor]], the now-infamous "Wise Latina" remark. One has to scroll through 49,600 characters of a 54,000 character page to find the statement. Also, Wikipedia does not mention her membership in La Raza, a group that has promoted the distribution of driver's licenses to illegal aliens, amnesty programs for illegal aliens, and the non-enforcement of immigration laws <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonia_Sotomayor&diff=302177838&oldid=302177614</ref>
#Wikipedia feels that the [[Barack Obama]] article should omit any mention of [[William Ayers]] and the [[Weather Underground]]. Wikipedia's mobocracy has decided that you, the public, have no need to learn about Obama's past relationships that made national headlines. No mention of Obama's ties to [[ACORN]] either. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=302499449&oldid=302497807</ref>
#Wikipedia's Template:Infobox and elsewhere still maintains the fiction that [[Barack Hussein Obama]] was a "Professor of Constitutional Law," whereas [[White House]] Press Secretary [[Robert Gibbs]] has flatly denied Obama ever taught constitutional law. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-4-14-09/]
#In Wikipedia's page on the ABC's docudrama The Path to 9/11, the page contains a section titles "Controversy and criticisms," which contains 19 sub-sections to support it, while the section titled "Controversy: support for The Path to 9/11" only contains four, despite the fact that the controversy was sparked by pro-Clinton liberals that failed to see the fact that the two-part miniseries criticized both Bush and Clinton administrations leading up to 9/11 and that writer Cyrus Nowrasteh stated that many of their consultants on it stated that the docudrama went easy on Clinton. It also fails to note John Ziegler's documentary on the censoring of the docudrama Blocking the Path to 9/11 [http://www.johnziegler.com/], which contains interviews with many people on the topic, and points out how the [[MSM]] liberals and Clintons have smeared it so much that it has destroyed it from ever being shown on TV or being sold on DVD in the near-future. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11]
#Wikipedia provides a large page of information regarding the Winter Soldiers story however they never mention that the people involved fabricated events, were caught lying, were doing it to push a [[liberal]] anti-war message. A section lists the fact that Congress investigated the matter. However it does not list the outcome- falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies to weaken the U.S. military as it was engaged with fighting the [[Communist]] North Vietnam. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&oldid=310708048] [http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=325]
#One of Wikipedia's barnstars—given nominally for World War II writing contributions—is in fact an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WWFlagsBarnstar.JPG American flag] desecrated with Nazi and Soviet Union graffiti.
#Wikipedia's Nidal Malik Hasan article fails to mention any connection to Obama's transition government. Hasan's associations are clearly exposed but Wikipedia can't label Hasan a terrorist. He is just a shooter, not a massacre. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nidal_Malik_Hasan&oldid=325179780]
#Liberal elites at [[Wikipedia]] have embraced the ideology of [[Al Gore]]'s [[Global Warming]]. It is with great sadness that [[ClimateGate]] has emerged as a worldwide news story. In an attempt to shrug-off the story, Wikipedia labels the page ''Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident,'' with ClimateGate as only a redirect. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate] Next, Wikipedia claims the CRU was illegally hacked but other sources say possibly an inside job. [http://www.junkscience.com/] Finally, Wikipedia is sure to include plenty of climate change alarmists views discounting the incident; ''a smear campaign'', '' an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen'', '' James Hansen "no effect on the science" '', UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Miliband ''"We should be cautious about using partial emails that have been leaked to somehow cast doubt..."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident&action=historysubmit&diff=328281249&oldid=328279458]
# A recent charge is that U.K. scientist and Green Party activist and Realclimate.org member William Connolley functioned as a Wikipedia editor and website administrator, repressing information that militated against Climate Change. As such he "rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period."<ref>[http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx ''Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor'',] December 19, 2009</ref>
# Wikipedia does not have an article on [[Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab]] but they do redirect to an article titled Northwest Airlines Flight 253. Wikipedia mentions terrorism, Al Qaeda, Islamic countries, imams and Taliban but nowhere will you find the word "Muslim terrorist" nor "Islamic terrorist". That is a key point that [[liberal]]s want to hide from the public. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253&oldid=334150190] The very same can be said for Wikipedia's wikinews item ''Failed bomb aboard Delta flight'' article. [http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Failed_bomb_aboard_Delta_flight&oldid=928144]
# Wikipedia's Communism article omits to mention that millions of people have perished as a result of the Marxist ideology. Near the very end of the article they mention ''"alleged by some scholars to be responsible for famines, purges and warfare resulting in deaths."'' The article states "classes are abolished" "oppression-free society" and policies made "democratically" without mentioning those positions are really just propaganda. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communism&oldid=337705210]
# Wikipedia's article on Martin Luther King Jr. is extensive. There is little doubt that King was known for civil rights. However, Wikipedia fails to recognize King's main 'Influence', Jesus Christ. King's life was Jesus from day one, his entire life was Christ inspired. As Dr. King Jr said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.&oldid=338783450]

==External Links==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
* [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640 Wikipedia lies, slander continue by Joseph Farah]

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

'''Guidelines for inclusion''':
* Each entry must include a <code>diff</code> which shows the content being posted, and the user that posted it.
* Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.
[[Category:Wikis]]

New South Wales

2010-01-21T05:01:40Z

AusRight: Spelling error

[[Image:Cezanne Les Bords de la Marne.JPG|thumb|A masterpiece by French impressionist Paul Cezanne has been bought for a record $16.2 million by the Art Gallery of NSW, in its most ambitious purchase ever.]]

'''New South Wales''' (abbreviated as NSW) is [[Australia]]'s oldest and most populous state. It was the first British colony in what is now Australia, established in 1788. The capital city is [[Sydney]].

Originally, New South Wales included the whole of the Australian mainland east of current [[Western Australia]]. When new colonies were founded in [[Brisbane]], [[Adelaide]] and [[Melbourne]], sections of New South Wales were carved out to be adminstered by the new colonies as [[Queensland]], [[South Australia]] and [[Victoria]], respectively. The [[Northern Territory]] was also carved out to be adminstered initially by the South Australian government. Modern day New South Wales is the fourth largest of Australia's six states.

The current boundaries of the state are with Victoria to the south, South Australia to the west and Queensland to the north. It also completely surrounds the [[Australian Capital Territory]] and the land side of the [[Jervis Bay Territory]].

==Politics==

New South Wales has its own Bicameral Parliament with the Lower house called the New South Wales Legislative Assembly and the Upper house called the New South Wales Legislative Council. The lower house has 93 members representing each of the 93 single member electoral districts, in a style similar to the [[Australian House of Representatives]]. The upper house has 42 members and using proportional representation just like the [[Australian Senate]] has more members from minor parties.

'''Current Composition'''

'''Legislative Assembly -- 93 members''' 

* [[Australian Labor Party]] -- 51 members or 55%
* [[Liberal Party of Australia]] -- 23 members or 25%
* [[National Party of Australia]] -- 13 members or 14%
* [[Independent]] -- 6 members or 6% 

'''Legislative Council -- 42 members''' 

* [[Australian Labor Party]] -- 19 members or 45%
* [[Liberal Party of Australia]] -- 10 members or 24%
* [[National Party of Australia]] -- 5 members or 12%
* [[Australian Greens]] -- 4 members or 10%
* [[Shooters Party]] -- 2 members or 5%
* [[Christian Democrats]] -- 1 member or 2%
* [[Family First Party]] -- 1 member or 2%

The NSW ALP branch is currently in power but have been heavily criticized in the media and in the general public due to factional wars and the debt accumulated in recent years. There have been 4 premiers in as many years and on 3rd December 2009 Kristina Keneally was elected leader of the Labor Party and ultimately premier beating Nathan Rees who himself succeeded Morris Iemma after he resigned when his bill to privatize the states electricity was rejected by the majority of delegates within his own party. <ref>http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/03/2234589.htm</ref> She is the first American born and first woman to hold that position. In recent times successive polls have placed them at low levels and in some case close to 25% on primary votes. <ref>http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/sack-the-nsw-labor-executive-before-its-too-late/story-e6frg6zo-1225816066089</ref> <ref>http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/nsw-labor-to-be-wiped-out-at-poll-union-20091204-kap7.html</ref>. A recent finding has labelled the economy of NSW the worst in the country, having grown at only 0.2% compared to the national average of 1.1%. The share of the national economy has fallen from 36% from the [[Olympics]] of 2000 held in Sydney to less than one third at 32% in June, 2009 <ref>http://www.smh.com.au/business/nsw-still-the-dunce-in-the-economy-class-20100111-m2nq.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Australia]]
[[Category:Australian States and Territories]]

New South Wales

2010-01-21T04:59:22Z

AusRight: Added information about state politics

[[Image:Cezanne Les Bords de la Marne.JPG|thumb|A masterpiece by French impressionist Paul Cezanne has been bought for a record $16.2 million by the Art Gallery of NSW, in its most ambitious purchase ever.]]

'''New South Wales''' (abbreviated as NSW) is [[Australia]]'s oldest and most populous state. It was the first British colony in what is now Australia, established in 1788. The capital city is [[Sydney]].

Originally, New South Wales included the whole of the Australian mainland east of current [[Western Australia]]. When new colonies were founded in [[Brisbane]], [[Adelaide]] and [[Melbourne]], sections of New South Wales were carved out to be adminstered by the new colonies as [[Queensland]], [[South Australia]] and [[Victoria]], respectively. The [[Northern Territory]] was also carved out to be adminstered initially by the South Australian government. Modern day New South Wales is the fourth largest of Australia's six states.

The current boundaries of the state are with Victoria to the south, South Australia to the west and Queensland to the north. It also completely surrounds the [[Australian Capital Territory]] and the land side of the [[Jervis Bay Territory]].

==Politics==

New South Wales has its own Bicameral Parliament with the Lower house called the New South Wales Legislative Assembly and the Upper house called the New South Wales Legislative Council. The lower house has 93 members representing each of the 93 single member electoral districts, in a style similar to the [[Australian House of Representatives]]. The upper house has 42 members and using proportional representation just like the [[Australian Senate]] has more members from minor parties.

'''Current Composition'''

'''Legislative Assembly -- 93 members''' 

* [[Australian Labor Party]] -- 51 members or 55%
* [[Liberal Party of Australia]] -- 23 members or 25%
* [[National Party of Australia]] -- 13 members or 14%
* [[Independent]] -- 6 members or 6% 

'''Legislative Council -- 42 members''' 

* [[Australian Labor Party]] -- 19 members or 45%
* [[Liberal Party of Australia]] -- 10 members or 24%
* [[National Party of Australia]] -- 5 members or 12%
* [[Australian Greens]] -- 4 members or 10%
* [[Shooters Party]] -- 2 members or 5%
* [[Christian Democrats]] -- 1 member or 2%
* [[Family First Party]] -- 1 member or 2%

The NSW ALP branch is currently in power but have been heavily criticized in the media and in the general public due to factional wars and the debt accumulated in recent years. There have been 4 premiers in as many years and on 3rd December 2009 Kristina Keneally was elected leader of the Labor Party and ultimately premier beating Nathan Rees who himself succeeded Morris Iemma after he resigned when his bill to privatize the states electricity was rejected my the majority of delegates within his own party. <ref>http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/03/2234589.htm</ref> She is the first American born and first woman to hold that position. In recent times successive polls have placed them at low levels and in some case close to 25% on primary votes. <ref>http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/sack-the-nsw-labor-executive-before-its-too-late/story-e6frg6zo-1225816066089</ref> <ref>http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/nsw-labor-to-be-wiped-out-at-poll-union-20091204-kap7.html</ref>. A recent finding has labelled the economy of NSW the worst in the country, having grown at only 0.2% compared to the national average of 1.1%. The share of the national economy has fallen from 36% from the [[Olympics]] of 2000 held in Sydney to less than one third at 32% in June, 2009 <ref>http://www.smh.com.au/business/nsw-still-the-dunce-in-the-economy-class-20100111-m2nq.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Australia]]
[[Category:Australian States and Territories]]

ABC (Australia)

2010-01-21T04:56:32Z

AusRight: Neater

''Not to be confused with the'' [[American Broadcasting Company]]

The '''Australian Broadcasting Corporation''', shortened to '''ABC''' is a public broadcaster in Australia. The ABC is operated on a budget of over $1 Billion (Australian) <ref> http://www.budget.gov.au/2009-10/content/bp4/html/bp4_agency_resourcing_04_bcde.htm </ref> and has been criticized for it left leaning bias by conservative figureheads in Australia. <ref> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_your_abc_of_bias/ </ref>

==History==
The ABC originally started out as a radio station called the Australian Broadcasting Company in 1923 and in 1932 the company was nationalized under the Australian Broadcasting Commission Act. <ref> http://www.acmi.net.au/AIC/RADIO_HIST_AUS.html </ref> <ref>http://www.radio.adelaide.edu.au/intro/history_OZ-radio.pdf#search=%22%22Australian%20Broadcasting%20Company%22%22</ref> It started broadcasting as a television service in1956 and in the 2000’s digital channels were added such as ABC2.

== Funding==
The ABC is completely funded by the Federal Government except for a small percentage which is generated through the profit of items sold in the ABC shop such as DVD’s. The operating budget for the ABC is slightly over $1 Billion according to the latest Government budget data. <ref> http://www.budget.gov.au/2009-10/content/bp4/html/bp4_agency_resourcing_04_bcde.htm </ref>

==Ratings and programs==
As it is not a commercial network it does not necessarily go for high rating programs but concentrates much of its air time on news and current affair programs such as “The 7.30 Report”, “Four Corners”, “Lateline” and the “ABC News” as well as many local programs such as children’s programs from 6am to 10am every weekday. <ref>http://www.abc.net.au/news/programs</ref>. It consistently polls around 15 – 20% of the overall population share every day. <ref>http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2009/12/week-52-3.html</ref> <ref> http://www.throng.com.au/ratings/free-air-tv-ratings-monday-december-7-2009</ref>

==Politics and allegations of bias==

The ABC been accused by Australian conservatives over allegations of left wing bias in its journalism especially when it over represents leftist issues in Australia such as immigration, republicanism, multiculturalism, reconciliation and its support for the centre-left Australian Labor Party. <ref>http://candobetter.org/node/17</ref> <ref>http://www.themonthly.com.au/monthly-essays-robert-manne-new-teeth-aunty-reinvigorating-national-broadcaster-749</ref> Conservative commentators in Australia such as Andrew Bolt as well as Coalition members have stated that they believe the ABC to contain bias from the left. <ref>http://newmatilda.com/2009/08/24/small-l-liberal-not-left</ref> John Howard who was the Liberal Party Prime Minister of Australia from 1996 – 2007 had cut the funding to the ABC by close to 10% for what he believed to be left wing bias. In a 2004 poll of journalists the ABC came in second to the question of “the most politically biased media organisation in Australia”. <ref>http://www.roymorgan.com/resources/pdf/papers/20040903.pdf</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Australian Greens

2010-01-21T04:55:50Z

AusRight: Neater

The '''Australian Greens''' also simply known as '''The Greens''' are a leftist/progressive <ref>http://greens.org.au/policies</ref> green political party operating in Australia.

==History==
There had been an effort to create a Green party in Australia during the 70's and 80's as issues such as the Franklin Dam and other green issues rose in importance. The Greens were formed in the early 90's and elected their first senator who is the current leader Bob Brown in 1996.<ref>http://greens.org.au/history</ref> As time progressed The Greens electoral performance improved dramatically and in the Australian Senate and the parliaments of various State and territories around Australia they make up a visible minority.

==Electoral performance==
The Greens initially had very poor electoral performance but eventually improved and in the 2007 federal election received close to 1 million votes in the [[Australian House of Representatives]] representing around 8% of the total primary vote. Despite this, The Greens did not receive any seats (and haven't in the past) as their support is deep but not broad. In the [[Australian Senate|Senate]] they received over 1 million primary votes, but after preferences received close to 1.5 million votes representing close to 12% of the final vote giving them a total of 5 seats out of 76 with the help of proportional representation. <ref>http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/01/06/1199554486499.html</ref>

==Support Base==
As Australia uses a system of secret ballot it is hard to estimate correctly who votes for The Greens but through various polls conducted it is thought that the average Green voter is 'a supporter of the old Labor Party left of the '70s', and lives in middle to upper class suburbs around the major cities and possibly old Australian Democrats voters.<ref>http://www.examiner.com.au/news/local/news/politics/minority-government-accords-have-to-beat-odds-and-history/1704846.aspx?storypage=0</ref>

==Preferences distribution==
In nearly every election the Greens give preferences to the Centre-Left [[Australian Labor Party]] by a large margin which is usually over 65% of the preferences <ref>http://results.aec.gov.au/13745/website/HouseStateTppFlow-13745-NAT.htm</ref>. This can help the ALP in some close seats where the result could come to preferences.

==Criticism==
The Greens have been criticized by conservatives in Australia as an extreme left wing party which doesn't just stand for green politics but at the same time being very socially liberal, supporting drug legalization, supporting multiculturalism and opposing war. They have been called a watermelon party by both former reverend now leader of the Christian Democrats Fred Nile and former Nationals leader John Anderson in relation to the accusations of The Greens being communists. <ref>http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/06/1094322715096.html</ref> <ref>http://www.cdp.org.au/fed/mr/2009/090616f.asp</ref> They have also being criticized by former Prime Minister John Howard. <ref>http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1213412.htm</ref>

==References==
<references/>

User:AusRight

2010-01-20T23:42:50Z

AusRight: Added my contributions

{{User Christian1}} 

My political beliefs are as follows: I would consider myself a conservative especially socially and a firm believer of Capitalism.

Although I would call myself conservative I support Gun control as I believe that ordinary citizens should not take the law into their own hands (that is why we have police), I believe that Health Care is a right and that the Government has a '''moral responsibly''' to give basic care to all of its citizens. The military budget should be reduced as from an Australian context we should only need to keep good relations with neighbors and save money. I also support progressive taxation as it doesn't burden the poor who are already finding the mortgage/rent, utilities and food bills hard to pay off and the state can make decent money by taxing the rich.

Apart from that I am strongly conservative as I am strongly against Gay marriage as it is immoral and unnatural, I believe in restricting abortion rights and having less of them as it is not up to women to kill innocent children and it will harm these women so it should be seldom used. I am strongly for restricting immigration and setting up an official language and all immigrants will have to learn it to a sufficient degree. Finally I believe that Unemployment benefits should be scaled down because if you are able bodied and can work than you should work. 

{{User political compass|1.12 |5.08}} 
{{User CPLeader|Andy Schlafly}} 
{{User Barnstar?}} 
{{User 6000YearOldEarth}} 
{{User KnowsNoEvo}} 
{{User research}} 
{{User Worldconservative}} 
{{User Aussie}} 
{{User antigun}} 
{{User guncontrol}} 
{{User Republican}} 
{{User weapon|'RPD'}} 

 

Pages I have either created or contributed greatly to

Major pages:
* [[Politics of Australian and the US compared]]
* [[Australian economy]]
 
Australian politicians
* [[Tony Abbott]]
* [[Brendan Nelson]]
 
Australian political parties
* [[Liberal Party of Australia]]
* [[Australian Labor Party]]
* [[Australian Greens]]
 
Parliament
* [[Australian House of Representatives]]
* [[Australian Senate]]
 
Miscellaneous
* [[ABC (Australia)]]
* [[Preferential voting]]

Australian Senate

2010-01-20T23:35:30Z

AusRight: Added link

The Australian Senate is one of the Houses in the Parliament of Australia along with the [[Australian House of Representatives]]. The Australian Senate is much less powerful than the House of representatives, but can block legislation.

It is very similar to the [[United States Senate]] in the sense that it is the upper house and has fewer members that the House of representatives. Senators are elected using proportional representation and some preferential voting. There are 12 Senators from each of the 6 states in Australia (despite their population differences) and 2 each from the 2 territories making a total of 76 Senators.

==Voting on bills==

If a bill is introduced into the House of Representatives and is successfully passed it then goes to the Senate where it will be debated and then a vote will be held in relation to that bill. As the Senate uses proportional representation it means that once a quota for 1 Senator is reached then that Senator is elected and because of this even if a party such as the Liberal party is in a minority in the House of Representatives it has the same amount of Senators as the ALP in the Senate at 32 each. This means that the ALP or the Liberal Party after passing the bill in the House of Representatives often find it difficult to pass the bill in the Senate as they need 39 Senators to pass that bill.

==Composition==
As mentioned before the Senate has 12 Senators from each of the 6 states and 2 from the 2 territories.
 
'''States''':

NSW: 6 ALP, 4 Liberal, 2 National 
VIC: 5 ALP, 6 Liberal, 1 Family First 
QLD: 5 ALP, 5 Liberal, 2 National 
WA: 4 ALP, 6 Liberal, 2 Green 
SA: 5 ALP, 5 Liberal, 1 Green, 1 Ind 
TAS: 5 ALP, 5 Liberal, 2 Green 
 
'''Territories''':

ACT: 1 ALP, 1 Liberal 
NT: 1 ALP, 1 Liberal 
 
This gives a total of 32 Senators for the Australian Labor Party, 33 Senators for the Liberal Party, 5 green Senators, 4 National Senators, 1 Family first Senators and 1 Independent.

==Re-election and terms==

At every federal election their are 40 Senators up for re-election. This is comprised of 6 from each state and 2 from each territory. Senators serve terms of 6 years which is double what House of Representative members serve. A double-dissolution election can be called if there is deadlock in the Senate and the last time this occurred was during the Whitlam era nearly 40 years ago.

Politics of Australia and the US compared

2010-01-20T23:26:39Z

AusRight: Added new category

Australia and the Unites States of America share common links with the United Kingdom and have inherited the Westminster system of government system of government. Both countries share many similarities in terms of [[Bicameral Legislature|bicameralism]] where the [[House of Representatives]] as well as the [[Australian House of Representatives|Australian equivalent]] is the Lower house while the [[United States Senate]] and the [[Australian Senate]] is the Upper house.

==House of Representatives==
In both countries the House of Representatives is the lower house and has more members. In the United States there is 1 member representing each of the 435 congressional districts, while in Australia there is also 1 member representing the 150 electoral districts. The average population of each of the congressional districts is approximately 650, 000 people while in Australia there are approximately 150, 000 people per district.
In both countries there are districts where the density is very high like in large cities so the districts are smaller where as in rural areas the density is low so the districts must be larger to compensate for the low density. In the US the amount of districts is set by law at 435 while in Australia it can and has changed due to population growth. Members of the Australian House of Representatives serve a 3 year term whereas US members of the House serve 2 years.

==Senate==
The Senate for both nations is the upper house in their respective parliament. Both Senates represent the States equally where there are 100 senators in the United States, 2 from each of the 50 states, while in Australia there are 76 senators, 12 from each state and 2 from each of the 2 territories. Senators from both countries serve 6 year terms.

==President and Prime Minister==
In the United States the President is elected directly by the people and Electoral College while primaries determine who the candidate will be from the two major parties. The president can be from any party or even an independent so long as they get enough votes, while in Australia the Prime Minister is the leader of either the [[Liberal Party of Australia]] or the [[Australian Labor Party]] and isn’t directly elected by the people ‘‘‘per se’’’ instead whichever party holds the majority in the House of Representatives, then that parties’ leader becomes the Prime Minister of Australia.
Restricted by the constitution, the President of The United States cannot serve more than 2 terms or 8 years, while Australia imposes no term limits and there have been 2 Prime Ministers who have served over 11 years.

==Voting==
Australia uses a different system of voting called [[preferential voting]] where candidates are ranked in a list from 1 -5 for instance whereas the United States uses plurality voting where a candidate can win with less than 50% of the votes. In Australia voting is compulsory and the penalty for not voting is generally around $50. This is the reason that voter turnout is one of the highest in the world and generally at 95%, while in the US it is not compulsory and turnout is generally around 50 -60%.

==Minor Parties==
In Australia it can be said that minor parties are more represented due to 2 main factors which are preferential voting and proportional representation in the Australian Senate. There are no minor parties in either House of Representatives although there are 3 independents in the Australian House of Representatives. In the Australian Senate which uses proportional representation there are 11 out of 76 senators from candidates other than the 2 main parties, while the US Senate has only 2 independents (Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders). It pretty common for most electorates in Australia to have close to 10 contestants while the equivalent in the United States is around 4.

==States==
Both countries share similarities in size and each state has their own parliament. In Australia and the United States every single state has 2 chambers just like at federal level except for ([[Queensland]] and [[Nebraska]]) respectively who have a [[Unicameral Legislature]].

==Courts==
Both countries have an independent judiciary called the Supreme Court in US and the High Court in Australia which interprets the constitution and acts as a final court of appeals.

[[category:political Terms]]
[[Category:Australia]]

Politics of Australia and the US compared

2010-01-20T23:21:16Z

AusRight: Added category

Politics of Australia and the US compared

2010-01-20T23:19:39Z

AusRight: Started the page

United States House of Representatives

2010-01-20T04:26:21Z

AusRight: Added link to not get confused

[[Image:6535yttfr.png|right|thumb|Seal of the United States House of Representatives.]]

'''''House of Representatives''''' redirects here, for the Australian equivalent click here [[Australian House of Representatives]]

The '''House of Representatives''', often referred to as just "The House", is the lower chamber of [[Congress]] in which representatives of each state in the union gather. There are 435 voting members of the House, and each serves two year terms. Representatives can be re-elected an unlimited number of times, and indeed, most incumbents who seek re-election are continually successful. <ref>http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/QHA-08.htm</ref> Every state has at least one Representative, and are allocated more based on population. For example, [[California]] has 53 Representatives. The House of Representatives meets in the United States [[Capitol]] in [[Washington, D.C.]]

The House's presiding officer is a Representative from the party with the most members currently in the House, and is known as the [[Speaker of the House]]. The current Speaker of the House is [[Democrat]] [[Nancy Pelosi]], who is from [[California]]. The majority leader is [[Steny Hoyer]] and the minority leader is [[John Boehner]].

==Powers of the House==

The House has the power to [[impeach]] the [[president]] and other federal officials. The House is also responsible for dealing with revenue bills.<ref>US Government and Politics</ref>

==Current Composition==
*'''Democratic Party (Majority): 258 (+6)
*'''Republican Party (Minority): 177 (+0)
''Numbers in brackets are non-voting members from US territories such as the [[District of Columbia]] and [[Puerto Rico]].

==See also==
* [[Congress]]
* [[The Budget Process]]
* [[Glossary of Budget Terms]]

[[Image:HouseofRepresentatives.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Chamber of the United States House of Representatives.]]

==Bibliography==
* Congressional Quarterly. ''Guide to Congress,'' 6th edition (2007) 1441 pages. CQ is a trustworthy source, achieving a nonpartisan, nonidological factual position
**CQ, ''Student's Guide to the U.S. Congress'' (2008)
* Congressional Quarterly. ''Politics in America: 2008'' (2007); ISBN: 0-87289-547-5 1224pp, covers every member of Congress; [http://www.cqpress.com/product/pia2008.html details and samples]
* Baker, Ross K. ''House and Senate'', 3rd ed. New York: W. W. Norton. (2000).
* Barone, Michael, and Richard E. Cohen. ''The Almanac of American Politics, 2010'' (2009), elaborate detail on every district and member; 1920 pages; new edition every 2 years since 1976
* Davidson, Roger H., and Walter J. Oleszek. (1998). ''Congress and Its Members'', 6th ed. from CQ
* Silverberg, David. ''Congress for Dummies'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Congress-Dummies-David-Silverberg/dp/0764554212/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259667157&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Lee, Frances and Bruce Oppenheimer. ''Sizing Up the Senate: The Unequal Consequences of Equal Representation.'' University of Chicago Press. (1999).
* Tarr, David R., and Ann O'Connor. ''Congress A to Z'' (CQ Congressional Quarterly) (4th ed 2003) 605pp

===History===
*''American National Biography'' (1999), contains biographies of all politicians no longer alive; online edition at academic libraries
* ''Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774-2005.'' 2005. biographical entries for every person who ever served; [http://bioguide.congress.gov Biographical Directory online].
* Carroll, Holbert N. ''The House of Representatives and Foreign Affairs'' 1958 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28100337 online edition]
* Davidson, Roger H., Susan Webb Hammond, Raymond W. Smock, eds; ''Masters of the House: Congressional Leadership over Two Centuries'' Westview Press, 1998 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=58332031 online edition]
* Galloway, George B. ''History of the House of Representatives'' 1962 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=3071891 online edition]
* MacNeil, Neil. ''Forge of Democracy: The House of Representatives'' (1963) popular history by a well-informed journalist [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=11599068 online edition]
* Remini, Robert V. ''The House: The History of the House of Representatives'' (2006) the standard scholarly history [http://www.amazon.com/House-History-Representatives/dp/B000ULVL1Q/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200711075&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Strahan, Randall. ''Leading Representatives: The Agency of Leaders in the Politics of the U.S. House'' (2007) focus on [[Henry Clay]], [[Thomas Reed]], and [[Newt Gingrich]]
* Zelizer, Julian E. ''On Capitol Hill: The Struggle to Reform Congress and its Consequences, 1948-2000'' (2004)
* Zelizer, Julian E. ed. ''The American Congress: The Building of Democracy'' (2004), essays by leading scholars [http://www.amazon.com/American-Congress-Building-Democracy/dp/0618179062/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200711146&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

==References==
<References/>

[[Category:United States Elected Officials]]
[[Category:United States House of Representatives]]
[[Category:DC]]

Australian Senate

2010-01-20T04:25:02Z

AusRight: /* Composition */ Grammar

The Australian Senate is one of the Houses in the Parliament of Australia along with the Australian House of Representatives. The Australian Senate is much less powerful than the House of representatives, but can block legislation.

It is very similar to the [[United States Senate]] in the sense that it is the upper house and has fewer members that the House of representatives. Senators are elected using proportional representation and some preferential voting. There are 12 Senators from each of the 6 states in Australia (despite their population differences) and 2 each from the 2 territories making a total of 76 Senators.

==Voting on bills==

If a bill is introduced into the House of Representatives and is successfully passed it then goes to the Senate where it will be debated and then a vote will be held in relation to that bill. As the Senate uses proportional representation it means that once a quota for 1 Senator is reached then that Senator is elected and because of this even if a party such as the Liberal party is in a minority in the House of Representatives it has the same amount of Senators as the ALP in the Senate at 32 each. This means that the ALP or the Liberal Party after passing the bill in the House of Representatives often find it difficult to pass the bill in the Senate as they need 39 Senators to pass that bill.

==Composition==
As mentioned before the Senate has 12 Senators from each of the 6 states and 2 from the 2 territories.
 
'''States''':

NSW: 6 ALP, 4 Liberal, 2 National 
VIC: 5 ALP, 6 Liberal, 1 Family First 
QLD: 5 ALP, 5 Liberal, 2 National 
WA: 4 ALP, 6 Liberal, 2 Green 
SA: 5 ALP, 5 Liberal, 1 Green, 1 Ind 
TAS: 5 ALP, 5 Liberal, 2 Green 
 
'''Territories''':

ACT: 1 ALP, 1 Liberal 
NT: 1 ALP, 1 Liberal 
 
This gives a total of 32 Senators for the Australian Labor Party, 33 Senators for the Liberal Party, 5 green Senators, 4 National Senators, 1 Family first Senators and 1 Independent.

==Re-election and terms==

At every federal election their are 40 Senators up for re-election. This is comprised of 6 from each state and 2 from each territory. Senators serve terms of 6 years which is double what House of Representative members serve. A double-dissolution election can be called if there is deadlock in the Senate and the last time this occurred was during the Whitlam era nearly 40 years ago.

Tony Abbott

2010-01-18T06:18:43Z

AusRight: More neat

'''Tony Abbott''' (b. 4 November 1957) is a conservative [[Australian]] politician, who is currently the head of the [[Liberal Party of Australia]]<ref>http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/national/new-liberal-leader-tony-abbott-to-focus-on-battlers-economy/story-e6frg15u-1225805944477</ref>. He is representing a seat in parliament for the state of [[New South Wales]] since 1994. He had risen to prominence under the Howard Government as Minister for Health and Ageing from 2003 - 2007 where he was outspoken in issues such as Abortion saying several times that it is as 'a national tragedy' <ref>http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/16/1079199229752.html</ref>. In terms of public perception, Abbott is generally seen as a devout Catholic and has the nickname 'Mad Monk' as he wanted to be a priest.

==Early life==
He was born in [[London]] on November 4, 1957 to Australian parents and in 1960 they moved back to take up residence in [[Sydney]]. He attended 2 private Catholic, only boys schools in Sydney and completed a Bachelor of Economics and a Bachelor of Law at Sydney University where he was an active student politician and boxer. He then attended Queen's College in Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar and gained a Master of Arts. When he came back he entered the St Patrick's Seminary in Manly where he studied to become a Catholic priest but left before completion to take up a role as a journalist for the Bulletin (a now discontinued weekly political and cultural magazine) and The Australian (a Monday to Saturday conservative newspaper).

He is married to Margaret Abbott and they have 3 daughters.

==Politics ==
He was elected to the [[Australian House of Representatives]] in 1994 and has had various portfolios including Minister for Employment Services, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Health and Ageing. As Minister for Health and Ageing he was known for speaking out against Abortion and the use of Embryonic stem cell research. He was always against the drug RU486 which is used for non-surgical abortions and only by a conscience vote in 2005 was the ban lifted from 1996. <ref>http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1571075.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1507408.htm</ref>. Like most conservatives in Australia he supporters the constitutional monarchy in Australia. As of recent with the Climate change debate in Australia he has stated that it is 'absolute crap' but later he said it wasn't his 'considered position' on the subject. <ref> http://www.theage.com.au/national/we-will-have-climate-policy-abbott-says-20091201-k3vb.html </ref>.

On 1 December 2009 after more than 15 years in the [[Liberal Party of Australia]] he became leader due to much hate over then leader [[Malcolm Turnbull]] and his acceptance of the Australian [[Cap and trade]] equivalent called ETS (emission trading scheme) which has been called 'the single worst piece of legislation to be foisted on the Australian public' by respected environmental scientist Professor Bob Carter who has been as an expert witness on climate change before the U.S. Senate Committee of Environment & Public Works, the Australian and N.Z. parliamentary Select Committees into emissions trading and in a meeting in parliament house, Stockholm. He was also a primary science witness in the U.K. High Court case of Dimmock v. H.M.'s Secretary of State for Education, the 2007 judgement from which identified nine major scientific errors in Al Gore's film [[An Inconvenient Truth]]. <ref>http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=690</ref> <ref>http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/news/local/news/general/scientist-hits-out-at-emissions-bill/1548894.aspx</ref> <ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/</ref>. The bill was later rejected by the [[Australian Senate]] and only 2 Liberal Party senators voted for the bill while even the [[Australian Greens| Greens]] voted against it. <ref>http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/australian-senate-rejects-ets-115811</ref> <ref>http://www.smh.com.au/national/dead--ets-to-rise-again-20091202-k4c1.html?autostart=1</ref>

==Popular culture==
In the Australian public he is known for his [[social conservatism]], his obsession with fitness <ref>http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-clear-view-of-hindsight/2007/07/20/1184560040338.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2</ref> and his colorful language <ref>http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26465464-27197,00.html</ref> <ref>http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/abbotts-language-doesnt-faze-gillard-20090911-fk1h.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politicians]]

Brendan Nelson

2010-01-18T06:18:01Z

AusRight: Started the page

Brendan Nelson is a former Australian politician best known for his portfolios of Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister for Defence. He represented the safe Liberal seat of Bradfield since 1996 until his resignation in 2009. He is a social liberal and had seen his only brother die of AIDS in 1995 and he told parliament 'Homosexual people are our brothers and sisters, our aunts and uncles, our sons and daughters, and some are even parents, and they should be able to live in a society that is free of intolerance, persecution and hatred'.

==Politics==
He is a [[moderate]] or a small "l" liberals and was once quoted as saying 'I would feel equally comfortable as a moderate Liberal as I would in the [[Australian Labor Party|Labor]] Right'. He once famously said 'I'd be quite concerned if intelligent design were to replace evolution'. After John Howard's loss along with the Liberal Party in 2007 he became the leader of the Opposition narrowly defeating [[Malcolm Turnbull]] with 45 votes - 42 for Malcolm Turnbull. He is the first [[Catholic]] to head the Liberal Party <ref>http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/holy-oversight-brendan/story-0-1111117040280</ref>.

==After politics==
On 16th September 2009 the Prime Minister [[Kevin Rudd]] appointed him as the Australia ambassador to the European Union and NATO. <ref>http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/kim-beazley-brendan-nelson-new-us-eu-ambassadors/story-e6frfku0-1225775799645</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
* Biography -- [http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-evolution-of-brendan-nelson/2005/12/22/1135032135726.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2]
* Farewell speech and humor -- [http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/politics/the-real-story-behind-my-earring-brendan-nelson-20090916-frkk.html]

Malcolm Turnbull

2010-01-18T05:06:29Z

AusRight: Changed wording

'''Malcolm Turnbull''' is an [[Australia|Australian]] politician who was elected Federal leader of the [[Liberal Party of Australia]], and therefore Federal [[Leader of the Opposition]], on 16th September 2008. On December 1 2009, he lost a leadership vote to [[Tony Abbott]] and retired to the Liberal "back benches" due to him not representing the majority of Liberal members thoughts and for being '[[Moderate|soft]]' on issues such as Climate Change, same sex marriage and republicanism (all of which are against the Liberal parties principles)

He has previously served as Environment Minister in the [[government]] of [[John Howard]] and after Howard's 2007 election loss as Shadow Federal Treasurer under then Opposition Leader [[Brendan Nelson]].

Turnbull represents the wealthy [[Sydney]] seat of Wentworth in Federal Parliament. Wentworth has a socially liberal population, and Turnbull's stated views reflect this.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Turnbull, Malcolm}}
[[Category:International Political Figures]]
[[Category:Australia]]

Tony Abbott

2010-01-18T04:00:41Z

AusRight: Started the page

'''Tony Abbott''' (b. 4 November 1957) is a conservative [[Australian]] politician, who is currently the head of the [[Liberal Party of Australia]]<ref>http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/national/new-liberal-leader-tony-abbott-to-focus-on-battlers-economy/story-e6frg15u-1225805944477</ref>. He is representing a seat in parliament for the state of [[New South Wales]] since 1994. He had risen to prominence under the Howard Government as Minister for Health and Ageing from 2003 - 2007 where he was outspoken in issues such as Abortion saying several times that it is as 'a national tragedy' <ref>http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/16/1079199229752.html</ref>. In terms of public perception, Abbott is generally seen as a devout Catholic and has the nickname 'Mad Monk' as he wanted to be a priest.

==Early life==
He was born in [[London]] on November 4, 1957 to Australian parents and in 1960 they moved back to take up residence in [[Sydney]]. He attended 2 private Catholic, only boys schools in Sydney and completed a Bachelor of Economics and a Bachelor of Law at Sydney University where he was an active student politician and boxer. He then attended Queen's College in Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar and gained a Master of Arts. When he came back he entered the St Patrick's Seminary in Manly where he studied to become a Catholic priest but left before completion to take up a role as a journalist for the Bulletin (a now discontinued weekly political and cultural magazine) and The Australian (a Monday to Saturday conservative newspaper).

He is married to Margaret Abbott and they have 3 daughters.

==Politics ==
He was elected to the [[Australian House of Representatives]] in 1994 and has had various portfolios including Minister for Employment Services, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Health and Ageing. As Minister for Health and Ageing he was known for speaking out against Abortion and the use of Embryonic stem cell research. He was always against the drug RU486 which is used for non-surgical abortions and only by a conscience vote in 2005 was the ban lifted from 1996. <ref>http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1571075.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1507408.htm</ref>. Like most conservatives in Australia he supporters the constitutional monarchy in Australia. As of recent with the Climate change debate in Australia he has stated that it is 'absolute crap' but later he said it wasn't his 'considered position' on the subject. <ref> http://www.theage.com.au/national/we-will-have-climate-policy-abbott-says-20091201-k3vb.html </ref>.

On 1 December 2009 after more than 15 years in the [[Liberal Party of Australia]] he became leader due to much hate over then leader [[Malcolm Turnbull]] and his acceptance of the Australian [[Cap and trade]] equivalent called ETS (emission trading scheme) which has been called 'the single worst piece of legislation to be foisted on the Australian public' by respected environmental scientist Professor Bob Carter who has been as an expert witness on climate change before the U.S. Senate Committee of Environment & Public Works, the Australian and N.Z. parliamentary Select Committees into emissions trading and in a meeting in parliament house, Stockholm. He was also a primary science witness in the U.K. High Court case of Dimmock v. H.M.'s Secretary of State for Education, the 2007 judgement from which identified nine major scientific errors in Al Gore's film [[An Inconvenient Truth]]. <ref>http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=690</ref> <ref>http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/news/local/news/general/scientist-hits-out-at-emissions-bill/1548894.aspx</ref> <ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/</ref>. The bill was later rejected by the [[Australian Senate]] and only 2 Liberal Party senators voted for the bill while even the [[Australian Greens| Greens]] voted against it. <ref>http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/australian-senate-rejects-ets-115811</ref> <ref>http://www.smh.com.au/national/dead--ets-to-rise-again-20091202-k4c1.html?autostart=1</ref>

==Popular culture==
In the Australian public he is known for his [[social conservatism]], his obsession with fitness <ref>http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-clear-view-of-hindsight/2007/07/20/1184560040338.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2</ref> and his colorful language <ref>http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26465464-27197,00.html</ref> <ref>http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/abbotts-language-doesnt-faze-gillard-20090911-fk1h.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politicians]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2010-01-15T05:33:28Z

AusRight: Added even more bias

<big>The following is a growing list of examples of '''[[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], frivolous [[gossip]], and blatant errors on [[Wikipedia]].'''</big>
 
 
# Wikipedia Homosexual agenda by its editors is clearly visible here <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:KAPITALIST88&action=historysubmit&diff=335800503&oldid=335420724</ref> where a userbox saying ''This user supports heterosexual marriage only is removed''. This user was later blocked and the official reason was for uploading a copyrighted image, but other users have uploaded many copyrighted images but who are not conservative and thus aren't blocked <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wad572</ref>.
#[[Barack Obama]] lost by a 2-1 margin in a congressional primary in 2000, but Wikipedia reduces that fact to merely one hard-to-find sentence amid its exaggerated praise.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama</ref>
#Wikipedia falsely states that there is "'''precise''' agreement"<ref>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1913%2B16 (emphasis added).</ref> between the data for [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] and predictions of the [[General Theory of Relativity]], when in fact the data are unmistakably different from the theoretical prediction, no data have been released since 2003 (perhaps due to such divergence), and even the authors of the study admit continuing imprecision by saying that "it seems unlikely that this test of relativistic gravity will be improved significantly."<ref>See [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]].</ref>
#Conservapedia posted the news about liberal corruption of [[global warming]] science ([[climategate]]) on its Main Page on the very first day: November 19th. But it took Wikipedia over two weeks to give priority to this bombshell, and even now its entry is remarkably biased against it.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate</ref>
#[[Isaac Newton]] ''translated'' parts of the [[Bible]], and considered this effort to be the source of his scientific insights, yet Wikipedia's 10,000-word entry completely omits this.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton . Newton also felt that everyone else who translated the Bible were also able to have insights.</ref>
#The "Pioneer anomaly" contradicts both the [[theory of relativity]] and Newtonian gravity, but the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly Wikipedia article] describes it as a potential defect for only Newtonian gravity.<ref>The anomaly is discussed in an unbiased way here in [[Essay:Quantifying Order]].</ref>
#Wikipedia uses anti-religious examples for its entry on "argumentum ad populum" (Latin for claiming that something is true if it is popular). Conspicuously absent from Wikipedia's examples are atheistic arguments based on popular opinion, such as misleading people into thinking the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] must be true if others accept it.
#Wikipedia's article on engineering<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering</ref> features a photo of ... an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient [[liberal]] boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the [[United States]] because they are not competitive.
#Amid the [[libel]] controversy against [[Rush Limbaugh]] during his bid to purchase an NFL team, the [[St. Louis Rams]], Newsbusters revealed the false quote's Web source appeared to be from [[Wikipedia]].<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112839 Limbaugh: Media 'scum' lying about fake racist quotes], WND, October 13, 2009.</ref> The quote has been removed and replaced several times since 2005. And the Wikipedia entry did not provide a transcript link to Limbaugh's show with the citation, because the quote did not exist but was part of a bias strategy by Wikipedia to label Limbaugh a racist. While the talk host criticized the website that bills itself as an "online encyclopedia," Wikipedia editors were busy discussing their strategy for handling the controversy.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rush_Limbaugh#Legal_threat</ref> It was later revealed that the quotes were added by a highly controversial, bias user with the IP address of 69.64.213.146.<ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/the_search_for_the_wikipedia_l.html The Search for the Wikipedia Libelist (important update)], American Thinker, October 21, 2009.</ref>
#Wikipedia has a large article detailing anti-abortion violence committed around the world,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence</ref> but there is no article about pro-abortion violence, like that which resulted in the September 11, 2009, death of peaceful protester Jim Pouillon. There is no article for "Pro-choice violence"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice_violence</ref> and "Pro-abortion violence" bizarrely redirects to the "Pro-life movement" article section about "Term controversy."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-abortion_violence</ref> Before being redirected, the "Pro-abortion violence" article was biased towards downplaying the reality of violence committed by supporters of abortion.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-abortion_violence&oldid=298226073</ref> For example, while the "Anti-abortion violence" article matter-of-factly begins: "Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion." ...the "Pro-abortion violence" article dismissingly began: "Pro-abortion violence (or pro-choice violence) is a term used in the pro-life movement to characterize acts of violence committed by abortion practitioners or abortion advocates against those who oppose abortion or against pregnant women. The former is regarded as factual while the latter is just "a term used in the pro-life movement."
#Wikipedia omits that there are serious contradictions within and objections to the [[Theory of Relativity]], instead presenting it as scientific gospel. (Example of contradictions and objections needed.)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity</ref>
#Wikipedia lists Factcheck.org as a "non-partisan" "'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics."<ref>ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck</ref> However, two attempted edits were deleted pointing out factcheck.org falsely claims that Barry Soetoro (''aka'' [[Barack Obama]]) has produced his birth certificate: "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate."<ref>ref: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html</ref> This claim contradicts the fact that the document they refer to is a copy of a Certificate Of Live Birth, produced in 2007, as opposed to a Birth Certificate. While later in the page, it states that detractors claim it is a "'certification of birth', not a 'certificate of birth'" (actually "Certificate Of Live Birth" and "Birth Certificate" respectively). Factcheck.org clouds the verbage by getting the actual terms wrong and presenting the two items as synonymous.<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>
#Wikipedia's article about [[Bernhard Riemann]], perhaps the greatest modern mathematician, contains little discussion of Riemann's [[faith]] and tries to downplay his fundamentalism as though it were merely a passing interest as a teenager.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann</ref><ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/bernhard-riemann</ref>
#Wikipedia savages anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]], such as Dr. [[William Dembski]], whom Wikipedia introduces with outlandish, unsupported quotations by [[liberal]] critics.<ref name="Wiki Dembski">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski</ref> For example, Wikipedia describes David H. Wolpert as a "prominent mathematician" in order to insert a scathing, unjustified quotation by him about Dembski.<ref name="Wiki Dembski"/> In fact, Wolpert does not even hold a math degree and his (non-math) doctorate was from the University of California at the weak Santa Barbara location.<ref>http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/dhw/cv.current.frame.pdf</ref> Dembski's PhD is in math from the preeminent University of Chicago.
#Noting that Al Gore's 2009 statement that he won a 2007 British court case about [[An Inconvenient Truth]] ran contrary to the actual ruling and, especially, the judge's statement that the claimant won the case against the film is considered "original research" and "POV" on Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills&diff=302098981&oldid=302092626</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] often treats [[conservative]] figures and sites with contempt, characteristic of the liberal [[double standard]]. Compare, for example, Wikipedia's smear of Conservapedia<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> with its straightforward description of Scholarpedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarpedia</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] cites vulgar blogs and liberal rants as though they are encyclopedic authorities. For example, its entry about [[Conservapedia]] claims that "[s]everal articles on the site have reputations for bias and inaccuracy,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> but its citations for that falsehood consist of a vulgar blog, a liberal rant, and an article that takes a neutral position. None of Wikipedia's three "authorities" make any statement about the "reputation" of Conservapedia as Wikipedia claims.
#[[Wikipedia]] bias against [[movement conservative]]s is intense. [[Michele Bachmann]] won reelection in 2008 by 3% in a state that went heavily [[Democratic]], but instead of crediting her [[conservative]] positions the biased Wikipedia entry states, "Despite fallout from controversial statements that she had made, Bachmann defeated her Democratic opponent Elwyn Tinklenberg in the 2008 election."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann#cite_ref-33</ref>
#In its entry on the heavily Christian Gothic architecture,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture</ref> [[Wikipedia]] credits [[Islam]] before [[Christianity]], does not even mention Christianity until after more than 1500 words, and then does not mention Christianity again.
#In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'', [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] supports his observation that [[Wikipedia]] "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>
#Wikipedia's [[evolution]] article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section its evolution article which is not surprising since [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position]] despite the [[evolution|evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it]].
# Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] fails to mention that [[United States|American]] [[atheist]]s [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per capita basis even when church giving is not counted for theists]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention [[Atheism and deception|how key proponents of atheism have been deceptive]]. Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] also fails to mention that [[Christianity and Science|Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science]]. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism is a causal factor for suicide]].
# The Wikipedia entry for [[homosexuality]] is adorned with the a rainbow graphic but fails to mention the following: the [[Homosexuality and health|many diseases associated with homosexuality]], the [[Homosexuality_Statistics|high promiscuity rates of the male homosexual community]], the [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|higher incidences of domestic violence]] among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples, and the [[Homosexuality and health|substantially higher mental illness and drug usage rates of the homosexuality community]]. In addition, the Wikipedia article on homosexuality fails to mention that the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet in May of 2000 stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality."<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf</ref>
#Wikipedia editors regularly and fiercely alter the use of the terms "he" or "she" in articles regarding [[cross-dressing]]/[[transsexual]] figures. Men attempting to pass as females are near-universally referred to as "she" while women attempting to pass as men are referred to as "he", despite this usage absolutely incorrect in both scientific and legal senses.
#Wikipedia made no mention of the fact that President [[Obama]]'s Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] called the United States a "nation of cowards"<ref>http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-090218.html?loc=interstitialskip</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&oldid=273538810</ref><ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/02/19/cnn-talking-heads-unanimously-praise-holders-coward-remarks</ref> when it comes to the discussion of race until about two weeks after Holder insulted America. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&diff=next&oldid=274455687</ref> In typical Wikipedia fashion, it was made to sound as if only conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh objected to the attorney general's crass insult and obvious contempt for the citizens of the United States of America. As of 3/8/09, there is no mention on Wikipedia of Obama's rebuke of Holder's "cowards" insult or of the fact that Holder wants an assault weapons ban. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&oldid=275247574</ref>
#''Alma mater'' normally refers to a college that a person actually graduated from. <ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alma%20mater</ref> However, at [[Wikipedia]], the biography for co-founder Jimmy Wales prominently lists two colleges he didn't graduate from as alma maters. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&oldid=272581018</ref> [[Sean Hannity]] attended but did not graduate from NYU. Wikipedia does not list NYU as Sean Hannity's alma mater because he is a conservative. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Hannity&oldid=272201242</ref>
#The Wikipedia page for Republican Mark Kirk<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263357766</ref> made no mention of the widely-reported and significant fact that, as a Navy reservist, he is the first U.S. Representative since WWII to make an overseas deployment to an imminent danger area (Afghanistan).<ref>http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il10_kirk/Kirk_Completes_Reserve_Tour.html</ref> Instead, the Wikipedia page devotes an entire section titled "contributors" that attempts to smear Kirk with tenuous associations to controversial figures because of relatively small campaign donations. A grammatically-incorrect acknowledgment of Kirk's deployment eventually appeared.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263472629</ref> Kirk's wikipedia page mentioned a $1,000 donation from Tony Rezko <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=268845790</ref>, but Obama's page does not mention the $54,416 <ref>http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353782,CST-NWS-rezpols23.article</ref> Rezko donation. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=272320979</ref> Only after this issue was brought up were issues corrected.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=274813568</ref>
#Wikipedia smears [[conservative]] groups with prominent "Criticism and controversy" sections,<ref>See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Criticism_and_controversy</ref> usually featuring name-calling by obscure groups, but Wikipedia flatters [[liberal]] groups by downplaying what it euphemistically entitles as "Controversial stances."<ref>See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU#Controversial_stances</ref>
#Wikipedia's entry about the [[Christian]] martyr at [[Columbine]] refuses to admit that she was murdered by an [[atheist]] as she was expressing her [[faith]] in [[God]], as confirmed by multiple witnesses.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassie_Bernall</ref><ref>http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cassie.htm</ref> Wikipedia is dominated by atheistic [[public school]] students who would be particularly biased against this truth.
#*Version of May 12, 2009:
#*:Initial reports suggested that one of the assailants, either Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold, asked Bernall if she believed in God moments before fatally shooting her. She was reported to have answered "yes". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cassie_Bernall&oldid=289313205]
#Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] contains four unsupported smears in its very first sentence,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> and conceals from readers how Conservapedia offers free online courses for teenagers.<ref>See [[Conservapedia:Index]]</ref> The result of this bias by Wikipedia, which raises money as a charity, is the concealing and demonizing of a free learning resource that Wikipedia itself does not offer.
#Wikipedia's entry on the [[Scopes trial]] downplays the fact that Darrow cowardly reneged in his agreement to take the witness stand, and pled his client guilty in order to avoid it. Instead, Wikipedia deceptively claims that "Darrow asked the judge to bring in the jury '''only''' to have them come to a guilty verdict."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial (emphasis added)</ref><ref>Thanks much to a student in our [[American_History_Lectures|American History course]] for pointing this out.</ref>
#[[California]]'s Proposition 8 states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)</ref> does not mention that only those marriages are recognized under federal law anyway, and editors have removed any mention of the federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:California_Proposition_8_(2008)#DOMA</ref>
#The articles on both [[Saul Alinsky]] and his book, ''Rules for Radicals'' make no mention of his dedication to "the original radical—Lucifer."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky</ref>
#[[Augusto Pinochet]], who overthrew [[communism]] in [[Chile]] and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a "dictator" by [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet</ref> but [[Fidel Castro]], the communist dictator of [[Cuba]] for four decades, is instead called a "leader" or even a "president".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&oldid=235182888</ref>
# 100's of other climatologists have been removed from the category "Global warming skeptics", which Wikipedia decided to delete.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Coleman_(news_weathercaster)&diff=232272809&oldid=227980118</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_7#Global_warming_and_ozone_hole_skeptics_categories</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[Gardasil]], an [[HPV Vaccine]] promoted by [[liberals]] and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil</ref> (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 '''cause''' about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.<ref>See [[HPV Vaccine]]</ref>
# Wikipedia tries to smear [[conservatives]] as "conspiracy theorists," even when they are not, and yet omits that epithet for [[liberals]] who insist there are vast conspiracies, such as [[Hillary Clinton]]'s claim of a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Compare Wikipedia's entry on [[Phyllis Schlafly]], which repeats a false assertion that she "veers off into conspiracy theories,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly</ref> with Wikipedia's entry on Hillary Clinton, which provides her quote of a "vast" conspiracy yet refuses to describe her as a conspiracy theorist.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[liberal]] [[Michael Moore]], the biggest conspiracy theorist of all, does not even include any reference to the word "conspiracy"!<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore</ref>
# The Wikipedia page on [[Phyllis Schlafly]] implies that she took a stance in favor of segregation in 1960, and that she used Jewish code words. The source is a NY Times book review of a book about her, but the review does not say those things. The book review criticizes the book author instead. The Wikipedia article does not identify the book reviewer as Jewish, even tho she is a Jew raising a Jewish issue. A user who tried to correct these errors was blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia, and a comment was even removed from the Talk page.
# Wikipedia's entry on the [[conservative]] [[Oklahoma]] legislator Sally Kern is seething with bias, unjustified smears and outright distortions.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Kern</ref> Wikipedia understates that over 1500 supporters rallied in support of her criticisms of the [[homosexual agenda]],<ref>http://newsok.com/article/3224704/1207238655</ref> and instead Wikipedia highlights predictable [[Hollywood Values|Hollywood]] criticisms of her stance. Wikipedia then smears her with false accusations about her family and emphasizes charges that were never brought against her. If that isn't enough, the Wikipedia entry even misrepresents a bill that Kern introduced to protect "a student's voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint"; Wikipedia relies on an anti-[[Christian]] blog to distort Kern's bill.
# The Wikipedia entry on [[baraminology]] (a form of taxonomy) describes it as "pseudoscience" and "unrelated to science" simply because it was devised by a creationist.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/baraminology</ref>
# If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296</reF>
# Wikipedia editors tried strenuously to come up with reasons to censor embarrassing stories about the [[liberal]] John Edwards,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Edwards</ref> despite frequently including smears against [[conservatives]].<ref>For example, Wikipedia ''does'' mention the [[liberal]] New York Times' poorly-researched allegations that John McCain had an affair [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign%2C_2008#Alleged_inappropriate_involvement_with_lobbyists] in spite of the fact that the NYT's own ombudsman said there was "no proof" the story was true.[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hiZBfIDZs3P-I5ERtItxUcQ8JwGw]</ref> Several sites have stories about Wikipedia's obvious liberal bias on this issue. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/28/wikipedia-disallows-any-mention-alleged-john-edwards-scandal</ref><ref>http://gawker.com/5029921/john-edwards-wikipedia-page-strangely-love-child+free</ref><ref>http://conservativepulse.com/home/2008/07/edwards-sex-scandal-still-hasnt-surfaced-in-the-mainstream-press/</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[cold fusion]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion</ref> presents it as a continuing controversy. [[Liberals]] hope that cold fusion will rescue us from our oil dependency without the need to drill for oil off our coasts. Cold fusion experiments are actually widely discredited. Wikipedia also presents the widely-discredited <ref>http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan09/7127</ref> Hydrino theory <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randell_Mills</ref> as a possible energy source so that politically incorrect sources of power such as coal and nuclear fission seem less necessary.
# [[Liberals]] loathe self-defense, and [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the national self-defense system of the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] is seething with bias and outright falsehoods.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative</ref> Long passages are devoted to irrational criticisms of the programs, with inexplicable prominence given to criticisms by Hans Bethe, a European-raised scientist who later endorsed [[John Kerry]] for president. The entry even claims that SDI brought "the nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union to its most critical point!"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] biographies for conservatives such as [[Rush Limbaugh]] and [[Michelle Malkin]] are usually saddled with large sections titled “controversies”. These “controversies” are often nothing but quotes or complaints by fringe [[liberal]] elements, and Wikipedia advises against such sections, but its liberal editors ensure the biased use of such sections.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criticism&oldid=225325117</reF> However, the Wikipedia page for “Hanoi” Jane Fonda describes her obviously controversial propagandizing for the North Vietnamese government during the Vietnam War as “political activism” rather than “controversy”. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] promoted to good status, or GA, its smear entry about Conservapedia, in which Wikipedia claims that Conservapedia "has received much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia#cite_ref-Clarke_6-0</ref> When Conservapedia pointed out the lack of support (which violates stated Wikipedia policy) for this false smear of Conservapedia, Wikipedia simply replaced its prior cite with a new one that also failed to support its smear. After this was pointed out, [[Wikipedia]] simply changed its sentence to try to smear Conservapedia in another way.
#[[Wikipedia]] will give often great prominence to [[liberal]] criticism of someone, while almost never giving such prominence to [[conservative]] criticism of a [[liberal]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry for [[conservative]] [[Texas]] legislator Debbie Riddle is devoted mostly to [[liberal]] criticism of an obscure quote of hers.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Riddle</ref> But Wikipedia's entry for [[liberal]] [[Chuck Schumer]] consists of glowing praise without including any [[conservative]] criticism of him.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Schumer</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Barack Obama]] claims that he "was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a writing competition,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama</ref> when in fact the Harvard Law Review has long used racial quotas for admission.<ref>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=513672 (partially explaining the race-based selection system)</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[censorship]] omits any reference to [[liberal]] censorship of [[classroom prayer]], [[pro-life]] advertisements, [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses, or mentioning [[intelligent design]] in school.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] falsely smears Conservapedia by claiming that it has "come under significant criticism for factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> In fact, such criticisms are rare or non-existent, and Wikipedia's former cite to a ''[[New York Times]]'' article for support actually criticizes [[Wikipedia]] because it "does dwell on the ''idea'' that 'others' have 'criticized and mocked the Conservapedia website for factual inaccuracy.'"<ref>http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/conservapedia-the-word-says-it-all/ (emphasis added)</ref> Wikipedia persists in asserting that falsehood about Conservapedia.
#[[Wikipedia]] gives favored treatment to anyone who promotes the [[homosexual agenda]], and smears those who oppose it. For example, [[Robert Mapplethorpe]] glorified [[homosexuality]] in photographs before himself dying of [[AIDS]]. His own biographer identified him as a racist, providing quotes to prove it.<ref>http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/mapplethorpe_a_biography_patricia_morrisroe/</ref> Yet the [[Wikipedia]] entry about him conceals any reference to his racism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapplethorpe</ref> Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] smears the [[American Family Association]] and claims it is racist for reasons not supported by its citation.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Anti-Semitism (March 2005 issue reference)</ref>
#Given that one of Wikipedia's co-founders, [[Jimbo Wales]], is an [[atheism|atheist]], it is not particularly surprising that [[Wikipedia]] is particularly biased against prayer in school, as illustrated by its description of Coach [[Marcus Borden]]'s attempts merely to bow his head while his football players pray. [[Wikipedia]]'s biased description disparages community support of Borden by saying it is "regardless of federal law"; the entry says he returned to coaching as urged by the community "ostensibly" to assert a right to bow his head during prayer.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Brunswick_Public_Schools#Controversy</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has an entry on "Gun Politics in the United States" that falsely claims that "Gun politics as a political issue dates to the earliest days of the United States."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States</ref> It shows a statue of a Revolutionary Minuteman carrying a rifle as "proof" of its claim! Wikipedia's entry is astoundingly biased, concealing how guns deter crime and refusing to cite [[John Lott]], the leading expert whose studies support guns.
#''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' is listed under the category "Propaganda films", alongside other [[conservative]] documentary films.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_films</ref> However, the lying, deceitful films of [[Michael Moore]] and other [[liberals]] are never described as "propaganda".
#Here's another example of why [[Wikipedia]] is declining: it locked its entry about [[Richard Dawkins]] to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862</ref> Perhaps the [[atheists]] on [[Wikipedia]] don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
# The body of the [[Islamic terrorism]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#.22Islamic.22_terrorism</ref> page opens with ''"Islamic terrorism" is itself a controversial phrase'' while the body of the Christian terrorism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Racism.2C_Sexism.2C_.26_Terrorism</ref> page opened with ''Juergensmeyer wrote, "It is good to remember, however, that despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity - like most traditions - has always had a violent side."'' <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Theological_justification_of_Christian_violence</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has an extensive entry on "[[Creation]] myth".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth</ref> Describing [[Creationism]] as a "myth" is yet another attempt to disparage [[Christian]]s, and although the [[Evolution]] satisfies Wikipedia's definition of "myth", Wikipedia never describes it as a "myth".
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Peter Singer]] downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were ''removed'' as being "POV",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933</ref> despite appearing in the like-minded ''[[New York Times]]''.<ref>Paul Zielbauer, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260 Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia]. ''The New York Times'': Oct. 13, 1999</ref> A week after this criticism,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152</ref> an editor restored the former quote.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718</reF>
# Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed</ref> In characteristic fashion, [[Wikipedia]] misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to [[demonize]] them. Also in [[Wikipedia]]-style, it quotes [[liberal]] newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by [[National Review]]).
# [[Wikipedia]] changes the meaning of a key quote from an [[abortion]]-breast cancer article in the Lancet medical journal (Beral, ''et al.''), falsely stating that it "concluded that [[abortion]] does 'not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref> The Lancet article said no such thing about a woman's decision to have an abortion, which does increase the woman's risk of breast cancer. Rather, the Lancet article limited its assertion to a claim about the overall effect of a ''pregnancy'' that terminates early.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] described the [[People for the American Way]], which is a [[liberal]] advocacy group,<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507060931.asp</ref> as a "progressive advocacy organization"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_For_the_American_Way</ref> and did not mention the term [[liberal]] in its lengthy description of it until well after this deficiency was first mentioned here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_For_the_American_Way&diff=198768678&oldid=195716955</ref>
# On Feb. 19, 2008, an editor removed bias in the form of incorrect and misleading information<ref>The article incorrectly refers to the sticker as "creationist", and claims that "Claiming that evolution is "only a theory" ... is a common creationist tactic.", ignoring that the largest creationists groups specifically reject this tactic.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/#just_theory]</ref> from the [[Wikipedia]] entry about evolution stickers in Cobb County, Georgia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=192393310&oldid=190591826</ref> The editor then predicted on [[Conservapedia]] that the [[liberal bias]] would inevitably be reinserted at Wikipedia, and it was: within 8 hours the liberal falsehoods and bias were reinserted by a Wikipedian.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=next&oldid=192393310</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh Such as the entry on D'oh]</ref> But within hours [[liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about [[Hollywood Values]], in order to censor examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1</ref> After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] often smears [[conservatives]] with falsehoods, using references that do not support its claim. For example, [[Wikipedia]] falsely claims that "children" wrote most of the initial entries on [[Conservapedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> but [[Wikipedia]]'s references for that claim do not even mention "children". The average age of contributors on [[Conservapedia]] is likely older than on [[Wikipedia]], so its smear is particularly hypocritical.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[conservative]] [[Ron Paul]] smears him with unsubstantiated statements (newsletter "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Paul&oldid=183792833</ref>), misleading attributions of statements (Paul renounced the statements in 2001), and an overall political hatchet job ... and then locks the page to prevent correction!<ref>The page was locked from January 8 to August 6, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=&page=Ron+Paul&year=&month=-1]</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Benazir Bhutto]] has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she was [[pro-life]] and led the movement against the [[United Nations]]' creating a new international right to [[abortion]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto</ref>
# Type in "[[conservative]]" on [[Wikipedia]] and you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion without any mention of [[marriage]], gun rights or personal accountability. [[Wikipedia]] even claims that [[conservatives]] opposed to [[abortion]] are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". [[Wikipedia]] removed this bias only after it was identified here.<ref>That statement remained on the article from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=173316636&oldid=173314241 November 23] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=next&oldid=179870132 December 26, 2007]</ref>
# The [[Wikipedia]] entry on [[conservative]] [[Rick Scarborough]] falsely claimed that he said that [[HPV]], a sexually transmitted disease, is [[God]]'s punishment for sexually active young women. [[Wikipedia]] admits it has no support for this claim, yet has allowed the statement to remain in his entry for most of 2007.
# [[Wikipedia]] entries contain [[liberal]] claims followed by citations that do not actually support the claims. For example, [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Michael Farris]] states that it "was speculated that Farris' close connection to [[conservative]] leaders ... alienated some voters" in his campaign for lieutenant governor,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Farris</ref> but its citation for that [[liberal]] claim actually attributes his loss to his opponent's [[television]] ads that (falsely) claimed Farris wanted "to ban children's books such as 'The Wizard of Oz', 'Rumpelstiltskin,' and 'Cinderella'."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_n1_v15/ai_14891141</ref>
# In a typical example of [[placement bias]] on [[Wikipedia]], it claims in its first sentence that [[Matthew Shepard]] was murdered "because of his [[homosexuality]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard</ref> Only near the end of the entry does [[Wikipedia]] quote a 20/20 report and knowledgeable sources which provide persuasive evidence that the crime was caused by drugs, not hatred towards [[homosexuality]].
# [[Wikipedia]]'s pervasive anonymous editing vandalizes numerous [[conservative]] entries, such as that of [[pro-life]] scholar [[Mary Ann Glendon]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Glendon</ref> For nearly two weeks her entry on [[Wikipedia]] has featured the disrespectful and unsupported statement that "She is a notable pro-life feminist, and ''a fan of the Dropkick Murphys," which is a punk rock group''. [[Liberal]] editors monitor anonymous editing, but often allow attempts to embarrass [[conservatives]] to remain for a long time.
# [[Wikipedia]] allows countless entries flattering obscure [[liberals]], but lacks many entries about leading [[conservatives]]. For example, the [[Wikipedia]] entry on pro-life leader [[Judie Brown]] was previously nothing but a redirect<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judie_Brown&redirect=no</ref> to an entry about an organization which barely mentions her.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Life_League</ref> A proper page for her has since been added<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judie_Brown</ref>.
# As far as [[Richard Dawkins]] title of professor while at [[Oxford]], [[Wikipedia]] fails to mention Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's contention that the special terms of the endowment for the position might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor".<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref> Rabbi Boteach stated a decree by Oxford seems to imply this.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Richard Sternberg]] has falsely stated that a journal "withdrew" a peer-reviewed [[intelligent design]] paper that he reviewed.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg</ref> In fact, the journal never withdrew the paper.
# [[Wikipedia]] has a strong bias against the [[Discovery Institute]], a prominent proponent of [[intelligent design]]. Wikipedia articles about the Institute's campaigns (Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_and_Surgeons_who_Dissent_from_Darwinism</ref> and A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism</ref>) devote most space to the criticism of the campaigns, instead of describing the campaigns themselves.
# [[Wikipedia]] displays a similar bias against the [[Institute for Creation Research]] and its affiliated graduate school--or else displays an appalling lack of critical thinking for a publication that calls itself an encyclopedia. Their reportage on the controversies surrounding the accreditation of the [[ICR Graduate School]], first in [[California]] and now in [[Texas]], relies almost totally on the rants and raves by the group calling itself Texas Citizens for Science and fails utterly to consider or even to mention several key facts about those controversies.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research Institute for Creation Research] by [[Wikipedia]]</ref><ref name="tes>Schafersman," Steven. "[http://www.texscience.org/reviews/icr-thecb-certification.htm The Institute for Creation Research and It's (''sic'') Quest for Official Texas Certification to Award Masters Degrees in Science Education]." ''Texas Citizens for Science'', December 17, 2007; updated January 6 and January 28, 2008. Accessed March 19, 2008.</ref><ref name="rae>Bergman," Jerry. "[http://www.rae.org/ICRcase.html The Religion of Vague: An Unsuccessful Attempt by the State of California to Close a College]." ''Revolution Against Evolution'', May 22, 2003. Accessed March 19, 2008.</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s [[gossip]] and policy allowing edits by anonymous IP addresses struck again: for over two weeks the entry on former [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[Byron White]] stated he was the father of former Cowboy great Danny White.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byron_White&diff=159734800&oldid=154431838</ref> The statement was utterly false, but misled everyone who read that.<ref>http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Are-They-Related-213708.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] displays pervasive bias in making [[liberal]] statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about [[Conservapedia]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> [[Wikipedia]] states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on [[Wikipedia]].
# A user named [[Richard Dawkins]] apparently edited his own article on [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RichardDawkins</ref> and even linked to a DVD being sold from his personal website. Illustrating [[Wikipedia]]'s favoritism towards [[liberals]], it took a long time (well over a year after he first edited his own article)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins</ref> for anybody to confront this well-known [[atheist]] for this conflict of interest, despite being against [[Wikipedia]]'s own rules.
# Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has once again deleted all content on the [[North American Union]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_american_union&redirect=no]. The old pages are inaccessible, and re-creation is blocked.
# For a long time [[Wikipedia]] led with a falsehood in describing [[Conservapedia]]: "Conservapedia is a wiki based web encyclopedia project with '''the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially and economically conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity and '''Young Earth creationism'''."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=160604712 (emphasis added).</ref> That was defamatory in attempting to smear [[Conservapedia]] in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[evolutionist]] audience. [[Wikipedia]] also welcomes edits by anonymous IP addresses to the [[Conservapedia]] and other entries, resulting in frequent defamation.
# [[Wikipedia]] has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. [[Wikipedia]] calls the term "often humorous," "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] often inserts bias by downplaying a [[liberal]] outrage or fallacy amid thousands of words of nearly irrelevant information. For example, no one credibly disputes that [[liberals]] forced [[Larry Summers]] to resign as president of [[Harvard]] because he dared to suggest that the under-representation of women in math, science and engineering may be due to innate differences between women and men.<ref>http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/09/14/news/114new1.txt</ref><ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19181-2005Jan18.html</ref> But the verbose entry for Larry Summers on [[Wikipedia]] implies that his obscure other positions were more important in causing his ouster.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Summers</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, [[Wikipedia]] classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Special Interests."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has two million entries, but not one for [[liberal]]. Users who go to that term are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); there has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide.
# [[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:
#* pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>
#* anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>
#* the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>
#* conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>
# In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Additionally, as of August 5, 2008, the Dravecky article no longer mentions anything about JBS.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=225907517</ref> Wikipedia left intact the smear against the AAPS. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then reinserted before being removed again.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&diff=156607328&oldid=156100194</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s last sentence on [[Human Life International]] claimed that a killer "confessed that pamphets (sic) from the group led" him to kill. This is a complete lie designed to smear a [[conservative]] group. But this was approved by [[Wikipedia]] and remained for over a month.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Life_International&oldid=138698827] Only in response to Conservapedia's criticism was the smear removed.</ref>
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# Wikpedia's entry on [[liberal]] former Vice President [[Al Gore]] contains no mention of the drug charges against his son.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore</ref> But Wikipedia's entry on [[conservative]] Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] prominently mentions his adult daughter's sexuality.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for seven weeks about [[Thad Cochran]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thad_Cochran&oldid=135420256 (revised only after being exposed on Conservapedia, but then the smear was reinserted again before being removed again)</ref> a conservative Republican member of the [[U.S. Senate]], smeared him with an offensive, unsupported quotation not of Cochran, but of a Democratic Mississippi governor for whom Cochran's mother campaigned when Cochran was age 14. The unsupported quote was never spoken or endorsed by Cochran, but Wikipedia featured it near the top of Cochran's entry to mislead the reader into thinking Cochran is somehow a racist.
# Wikipedia smears prominent [[Conservative Christianity|Christian conservatives]], including [[James Dobson]] and [[D. James Kennedy]], with an allegation that they are part of a grand scheme Wikipedia calls "Dominionism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</ref> The term was made up by [[liberals]] and this conspiracy theory has no factual basis, but Wikipedia smears these [[conservatives]] with elaborate templates in their own entries depicting them as part of this fictional scheme.<ref>See, e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy D. James Kennedy]</ref> This edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eagle_Forum&curid=3647552&diff=165330150&oldid=165044484] calls Eagle Forum dominionist, even though there is not even any source that says so. The Eagle Forum article now has a "criticism" section that alleges various associations with theocracy and dominionism citing various left-wing opinion web sites, but none of those sites even says that Eagle Forum supports theocracy or dominionism. One editor was blocked just for trying to fix it.
# Wikipedia's entry about the anti-[[Christian]] and anti-[[Semitic]] [[H.L. Mencken]] praises him profusely because he, Wikipedia's words, "notably assaulted America's preoccupation with [[Christian fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] [[Christianity]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencken</ref> After 3,500 words of adulation, Wikipedia then buries a concession that Mencken "has been referred to as anti-Semitic and misogynistic."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref> Wikipedians like Mencken's hostility to religion too much to admit that his biographer (Terry Teachout) and his close Jewish friend (Charles Angoff) described him as racist and anti-Semitic.<ref>http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2003/1/mencken-payne.asp</ref>
# Wikipedia's entries about the 2007 Masters<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Masters_Tournament</ref> and its champion [[Zach Johnson]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zach_Johnson&oldid=154500732</ref> who won an upset come-from-behind victory against Tiger Woods, omitted any reference to Johnson's public statements crediting his [[faith]] in [[Jesus Christ]] for strengthening him as he overcame enormous odds to prevail. Months later, after criticism here, Johnson's attibution to [[Jesus Christ]] was included, but with the [[Wikipedia]] trick of placing it late in a wordy entry so that few are likely to see it, and even then with a silly "citation needed" to suggest that the quote may not be true.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson</ref>
# 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."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution</ref> 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.<ref>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070519145312AACvfJA&show=7</ref> The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that a large majority of other scientists must support evolution.<ref>"By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987-06-29), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek CIX(26): 23-24, ISSN 0028-9604</ref> 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.
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was critized here</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia recently moved further away from Judaeo-Christian beliefs by complaining that "[t]he average Wikipedian ... is from a predominantly Christian country" and that Wikipedia was built on Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias (later "predominantly Christian" was changed to "nominally Christian")</ref> At the same time, Wikipedia complains about the "enormous significance" given by entries to "Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S., UK and Spain, killing slightly over 3,000 people."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the Wikia project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba</ref> Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing "to attend a golf tournament" rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: "Cuba has been ruled by a communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959."<ref>[[Cuba]]</ref>
# Often Wikipedia's biased assertions are unsupported by its citations. For example, the Wikipedia entry about Conservapedia states that it "has come under significant criticism for alleged factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> But check out Wikipedia's cited source for that statement: its citation does not identify a single factual inaccuracy on Conservapedia.<ref>http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=1910</ref> Thus Wikipedia relies on a factual inaccuracy to accuse someone else of factual inaccuracies! After this criticism was posted here, Wikipedia removed the said citation but replaced it with a few other biased citations.
# [[Liberal]] icon [[Bertrand Russell]] receives glowing adoration on Wikipedia, which calls him "a prophet of the creative and rational life," "one of the world's best-known intellectuals" whose "voice carried great moral authority, even into his mid 90s."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell</ref> After 7,700 words about [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Wikipedia]] finally mentions Russell's support of the communist revolution, but pretends that Russell quickly opposed it. Instead, Russell wrote that "I believe that [[Communism]] is necessary to the world, and I believe ... Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind."<ref>[[Bertrand Russell]]</ref>
# [[Conservapedia]] allows greater and easier copying of its materials than [[Wikipedia]] does, but Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] claims that its policy "has led to some concerns."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> And who supposedly had these concerns? In Wikipedia's citation, it was only the founder of Wikipedia in trying to find a way to criticize Conservapedia!<ref>http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501</ref>
# April 24th was the anniversary of [[Operation Eagle Claw]], which was President [[Jimmy Carter]]'s failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran. The Conservapedia [[Operation Eagle Claw|entry]] explains Carter's political motivation for this. But the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry] omits Carter's political motivation and instead implies that this bad luck cost Carter the election.<ref>Wikipedia states, "The operation was a failure, and had a severe impact on U.S. President Jimmy Carter's re-election prospects ...."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry]</ref> In fact, Newsweek did not even mention this after July 14th, and Reagan beat Carter for reasons other than bad luck.
# Wikipedia's entry on James Monroe<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe</ref> omits any mention of how he was a conservative and omits Monroe's veto of a key appropriation on the Cumberland Road Bill, when Monroe stated that "congress does not possess the power under the constitution to pass such a law."<ref>[[James Monroe]]</ref> After this criticism was posted here, an editor at Wikipedia added Monroe's Cumberland Road Bill opposition to the article,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Monroe&oldid=226448821#Presidency_1817.E2.80.931825:_The_Era_of_Good_Feelings</ref> but the article still has yet to mention that Monroe was politically conservative.
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with those in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]. Both categories were [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories deleted] on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox]" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=User%3AUBX%2Fliberal&namespace= liberal]" userbox than the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" userbox.</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more [[liberal]] than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of [[liberals]] to conservatives in a group, such that no [[liberals]] would equate to zero [[liberal bias]]. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for [[liberals]] to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# Wikipedia awarded "good article" status<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles</ref> to a biased description of [[liberal]] Balboa High School, saying it has "a progressively nurturing environment" undergoing "a steady renaissance marked by academic innovation."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balboa_High_School_(San_Francisco)</ref> Nowhere in Wikipedia's 4,468-word description does it admit that half the 9th graders lacked proficiency on a statewide English test.<ref>Jill Tucker, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/16/MNGE2KJB5K1.DTL Student Successes Defy Urban Trends]" San Francisco Chronicle (Aug. 16, 2006).</ref> Instead, Wikipedia editors apparently like how this public school converted its metal shop into a sex-based "health" clinic.
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref> Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization</ref>
# Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics</ref>
# In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.<ref>http://www.bede.org.uk/books,jmyth.htm</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[Jesus]] has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus</ref> But no credible historian makes such a claim.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Renaissance]] denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.<ref>Wikipedia has since updated its entry with a backhanded reference to Christianity, but even then not for inspiring the Renaissance but rather for providing subject matter for the works.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance&oldid=138439803]</ref>
# About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the [[Bible]].<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955-2061r.htm</ref> But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood</ref> Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark</ref>
# Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as [[atheist]]ic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, [[atheist]], agnostic, humanist, secular, other."<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[abortion]] reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref> Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf</ref> Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"!<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref>
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Voting Rights Act]] contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act</ref> This is a longtime [[liberal]] cause prohibited by the [[U.S. Constitution]]. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.
# Initially, in December 2006, a Wikipedia administrator named "Nearly Headless Nick" (the signature nickname for Wikipedia user "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington</ref>) deleted an entry about Conservapedia, following a discussion on the "Articles for deletion" section in which a horde of Wikipedia editors demanded and obtained deletion, claiming that the site failed a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web) notability guideline for websites]".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Conservapedia</ref> Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist [[Edward Teller]] promotes the [[liberal]] attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller</ref> In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the [[Manhattan Project]] and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another [[liberal]] journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Wikipedia's entry on the intelligent design court decision in ''Dover''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District</ref> distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the [[ACLU]]'s side (not $1 million), (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the [[ACLU]]'s briefs,<ref>''Id.''</ref> and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>''Id.''</ref>
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
# Edits to include facts against [[Evolution]] are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple [[The Conservapedia Commandments|rules]] are respected to the maximum extent possible.
# Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view</ref> Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on [[Young Earth Creationism]]? It currently offers an article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience".<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia]</ref> What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&action=history</ref>
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 2.9 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution Talk:Evolution - Wikipedia]</ref> Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias, as in mobs, where there are no restraints. [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action. As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.
#: The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this: "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory. CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective ... because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."
# Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]] until this omission was pointed out here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_proof</ref> Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Piltdown Man]] omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.
# Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of [[Jesus]], so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the [[CE]] deception.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on the longest-serving and most powerful Maryland official in its history, [[William Donald Schaefer]], contains about 1900 words, but over two-thirds of those words (1400/1900) are devoted to silly gossip, outright vulgarity and National Enquirer-type material.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Schaefer</ref> 406 words, which is over 20% of the entire entry, is devoted to a silly dispute Schaefer had one day with the local newspaper!
# Wikipedia's article about the late Senator John Tower includes a mean-spirited story whose only point seems to be to indicate the degree of his ex-wife's bitterness toward him. The article previously spelled his wife's name incorrectly. The article was in that state since it was first inserted in May 2006<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&oldid=101859325 John Tower], revision as of Jan 25</ref> and until it was corrected on January 26, 2007 <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&offset=20070208110937&limit=20&action=history</ref>. No real encyclopedia would print such silly gossip.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act</ref> Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,<ref>http://www.909shot.com/</ref> and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:
#: Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
#: "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
# What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia's entry for [[Johnny Appleseed]], a Christian folk hero, omits a discussion of his strong faith and instead features baseless speculation about his health, a year of death different from that of his obituary, and a silly story designed to make a Christian preacher look foolish.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Appleseed</ref>
# In a brief-lived example of pro-homosexuality bias, the category allowing users to self identify as Heterosexual was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007# Category:Heterosexual_Wikipedians deleted] because it served no useful purpose, yet the exact same category for Homosexuals was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007# Category:Gay_Wikipedians kept]. The latter was deleted after a month along with all other categories focused on the sexuality of Wikipedians. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] has revived itself after a delete but is still fighting to not be deleted.
# Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref> <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign makes no mention of her endorsement by the leadership of the terrorist group Hamas,<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58699</ref> but lists endorsements of Republican presidential candidates by the Ku Klux Klan.
#Wikipedia's entry for "Right to bear arms" mentions the discrepancies many have with the interpretation of the phrase. They begin by labeling the first section "Military service ''definition''" and go on to explain how the words "bear arms" had a different meaning a couple hundred years ago in European countries. After the 7 paragraph section that has little relation with the Second Amendment of the ''United States'', Wikipedia offers 2 paragraphs that talks about the "Insurrectionary ''Theory''". First thing, they call people that adhere to this concept "extremists" and attempt to prove why this viewpoint is false. The criticism was strangely missing from the military service section. So, in short, Wikipedia believes that the faultless, [[liberal]] "definition" is true and the sketchy, extremist, conservative "theory" is false.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Military_service_definition</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Insurrectionary_theory</ref>
#Wikipedia is sexist? Definitions of antonym words don't match up:
## '''Matriarchy''' is a term, which is applied to gynocentric form of society, in which the leading role is with the female and especially with the mothers of a community.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy</ref>
## '''Patriarchy''' describes a social structure where the actions and ideas of men and boys are dominant over those of women and girls.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on [[Jeremiah Wright]] repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
# Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref>
# For a period of time (January 4, 2008<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&oldid=182111544</ref> - April 5, 2008<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&diff=203433685&oldid=202851436</ref>), Wikipedia's page on Tobacco and health had a disclaimer in the pipe smoking section that stated three references (The American Cancer Society, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the National Cancer Institute) might not be reliable resources and should be reviewed.
# Wikipedia's main article on Communism does not mention any act of genocide in Communist countries, and any attempts to edit the page to include this information are deleted. The Nazism page, however, includes multiple mentions of the Holocaust. The only mention of communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.
# The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki]. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puerile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.<ref><http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)</ref>
# Wikipedia's most controversial pages are guarded by liberal elite. Thereby, accuracy is replaced with ideology. <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml Wikipropaganda On Global Warming] National Review, July 8, 2008</ref> The first one-hundred and sixty-eight words on Wikipedia's [[Global Warming]] page contains multiple conjectures, major errors and bias. ''"increase in the average measured [[temperature]] ... since the mid-twentieth century"'' that same paragraph "''solar variation combined with volcanoes ... and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward."'' Which is it, warmer or cooler from 1950? "''very likely due''" "''probably had''" or "''the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the [[IPCC]]'s main conclusions''"- unsubstantiated bias.
# Wikipedia trivializes the book ''Inventing the AIDS Virus'' by making it a redirect. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventing_the_AIDS_Virus</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Theological_Seminary Westminster Theological Seminary] demonstrates its anti-Christian bias when it states "with the vision of continuing the theological tradition of Princeton Theological Seminary '''in a militant and explicitly polemical manner''', from which the Westminster founders felt Princeton was departing."
# It's apparently okay to cast doubt on well-known evangelical Christian's claims of being former atheists, as was recently done repeatedly to Kirk Cameron's Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=262633707&oldid=262591086</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263109644&oldid=263063442</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263670595&oldid=263666117</ref>, but similar edits regarding claims made by famous atheists of being former Christians would never be tolerated (e.g. PZ Myers' Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pz_myers</ref>).
# The unofficial evolutionist cabal continues to control any and all pages covering or related to evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism, and they freely engage in edit-warring without fear of being blocked due to several editors helping each other subvert the "3 revert rule" and the help of admins who are biased to their side. Non-evolutionists are described with the non-referenced, non-neutral term "dogmatically"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=267885268</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=next&oldid=268115244</ref> and ID advocates are called "intelligent design creationists" despite the fact that neither they nor Creationists consider themselves alike.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=267130640</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=267873798</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=268116166</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267130755&oldid=267129633</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267875875&oldid=267874801</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267881496&oldid=267877410</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=268117670&oldid=268115954</ref>
# Wikipedia added a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=282227871#Controversies_and_criticism</ref> but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama</ref> It has since been removed.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&diff=282810799&oldid=282227871</ref>
# In addition to the previous example, there was a massive Wikipedia article for "Criticism of George W. Bush,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=278422248</ref> but the article for "Criticism of Barack Obama" had been deleted at least ''FOUR TIMES'' since October 2008 with excuses like "Article that has no meaningful, substantive content" and "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama</ref> Wikipedia has since redirected "Criticism of George W. Bush" and added "Public image of" articles for both presidents, however President Bush's article is heavily negative<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush</ref> while President Obama's is filled with glowing, pandering fluff with very few meaningful criticisms.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref>
# Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush</ref> Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', ''President Bush launched the War on Terrorism"'', ''"President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq"'' and ''"which President Bush viewed as..."''' No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.
# Wikipedia's presidential template for George W. Bush is a sterile presentation of his life and presidency<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:George_W._Bush</ref>, but the template for Barack Obama is filled with non-notable, forgettable fluff such as links to articles about songs about him, a list of artists who support him, a Super Mario-type video game based on him and a list of places named after him.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref> (Note that there is no mention on Wikipedia of George W. Bush Elementary in Stockton, CA.<ref>http://www.google.com/search?q=%22george+w.+bush+elementary%22+stockton&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a</ref>)
# The article about the legitimate questions surrounding President Obama's birth certificate is entitled "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories</ref> however one is hard-pressed to find such bold use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" in articles about Dominionism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</ref>, the 9/11 Truth movement<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth</ref>, and many other conspiracy theories that the left favors. The article also describes advocates of the questions as "fringe" several times despite including the likes of Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, but the same word is only used once in the 9/11 Truth movement article (and it uses it in a quote stating that the movement isn't fringe) and not at all in the Dominionism article.
# In the article for flood geology<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology</ref>, the section containing evidence in favor of a global flood has the header "Evidence cited to support a global flood"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_cited_to_support_a_global_flood</ref> while the section containing evidence against it has the header "Evidence against a global flood."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_against_a_global_flood</ref> Attempts to balance this disparity are met with quick reversions with excuses such as "I don't see this as an improvement"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=288093849&oldid=288042808</ref> and appeals referencing the so-called "scientific community" (i.e. the "scientific consensus").<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=next&oldid=288488331</ref> Additionally, in a recent edit, Hrafn (one of the "usual suspects" who gang up and protect their preferred version of evolution and Creation articles) revealed his unabashed bias by reverting an edit with the explanation "all creationists are WP:FRINGE/'cracked pot[s].'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=289076441&oldid=289074740</ref>
#The Carrie Prejean article on Wikipedia is carefully crafted however, major points tend to end with a liberals last word. 'Photograph controversy' last line quotes "go beyond what the Miss California pageant says are appropriate, and do not benefit Prejean's status." The section 'Crown retention', last line says- "she no longer believes in the organization," referring to a pageant official. The page is locked from mentioning other contestants who also had photos questionable under pageant rules. The last line of 'Miss USA 2009 controversy', plug the candidate for governor of Ca. and same-sex advocate SF mayor Gavin Newsom beliefs, supports Prejean. Wikipedia's non family-friendly presentation is complete with text of Hilton's foul-mouthed tirade.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Prejean&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Prejean&diff=] Wikipedia- Carrie Prejean</ref>
#Wikipedia's purity ring page is hopelessly biased against the concept. 573 characters describing the purity ring. Criticisms of purity rings- 1475 characters with three references. How does Wikipedia educate their readers when they only discredit purity rings? <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff=] Wikipedia- Purity ring</ref>
#The scope and depth of racism prevalent on Wikipedia is despicable. Over a thousand pages that include the ethnic slur 'Nigger', many in the page title. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&redirs=0&search=nigger&limit=500&offset=0]
#[[Wikipedia]] deleted [[9/12 Candidate]] page (twice) due to lack of notability<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/9/12_Candidate</ref>. Owner blocked because his real name does not meet username policy<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jacob_F._Roecker</ref> and editor (me) blocked<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WashingtonIsBroke#User:WashingtonIsBroke</ref> for spam/advertising and "conflict of interest, which is introducing a severe bias to your edits".
#[[VoteVets.org]] is a partisan political organization that seeks to elect Democrats and to replace Republicans in Congress. Wikipedia's erroneous entry labels the liberal group a "non-partisan" political action committee. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VoteVets.org&diff=293037611&oldid=293035975 VoteVets.org</ref>
#Just like the liberal-aligned [[MSM]], Wikipedia is consistent when hiding unflattering information about their fellow [[liberal]]s. Wikipedia purposely buried an important statement from Judge Sonia [[Sotomayor]], the now-infamous "Wise Latina" remark. One has to scroll through 49,600 characters of a 54,000 character page to find the statement. Also, Wikipedia does not mention her membership in La Raza, a group that has promoted the distribution of driver's licenses to illegal aliens, amnesty programs for illegal aliens, and the non-enforcement of immigration laws <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonia_Sotomayor&diff=302177838&oldid=302177614</ref>
#Wikipedia feels that the [[Barack Obama]] article should omit any mention of [[William Ayers]] and the [[Weather Underground]]. Wikipedia's mobocracy has decided that you, the public, have no need to learn about Obama's past relationships that made national headlines. No mention of Obama's ties to [[ACORN]] either. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=302499449&oldid=302497807</ref>
#Wikipedia's Template:Infobox and elsewhere still maintains the fiction that [[Barack Hussein Obama]] was a "Professor of Constitutional Law," whereas [[White House]] Press Secretary [[Robert Gibbs]] has flatly denied Obama ever taught constitutional law. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-4-14-09/]
#In Wikipedia's page on the ABC's docudrama The Path to 9/11, the page contains a section titles "Controversy and criticisms," which contains 19 sub-sections to support it, while the section titled "Controversy: support for The Path to 9/11" only contains four, despite the fact that the controversy was sparked by pro-Clinton liberals that failed to see the fact that the two-part miniseries criticized both Bush and Clinton administrations leading up to 9/11 and that writer Cyrus Nowrasteh stated that many of their consultants on it stated that the docudrama went easy on Clinton. It also fails to note John Ziegler's documentary on the censoring of the docudrama Blocking the Path to 9/11 [http://www.johnziegler.com/], which contains interviews with many people on the topic, and points out how the [[MSM]] liberals and Clintons have smeared it so much that it has destroyed it from ever being shown on TV or being sold on DVD in the near-future. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11]
#Wikipedia provides a large page of information regarding the Winter Soldiers story however they never mention that the people involved fabricated events, were caught lying, were doing it to push a [[liberal]] anti-war message. A section lists the fact that Congress investigated the matter. However it does not list the outcome- falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies to weaken the U.S. military as it was engaged with fighting the [[Communist]] North Vietnam. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&oldid=310708048] [http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=325]
#One of Wikipedia's barnstars—given nominally for World War II writing contributions—is in fact an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WWFlagsBarnstar.JPG American flag] desecrated with Nazi and Soviet Union graffiti.
#Wikipedia's Nidal Malik Hasan article fails to mention any connection to Obama's transition government. Hasan's associations are clearly exposed but Wikipedia can't label Hasan a terrorist. He is just a shooter, not a massacre. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nidal_Malik_Hasan&oldid=325179780]
#Liberal elites at [[Wikipedia]] have embraced the ideology of [[Al Gore]]'s [[Global Warming]]. It is with great sadness that [[ClimateGate]] has emerged as a worldwide news story. In an attempt to shrug-off the story, Wikipedia labels the page ''Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident,'' with ClimateGate as only a redirect. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate] Next, Wikipedia claims the CRU was illegally hacked but other sources say possibly an inside job. [http://www.junkscience.com/] Finally, Wikipedia is sure to include plenty of climate change alarmists views discounting the incident; ''a smear campaign'', '' an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen'', '' James Hansen "no effect on the science" '', UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Miliband ''"We should be cautious about using partial emails that have been leaked to somehow cast doubt..."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident&action=historysubmit&diff=328281249&oldid=328279458]
# A recent charge is that U.K. scientist and Green Party activist and Realclimate.org member William Connolley functioned as a Wikipedia editor and website administrator, repressing information that militated against Climate Change. As such he "rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period."<ref>[http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx ''Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor'',] December 19, 2009</ref>
# Wikipedia does not have an article on [[Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab]] but they do redirect to an article titled Northwest Airlines Flight 253. Wikipedia mentions terrorism, Al Qaeda, Islamic countries, imams and Taliban but nowhere will you find the word "Muslim terrorist" nor "Islamic terrorist". That is a key point that [[liberal]]s want to hide from the public. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253&oldid=334150190] The very same can be said for Wikipedia's wikinews item ''Failed bomb aboard Delta flight'' article. [http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Failed_bomb_aboard_Delta_flight&oldid=928144]
# Wikipedia's Communism article omits to mention that millions of people have perished as a result of the Marxist ideology. Near the very end of the article they mention ''"alleged by some scholars to be responsible for famines, purges and warfare resulting in deaths."'' The article states "classes are abolished" "oppression-free society" and policies made "democratically" without mentioning those positions are really just propaganda. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communism&oldid=337705210]

==External Links==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
* [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640 Wikipedia lies, slander continue by Joseph Farah]

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

'''Guidelines for inclusion''':
* Each entry must include a <code>diff</code> which shows the content being posted, and the user that posted it.
* Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.
[[Category:Wikis]]

Liberal Party of Australia

2010-01-15T05:25:01Z

AusRight: Added the infobox

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name = Liberal Party of Australia
| party_articletitle = Liberal Party of Australia
| party_logo = [[Image:Lpa.jpg|200px|"The Liberal Party of Australia logo"]]
| website = [http://www.liberal.org.au/ www.liberal.org.au/]
| headquarters = Cnr Blackall & Macquarie St, Barton [[Canberra]] 2600
| chairman = [[Alan Stockdale]]
| senateleader = N/A Leader = [[Tony Abbott]]
| houseleader = N/A Deputy Leader = [[Julie Bishop]]
| foundation = 1944
| ideology = [[moderate|Centrism]] [[Conservative|Conservatism]] [[Fiscal Conservative|Fiscal conservatism]] [[Liberal conservatism]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Free Market]]
| socialpolicy = [[Conservative]]
| international = [[International Democrat Union]]
| colors = [[Blue]] (unofficial)
| footnotes =
}}

The '''Liberal Party of Australia''' is a [[conservative]]-leaning political party based in the Commonwealth of [[Australia]]. The Liberal Party was founded in 1944 by [[Robert Menzies|Sir Robert Menzies]]. Robert Menzies kept the Liberal Party in power during much of the post-war boom. As with many other Western democracies the winds of change swept through Australia and the Liberal Party was ousted from power by [[Gough Whitlam]] and the [[Australian Labor Party]] in 1972.

The Liberals in general believe in low levels of government interference in the economy and are understood to be more socially conservative than their more left wing political opposition, the [[Australian Labor Party]]. Thus in this sense, the term "liberal" refers to neo-liberalism rather than the social liberalism that is implied in the American context.

Until the 1970s the Liberal Party occupied the centre of Australian politics. However, the breakway of left-wing groups meant that the Liberals have moved to the right of politics with the Labor Party occupying the centre-left.

The Liberal Party is divided into state-based divisions. The Liberals contest both state and federal elections, but do not officially contest local government elections. However many party members stand for local council elections in their own right.

The current leader of the Liberal Party is [[Tony Abbott]]<ref>http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/01/2758221.htm</ref>, while Julie Bishop serves as deputy leader.

==Government==

The Liberal Party is one of the two main parties of government at both state and federal level. Although it was the principal government party at federal level from 1996 to 2007, by the end of that period it had lost power to the Labor Party in every state and territory. Its low point arrived in November 2007 when it lost the federal election, leaving itself out of power nationwide. However since Labor took office federally, the Liberals have returned to power in the state of [[Western Australia]].

==Possible Merger==
In March 2008, the then leader of the federal Liberal Party, [[Brendan Nelson]], indicated that he was in favour of a merger between his party and the [[National Party of Australia|National Party]]. <ref>http://news.theage.com.au/nelson-stakes-leadership-on-merger/20080309-1y5t.html</ref>

== Reference ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Australian Political Parties]]

Australian economy

2010-01-15T04:04:03Z

AusRight: Started the page

Australia is a Developed Country with a Capitalist economy. It has a very small population compared to other Western Countries like the USA and the UK but despite this it is in the top 15 Countries by Gross Domestic Product (a measure of wealth of a nation).

==Exports and Imports==
The economy of Australia is very different to that of other developed countries in a number of ways like it has a very similar amount of exports compared to imports which is generally not seen in Western Economies. This is mainly due to the fact that Australia is vast and rich in natural resources and exports items such as coal, gold, meat, wool, iron ore, wheat and machinery. Australia has maintained trade links with various countries throughout history but more recently with the economic boom of China and India our exports (especially natural resources) have experienced a spike in growth. In 2008 China was 2nd while India was 4th on the Australian exports list and China was 1st on Australia’s Imports list.

==Strong growth==
Australia’s strong trade market is generally attributed to its 2 decades of continuous growth at above average rates. This is really remarkable after considering the fact that there have been 2 recessions in that time frame (the Early 2000s recession and the current recession). Australia is the only western nation that isn’t in recession currently due to the Global Economic crisis. Australia’s GDP reached over $1 trillion in the mid - late 2000’s and this has been the result of the booming trade in some states like Western Australia where the exports account for twice as much value than their imports.

==Businesses==
Businesses are attracted to Australia for a number of factors which include:

* The fact that Australia is the fastest place in the world in which to start a business (according to the World Bank)

* Strategic location in the fast-growing Asia–Pacific region

* Economic and political stability

* And a good and stable financial and legal system.

==Unemployment==
The unemployment rate in Australia is currently 5.5% and despite the Global financial crisis the unemployment rate had never went over 6%, instead peaking at at only 5.8% in October 2009. This is unlike the US where the unemployment rate went over 10% despite massive stimulus. [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/markets/total-employment-soars-by-35200-amid-consensus-for-10000-australian-bureau-of-statistics/story-e6frg926-1225819149211] [http://www.news.com.au/business/jobless-rate-falls-to-55pc-in-december/story-e6frfm1i-1225819147794]

==Further reading==
* Official Statistics -- [http://www.dfat.gov.au/GEO/fs/aust.pdf]
* General Overview -- [http://www.traveldocs.com/au/economy.htm]
* Detailed overview -- [http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/global_economy.pdf]
* CIA World Factbook -- [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/as.html]

Australian Labor Party

2010-01-15T03:28:55Z

AusRight: More information

The Australian Labor Party (ALP) is [[Australia]]'s oldest continuous political party. The ALP was formed in 1891. The ALP has a strong connection to the trade union movement.

During the 1950s communist scare in Australia, the ALP expelled many anti-communist Catholic members. The anti-communist Catholic members became suspicious of communist influence in the trade union movement and groups were formed to take control of the unions. The '''groupers''' went on to form the anti-communist, Catholic aligned, '''Democratic Labor Party (DLP)'''. The DLP became largely irrelevant after the election of a Federal ALP majority under [[Gough Whitlam]] in 1972.

Famous ALP prime ministers have included the [[World War Two|war time]] [[John Curtin]], 1970s [[Gough Whitlam]] and [[Bob Hawke]]. Although it has espoused socialist ideals in the past, the ALP has never introduced [[socialism]] to Australia. In recent decades, the ALP has remodelled itself in terms of its ideological vision to combat political pressure from outside sources.

An overwhelming majority of ALP MP's do not support [[same-sex marriage]] at the federal level. In 2004 an act titled The ''''Marriage Amendment Act 2004'''' was introduced into the [[Australian House of Representatives]] which stated that '''marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life''' and that a union solemnised in a foreign country between:
 
(a) a man and another man; or 
(b) a woman and another woman; 
'''must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia'''. [http://legislation.gov.au/comlaw/Legislation/Act1.nsf/0/91DFFD1199DF26D8CA2574170007CE06/$file/1262004.pdf]. It was passed by a majority of MP's in both chambers of parliament and in the [[Australian Senate]] only 6 Senators rejected the Bill compared to 38 who supported it. [http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/13/1092340471989.html]

The current national leader of the ALP is [[Kevin Rudd]]. The ALP is currently in power in all Australian states and territories except for Western Australia and won the federal election of 24 November 2007.

[[Category:Australian Political Parties]]
[[Category:Labor Unions]]

Australian Labor Party

2010-01-15T03:20:04Z

AusRight: Added some more details.

The Australian Labor Party (ALP) is [[Australia]]'s oldest continuous political party. The ALP was formed in 1891. The ALP has a strong connection to the trade union movement.

During the 1950s communist scare in Australia, the ALP expelled many anti-communist Catholic members. The anti-communist Catholic members became suspicious of communist influence in the trade union movement and groups were formed to take control of the unions. The '''groupers''' went on to form the anti-communist, Catholic aligned, '''Democratic Labor Party (DLP)'''. The DLP became largely irrelevant after the election of a Federal ALP majority under [[Gough Whitlam]] in 1972.

Famous ALP prime ministers have included the [[World War Two|war time]] [[John Curtin]], 1970s [[Gough Whitlam]] and [[Bob Hawke]]. Although it has espoused socialist ideals in the past, the ALP has never introduced [[socialism]] to Australia. In recent decades, the ALP has remodelled itself in terms of its ideological vision to combat political pressure from outside sources.

An overwhelming majority of ALP MP's do not support Same-sex marriage in Australia from a federal level where it is governed in Australia. In 2004 an act titled The ''''Marriage Amendment Act 2004'''' was introduced into the [[Australian House of Representatives]] which stated that '''marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life''' and that a union solemnised in a foreign country between:
 
(a) a man and another man; or 
(b) a woman and another woman; 
'''must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia'''. [http://legislation.gov.au/comlaw/Legislation/Act1.nsf/0/91DFFD1199DF26D8CA2574170007CE06/$file/1262004.pdf]

The current national leader of the ALP is [[Kevin Rudd]]. The ALP is currently in power in all Australian states and territories except for Western Australia and won the federal election of 24 November 2007.

[[Category:Australian Political Parties]]
[[Category:Labor Unions]]

ABC (Australia)

2010-01-15T02:47:31Z

AusRight: Added references column

Australian Greens

2010-01-15T02:46:19Z

AusRight: Added references column

Australian Greens

2010-01-15T02:41:48Z

AusRight: Started the page

Talk:Essay:Conservatives of the Decade

2009-12-29T05:36:12Z

AusRight: /* Australia */ new section

== Top Ten Ranking ==

I suggest this top 10 ranking.

1. '''[[Rush Limbaugh]]:''' 20 million listeners, providing an alternative to liberal media bias.

2. '''[[Ann Coulter]]:''' While some on this list only emerged after Barack Obama's election, Ann Coulter has been irritating liberals for over 10 years.

3. '''[[Tea Party Movement]]:''' They will be an influence over the next decade as well,or atleast until Obama's final days in office in January 2013. For the first time in 30 years there is a major grassroots conservative movement. You can thank them for preventing many liberal policies on capital hill.

4. '''[[Sarah Palin]]:''' One of the few elected Republican politicians that truly represents grassroots conservatives.

5. '''[[Glenn Beck]]:''' Helped expose ACORN and led the fight against many of the actions of the [[Obama administration]] that the media had first ignored.

6. '''[[Rudy Giuliani]]:''' I'm sure that many on Conservapedia disagree with his stance on abortion. However, he was the hero of 9/11, the most popular politician in America, and an elegant spokesman on the need for a strong national defense.

7. '''[[Dick Cheney]]:''' The chief spokesman for neoconservatism.

8. '''[[Ron Paul]]:''' A libertarian-Republican whose presidential campaign gained a cult following among young voters.

9. '''[[Samuel Alito]]:''' His appointment was one of the few excellent choices made by the Bush Administration during his second term.

10. '''[[Karl Rove]]:''' The architect of Republican victories in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

'''Honorable Mentions'''

*''[[Bill Oreilly]]''
*''[[Charlton Heston]]''
*''[[Jim DeMint]]''
*''[[Joe Wilson]]''
*''[[John Bolton]]''
*''[[Jon Voight]]''
*''[[Michele Bachman]]''
*''[[Michelle Malkin]]''
*''[[Mike Huckabee]]''
*''[[Tom Coburn]]''

-[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] December 28, 2009

:REPLY: Great choices, and this sparks interesting debate. If I may be so bold, I'd particularly disagree about Limbaugh (he has the numbers, but where's the evidence of influence?), Giuliani (all talk but no achievements except making NYC safer in the 90s, at a time when most cities were getting safer due to demographic changes; don't forget that Giuliani endorsed Mario Cuomo!), Rove (architect of the 2006 loses and a big reason for the complete wipeout in 2008 also, I'm afraid!). But everyone can have his own views about this!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:56, 28 December 2009 (EST)

In the interest of debate, I think anyone who has as many listeners as Limbaugh must be influential. Giuliani had significant achievements as Mayor of New York, just read his bio here on conservapedia. Giuliani endorsed Cuomo, but under that logic Reagan wouldn't have made the 80's list because he once endorsed FDR and Truman. Giuliani could make the list of top 10 conservatives of the 90's or 2000's. You have a point about Rove, he's done a lot of harm and good to conservatives since 2000. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] December 28, 2009

== Matt Drudge? ==

More of a libertarian than a classic conservative, but his influence in ending the hegemony of the mainstream media has been substantial. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:28, 28 December 2009 (EST)

== "Pat Robinson"? ==

I don't know this conservative, and Google hasn't helped. Perhaps [[Pat Robertson]] was intended? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 23:01, 28 December 2009 (EST)

==Marco Rubio?==

This is a top 10 list of conservatives of the last decade. Not just the most influential conservatives since Obama took office, but in 2001, 2002, 2003 etc. Nobody knew who Marco Rubio even was a few months ago, he shouldn't even make the Honorable Mentions. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] December 28, 2009

== Australia ==

I think that the top ten should have at least 1 outsider and as a proud Australian I would nominate [[John Howard]] who was Prime Minister of Australia from 1996-2007 and is widely considered to be one of Australia's most conservative leaders who was known for his extensive tax reform and a prolonged period of economic growth while eliminating all of Australias public debt shortly before losing the election.

If anythihng he deserves an Honorable Mention for his excellent policies. Here watch this video to gain a basic understanding

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81UUgujTWgc

Conservative

2009-12-24T05:57:05Z

AusRight: Added some basic information.

{|align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #c0c0c0; background: #e0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Previous_Breaking_News/Conservatives| Previous Breaking News: Conservatives]]
|}

A '''conservative''' adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral values, agreeing with [[George Washington]]'s [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm United States Department of State] George Washington, farewell address, 1796</ref><ref>Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary has the following definition of conservative: "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL"[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conservative] Therefore, a conservative Christian would be one that tends to adhere to the morally sound doctrines of the early Christianity and [[Judeo-Christian]] values.</ref>

Former President [[Ronald Reagan]] said:
* The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom . . . [http://www.reason.com/news/show/29318.html]
[[Image:Aaag.jpg|thumb|Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, is the epitome of American conservatism.]]

The ''sine qua non'' of a conservative is someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values beneficial to all, rather than to themselves as liberals promote. Alternatively, a conservative is willing to learn and advocate the insights of economics and the morality of the Bible for the benefit of all. Specifically, conservatives seek or support:

* [[Classroom prayer]]
* Prohibition of [[abortion]]
* [[Abstinence]] education
* Traditional marriage, not same-sex marriage
* Respect for differences between men and women, boys and girls
* Laws against pornography
* The [[Second Amendment]] right to keep and bear arms
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
* The death penalty
* Parental control of education
* Private medical care and retirement plans
* Canceling failed social support programs
* No world government
* Enforcement of current laws regarding immigration
* Respect for our military ... past and present
* Rejection of [[junk science]] such as [[evolutionism]] and [[global warming]]
* Low taxes, especially for families
* Federalism (less power for the federal government and more for local and state governments)
* A strong national defense
__TOC__ 
==Leaders==
Conservative scholar Clinton Rossiter, The Giants of American Conservatism. American Heritage; 1955 6(6): 56-59, 94-96, names Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, John Marshall, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Elihu Root, and Theodore Roosevelt for the conservative's hall of fame, with John Adams, in Rossiter’s judgment, as the greatest of American conservatives.

===Presidents===
Periodically a conservative has been elected president of the United States. The most prominent conservative presidents include:
* [[George Washington]] (1789-97)
* [[John Adams]] (1797-1801)
* [[Thomas Jefferson]] (1801-09)
* [[John Quincy Adams]] (1825-29)
* [[Abraham Lincoln]] (1861-65)
*[[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889, 1893-1897)
*[[William McKinley]] (1897-1901)
*[[William Howard Taft]] (1909-1913)
*[[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923)
*[[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929)
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] (1953-1961)
*[[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989)
*[[George W. Bush]] (2001-2009) (with respect to taxes, Supreme Court nominations, and national security)

The most prominent conservative Congresses have been:

*The 80th Congress (elected in 1946)
*The 104th Congress (elected in 1994)
===Movement===
[[Movement conservatives]] are those who accept the logic of conservatism across-the-board, and stand up for its powerful principles despite liberal ridicule. Movement conservative activists include:
*[[Phyllis Schlafly]], opposed [[ERA]]
*[[Jesse Helms]], Senator, specialist in foreign policy
*[[Pat Buchanan]], TV commentator
*[[Jerry Falwell]], religion
*[[Michele Bachmann]], columnist
*[[Ann Coulter]], columnist
*[[Rush Limbaugh]], radio
*[[Michelle Malkin]], commentator
*[[Glenn Beck]], TV commentator
===Key leaders===
*[[Barry Goldwater]] - 1964 Republican candidate, lost to liberal Democrat [[Lyndon Johnson]] but revived the conservative movement inside the GOP
*[[Russell Kirk]] - Theorist & intellectual
*[[Irving Kristol|Irving]] and [[William Kristol]] - Notable [[neoconservatives]]
*[[Margaret Thatcher]] - British prime minister between 1979 and 1990, held similar views as Reagan
*[[Milton Friedman]] - Chicago-school [[libertarian]] economist, influential during Reagan administration; leader of the [[Chicago School of Economics]]
==US Voters==
In America, most conservatives support the [[Republican Party]], but not exclusively so. In the 2008 election, 35% of the voters identified themselves as conservatives. Of them, 78% voted for McCain and 20% for Obama, with the 20% accounting for Obama's margin of victory. Only 22% of the voters were liberal; they favored Obama 89%-10%. In the middle were 44% who called themselves moderates. They split for Obama by 60%-39%. (Minor candidates won 2% of the vote.)<ref> See [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1 Presidential 2008 Exit Poll]</ref>
[[File:Conservative-republican-brain.jpg|thumb|350px]]
===Religious differences between political conservatives and political liberals===
The Barna poll conducted in November 2008 shows significant differences between the 32% of Americans who called themselves as “mostly conservative” on social and political matters; and the 17% who called themselves “mostly liberal” on social and political matters. The others --50%--were moderates with positions somewhere in-between.<ref> See [http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/258-survey-shows-how-liberals-and-conservatives-differ-on-matters-of-faith on line results] </ref>

Some findings:
Political liberals are less than half as likely as political conservatives to firmly believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches (27% versus 63%, respectively); to strongly believe that Satan is real (17% versus 36%); and to firmly contend that they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs with others (23% versus 48%).

[Note: "Liberal" and "conservative" in this survey are based on politics]

Liberals are also far less likely than conservatives to strongly believe each of the following:
*their religious faith is very important in their life (54% of liberals vs. 82% of conservatives);
*a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by doing good deeds or being a good person (23% vs. 37%);
*their faith is becoming an increasingly important moral guide in their life (38% vs. 70%);
*the church they currently attend is very important in helping them find direction and fulfillment in life (37% vs. 62%);
*their primary purpose in life is to love God with all their heart, mind, strength and soul (43% vs. 76%);

political conservatives were more likely than liberals to:
*read the Bible, other than at church events, during the past week (57% vs. 33%, respectively)
*attend a religious service during the past week (62% vs. 35%)
*pray to God, other than at a religious service, during the past week (91% vs. 76%)
*share their religious beliefs with others, during the past year (56% vs. 39%, among the born again Christians interviewed from each segment)
*have ever participated in a short-term missions trip, either within the U.S. or in another country (12% vs. 6%)

*2% of conservatives and 11% of liberals were atheist or agnostic
*15% of conservatives and 2% of liberals were Christian evangelicals
*conservatives were twice as likely as liberals to be categorized as born again, based on their theological views about salvation (63% vs. 32%)
*21% of conservatives were associated with the Catholic church, compared to 30% among the liberals.

== Conservative news organizations ==
Some of the more notable news organizations which tend to be more conservative are [[WorldNetDaily]] and [[NewsMax]]. [[Fox News]], though often called conservative, tends to be more [[neoconservative]] than [[conservative]].

== Conservative magazines and blogs ==
Well known conservative magazines in the United States include ''[[National Review]]'', ''[[Policy Review]]'', ''[[The Weekly Standard]]'' and others.

Some notable [[Conservative blogs|conservative political blogs]] include the [[Heritage Foundation]]'s Policy Weblog, ''[[Human Events]]'', [[Michelle Malkin]], Newsbusters, Townhall.com and others.

== Neoconservatives ==

American commentators who ally themselves with the conservative movement but reject its religious or moral underpinnings are generally known as [[neoconservatives]].<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWMxNWNiNDJkY2JmNTExY2E1MzdkYWU3MWU1MTBiOGU= "What Is a 'Conservative'?"], [[National Review|National Review Online]], 11 May 2005</ref>

In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:

# Support of limited government.
# A preference for freedom of opportunity over equality of result.
# Patriotism, nationalism, and support of a strong defense.
# Support of the institution of marriage.
# Emphasis on social values, like prayer and pro-life principles.

In contrast, neoconservatives generally support bigger government and globalism, and tend to downplay the significance of social values.

== Paleoconservatives ==

[[Paleoconservatives]] are conservatives who are more focused on opposing [[multiculturalism]], and suspicious of both big government and big business. They also lean more towards isolating America from the problems of other continents. Neoconservatives might criticize this as "isolationism", as they believe we can promote [[democracy]] worldwide.

Among paleoconservatives was Democratic Congressman from Georgia, [[Larry McDonald]]. He was also second Chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], and President of Western Goals. McDonald was aboard [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] when it was shot down by the Soviets in 1983.

== Personal conservatism ==
Because Conservatives often have strong political views, there can be a tendency to see conservatism as a purely political ideology. However, there is also a strong personal side to conservatism - being a conservative is as much about applying conservative values to one's everyday life as it is about campaigning and voting for conservative candidates. In general, conservatives can be characterized by a strong sense of personal [[morality]], a willingness to observe their culture's traditions and customs, and a desire to be respectable and to show due respect to other members of the community.
==History of American conservatism==
===Textbook problems===
College-level teaching about conservatism has been distorted by a "liberal state paradigm"--that is, textbooks usually interpret recent American history in terms of the origins and successes of political liberalism--especially the New Deal, the welfare state, labor unions, and Civil Rights for blacks and equality for women. Conservative politics is usually defined as a reaction: as a free market reply to the growth of big government; as an expression of outrage against declining support for tradition and Christian morality. Where the violent Wobblies (IWW) and illegal sit down strikes of the 1930s are seen as heroic, exposing Communist subversion by [[Joe McCarthy]] is denounced as the nadir of political morality.<ref> See Leonard Moore, "Approaching Conservatism," ''OAH Magazine of History,'' 17 (January 2003) [http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/conservatism/moore.html online edition]</ref>
===Loyalists===
The [[Loyalists]] of the [[American Revolution]] were mostly political conservatives, some of whom produced political discourse of a high order, including lawyer [[Joseph Galloway]] and governor-historian [[Thomas Hutchinson]]. Howeever when the crisis came, they stood with the Crown as it tried to destroy American political liberties. After the war, the great majority remained in the U.S. and became citizens, but some leaders emigrated to other places in the British Empire. [[Samuel Seabury]] was a Loyalist who stayed and as the first American bishop played a major role in shaping the Episcopal religion, a stronghold of conservative social values. While the Loyalist political tradition died out totally it the U.S., it survives in Canadian conservatism.
===Founding Fathers===
The Founding Fathers created the single most important set of political ideas in American history, known as [[Republicanism]], which all groups, liberal and conservative alike, have drawn from. Two parties were named "Republican"-- the one founded in 1794 by Jefferson and Madison (it disappeared in the 1820s), and the modern GOP founded in 1854.

During the [[First Party System]] (1790s-1820s) the [[Federalist Party]], led by [[Alexander Hamilton]], developed an important variation of republicanism that can be considered conservative. Rejecting monarchy and aristocracy, they emphasized civic virtue as the core American value. The Federalists spoke for the propertied interests and the upper classes of the cities. They envisioned a modernizing land of banks and factories, with a strong army and navy. [[George Washington]] was their great hero.

On many issues American conservatism also derives from the republicanism of [[Thomas Jefferson]] and his followers, especially [[John Randolph of Roanoke]] and his "Old Republicans" or "Quids." They idealized the yeoman farmer as the epitome of civic virtue, warned that banking and industry led to corruption, that is to the illegitimate use of government power for private ends. Jefferson himself was a vehement opponent of what today is called "judicial activism".
<ref>[http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1030.htm]</ref> The Jeffersonians stressed small government.

===Ante-Bellum: Calhoun and Webster===
During the [[Second Party System]] (1830-54) the [[Whig Party]] attracted most conservatives, such as [[Daniel Webster]] of New England. [[Daniel Webster]] and other leaders of the [[Whig Party]], called it the conservative party in the late 1830s.<ref>The word was originally used in the French Revolution. The British used it after 1839 to describe a major party. The first American usage is by Whigs who called themselves "Conservatives" in the late 1830s. Hans Sperber and Travis Trittschuh, ''American Political terms: An Historical Dictionary'' (1962) 94-97.</ref> [[John C. Calhoun]], a Democrat, articulated a sophisticated conservatism in his writings. Richard Hofstadter (1948) called him "The Marx of the Master Class." Calhoun argued that a conservative minority should be able to limit the power of a "majority dictatorship" because tradition represents the wisdom of past generations. (This argument echoes one made by [[Edmund Burke]], the founder of British conservatism, in ''Reflections on the Revolution in France'' (1790)). Calhoun is considered the father of the idea of minority rights, a position adopted by liberals in the 1960s in dealing with Civil Rights.

The conservatism of the antebellum period is contested territory; conservatives of the 21st century disagree over what comprises their heritage. Thus William J. Bennett (2006) a prominent conservative leader, warns conservatives to NOT honor Calhoun, [[Know-Nothings]], [[Copperheads (politics)|Copperheads]] and 20th century isolationists.

===Lincoln to Cleveland===
Since 1865 the [[History of the United States Republican Party|Republican party]] has identified itself with President [[Abraham Lincoln]], who was the ideological heir of the Whigs and of both Jefferson and Hamilton. As the [[Gettysburg Address]] shows, Lincoln cast himself as a second Jefferson bringing a second birth of freedom to the nation that had been born 86 years before in Jefferson's Declaration. The [[Copperheads (politics)|Copperheads]] of the Civil War reflected a reactionary opposition to modernity of the sort repudiated by modern conservatives. A few libertarians have adopted a neo-Copperhead position, arguing Lincoln was a dictator who created an all-powerful government.

In the late 19th century the [[Bourbon Democrat]]s, led by President [[Grover Cleveland]], preached against corruption, high taxes (protective tariffs), and imperialism, and supported the [[gold standard]] and business interests. They were overthrown by [[William Jennings Bryan]] in 1896, who moved the mainstream of the Democratic Party permanently to the left.

The 1896 presidential election was the first with a conservative versus liberal theme in the way in which these terms are now understood. Republican [[William McKinley]] won using the pro-business slogan "[[sound money]] and protection," while Bryan's anti-bank populism had a lasting effect on economic policies of the Democratic Party.

[[William Graham Sumner]], Yale professor (1872-1910) and polymath, vigorously promoted a libertarian conservative ethic. After dallying with [[Social Darwinism]] under the influence of [[Herbert Spencer]], he rejected evolution in his later works, and strongly opposed imperialism. He opposed monopoly and [[paternalism]] in theory as a threat to equality, democracy and middle class values, but was vague on what to do about it.<ref>Curtis, Bruce. "William Graham Sumner 'On the Concentration of Wealth.'" Journal of American History 1969 55(4): 823-832.</ref>

===Early 20th century===
In the [[Progressive Era]] (1890s-1932), regulation of industry expanded as conservatives led by Senator [[Nelson Aldrich]] of Rhode Island were put on the defensive. However, Aldrich's proposal for a strong national banking system was enacted as the [[Federal Reserve System]] in 1913. [[Theodore Roosevelt]], the dominant personality of the era, was both liberal and conservative by turns. As a conservative he led the fight to make the country a major naval power, and demanded entry into [[World War I]] to stop what he saw as the German attacks on civilization. [[William Howard Taft]] promoted a strong federal judiciary that would overrule excessive legislation. Taft defeated Roosevelt on that issue in 1912, forcing Roosevelt out of the GOP and turning it to the right for decades. As president, Taft remade the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] with five appointments; he himself presided as chief justice in 1921-30, the only former president ever to do so.

Pro-business Republicans returned to dominance in 1920 with the election of President [[Warren G. Harding]]. The presidency of [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-29) was a high water mark for conservatism, both politically and intellectually. Classic writing of the period includes ''Democracy and Leadership'' (1924) by Irving Babbitt and H.L. Mencken's magazine ''American Mercury'' (1924-33). The [[Efficiency Movement]] attracted many conservatives such as [[Herbert Hoover]] with its pro-business, pro-engineer approach to solving social and economic problems. In the 1920s many American conservatives generally maintained anti-foreign attitudes and, as usual, were disinclined toward changes to the healthy economic climate of the age.

During the [[Great Depression, U.S.|Great Depression]], other conservatives participated in the taxpayers' revolt at the local level. From 1930 to 1933, Americans formed as many as 3,000 taxpayers' leagues to protest high [[property tax]]es. These groups endorsed measures to limit and rollback taxes, lowered penalties on tax delinquents, and cuts in government spending. A few also called for illegal resistance (or tax strikes). The best known of these was led by the Association of Real Estate Taxpayers in Chicago which, at its height, had 30,000 dues-paying members.

An important intellectual movement, calling itself [[Southern Agrarians]] and based in Nashville, brought together like-minded novelists, poets and historians who argued that modern values undermined the traditions of American [[Republicanism]] and civic virtue.

The Depression brought liberals to power under President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] (1933). Indeed the term "liberal" now came to mean a supporter of the [[New Deal]] and Roosevelt's powerful [[New Deal Coalition]]. In 1934 [[Al Smith]] and pro-business Democrats formed the [[American Liberty League]] to fight the new liberalism, but failed to stop Roosevelt's shifting the Democratic party to the left. In 1936 the Republicans rejected Hoover and tried the more liberal [[Alf Landon]], who carried only Maine and Vermont. When Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937 the conservatives finally cooperated across party lines and defeated it with help from Vice President [[John Nance Garner]]. Roosevelt unsuccessfully tried to purge the conservative Democrats in the 1938 election. The conservatives in Congress then formed a bipartisan informal [[Conservative Coalition]] of Republicans and southern Democrats. It largely controlled Congress from 1937 to 1964. Its most prominent leaders were Senator [[Robert Taft]], a Republican of Ohio, and Senator [[Richard Russell]], Democrat of Georgia.
[[Image:Gop-plank.JPG|thumb|275px|1936 cartoon shows GOP building its platform from the conservative planks abandoned by the Democrats]]

In the United States, the [[Old Right]], also called the Old Guard, was a group of [[libertarianism|libertarian]], free-market anti-interventionists, originally associated with Midwestern Republicans and Southern Democrats. The Republicans (but not the southern Democrats) were isolationists in 1939-41, (see [[America First]]), and later opposed [[NATO]] and U.S. military intervention in the Korean War.

===Later 20th century: Goldwater, Buckley, the Dixiecrats===
By 1950, American liberalism was so dominant intellectually that liberal critic [[Lionel Trilling]] could dismiss contemporary conservatism as "irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas." <ref>Lapham 2004</ref> But just as Trilling was writing a revival was underway. In the 1950s, principles for a conservative political movement were hashed out in books like Russell Kirk's ''The Conservative Mind'' (1953) and in the highly influential new magazine ''National Review'', founded by [[William F. Buckley Jr.]] in 1955.

Whereas Taft's [[Old Right]] had been isolationist the new conservatism favored American intervention overseas to oppose communism. It looked to the Founding Fathers for historical inspiration as opposed to Calhoun and the antebellum South.

The success of the Civil Rights movement came in the Civil Rights Act of 1864 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Most conservatives supported both, but [[Barry Goldwater]] opposed them. Until then southern whites (both liberal and conservative) had been locked into the Democratic party. That lock was now broken and southern conservatives started voting for Republican candidates for president in 1964-68, and by the 1990s they were also voting for GOP candidates for state and local office. The southern blacks now began to vote in large numbers, and they became Democrats, moving that party in the south to the left. By 2000, for the first time, all southern states had a conservative GOP and a liberal Democratic party. The region favored the GOP heavily in presidential elections, but split in state contests. In 2008, however, the Obama campaign broke into the solid Republican South, carrying Florida, Virginia and North Carolina.

Goldwater, a charismatic figure whose intense opposition to all New Deal programs angered liberals, was defeated in a landslide in 1964. Goldwater faded and his supporters regrouped under new leadership, especially that of [[Ronald Reagan]] in California, and regained strength nationally in the 1966 elections. Conservatives voted for [[Richard Nixon]] in 1968, who narrowly defeated the New Deal champion [[Hubert Humphrey]], and southern demagogue [[George Wallace]]. Nixon had come to terms with both the Goldwater wing of the party and the still-influential Rockefeller Republicans (Republicans from the Northeast who supported many New Deal programs).

===Nixon, Reagan, and Bush===

The Republican administrations of President [[Richard Nixon]] in the [[1970s]] were characterized more by their emphasis on ''[[realpolitik]]'', [[détente]], and economic policies such as wage and price controls, than by their adherence to conservative rhetoric and more liberal actions.

In the eight years of [[Ronald Reagan]]'s presidency 1981-89 the American conservative movement achieved ascendancy. In 1980 the GOP took control of the Senate for the first time since 1954, and conservative principles dominated Reagan's economic and foreign policies, with [[supply side economics]] as well as a strict opposition to Soviet Communism. Reagan promised to cut welfare spending but failed to do so. He did cut taxes, but raised military spending and created large federal deficits of the sort conservatives had complained about for decades. They stopped complaining, as the deficit issue switched to favor the Democrats (who did balance the budget in the late 1990s).

An icon of the American conservative movement, Reagan is credited by his supporters with transforming American politics, galvanizing the Republican Party, uniting a coalition of economic conservatives who supported his supply side economic policies, known as "[[Reaganomics]]," foreign policy conservatives who favored his success in stopping and rolling back Communism, and social conservatives who identified with Reagan's conservative religious and social ideals.

==Conservatives in Australia==

In Australia Conservatism is represented by [[Liberal Party of Australia]] who is lead by the known social conservative [[Tony Abbott]] as well as some small parties such as the [[Family First Party]]

==Conservatives in Britain==

In the United Kingdom the present parliamentary opposition party since 1997 is the [[Conservative Party]]. Its current leader is [[David Cameron]].<ref>[http://www.conservatives.com Conservative party UK]</ref>

Up until the mid-19th century, the forerunners of the Conservatives were known as [[Tory|Tories]], and the name has persisted as a common nickname both for the political party and those believed to be in agreement with it. Since the mid-to-late 1970s, British conservatives have been defined by an advocacy of [[laissez-faire]] economics, privatization and lower taxation. In recent years the Conservative Party has moved away from the social conservatism which once characterized it, and the current party policy includes, for example, support for abortion on demand and gay civil partnership and the Kyoto Treaty and to oppose capital punishment (although it should be noted that such policies have little support among the party's grassroots membership) <ref>John Charmley, ''A History of Conservative Politics Since 1830'', (2nd ed. 2008) </ref>

Levels of prayer and worship are much lower in England and Wales than in the U.S., and religious issues thereby play less of a role in public discourse. However, religious issues remain a significant factor in [[Northern Ireland]] and in 2008 religious issues were significant during a special election in [[Scotland]].

In common with conservatives in many other countries, British Conservatives tend towards a patriotic rather than internationalist outlook, and are traditionally skeptical of the [[European Union]].

The broadcast media (dominated by the [[BBC]]) is almost exclusively liberal in tone. The print media is different with pro-Conservative newspapers like the ''Daily Mail'' , ''Daily Express'' and ''Daily Telegraph'' selling more copies than their rivals.<ref>[http://www.mediauk.com/the_knowledge/i.muk/An_introduction_to_newspapers_in_the_UK Media UK; Introduction to newspapers in the UK]</ref>

== Conservatism and the French Revolution ==

Conservatism in France and the continent generally arose in the after 1790 as a response to the radicalism of the [[French Revolution]].

== Benefits of Conservatism ==

Several facets of conservatism function in unison to make it an effective and powerful philosophy. Conservatism emphasizes personal freedom, independence, and initiative; this allows the [[best of the public]] to rise to their natural level of achievement. Conservatives recognize that [[big government]] fosters dependency and stifles individual achievement--and thus, weakens society as a whole.

At the same time, conservatives also recognize that with individual freedom comes individual responsibility. In the absence of a hand-holding [[nanny state]], it is imperative that each individual take responsibility for his own actions, and exercise his rights and freedoms wisely and with discretion. Thus, [[social conservatism]] is also critical to a successful society, as it emphasizes the importance of morality, duty, and responsibility to one's self and fellow men.

== See also ==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[More News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from "More News"]]
*[[Conservative Links]]
*[[Essay:Fair and balanced is not part of the Conservative platform]]
==Further reading==
* Critchlow, Donald T. ''The Conservative Ascendancy: How the GOP Right Made Political History'' (2007)
* Filler, Louis. ''Dictionary of American Conservatism The First Complete Guide to Issues, People, Organizations and Events'' (1987), useful older encyclopedia
* Frank, Thomas. ''What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America'' (2005), a liberal perspective [http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193685789&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Frohnen, Bruce et al eds. ''American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia'' (2006), the most detailed reference
* Judis, John B. ''William F. Buckley, Jr.: Patron Saint of the Conservatives'' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/William-F-Buckley-Jr-Conservatives/dp/0743217977/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207759425&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Kirk, Russell. ''The Conservative Mind''. (7th ed. 2001). highly influential conservative history of ideas [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Link, William A. ''Righteous warrior: Jesse Helms and the rise of modern conservatism'' (2008) 643 pages
* Micklethwait, John, and Adrian Wooldridge. ''The Right Nation,'' (2004) influential survey [http://www.amazon.com/Right-Nation-Conservative-Power-America/dp/B000F71124/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205919226&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Micklethwait, John, and Adrian Wooldridge. ''God Is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith Is Changing the World'' (2009)
* Nash, George. ''The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945'' (2006), excellent scholarly history. [http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Intellectual-Movement-America-Since/dp/1933859121/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241925238&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
*Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/exit-with-honor-the-life-and-presidency-of-ronald-reagan-by-william-e-pemberton.jsp online edition]
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus'' (2004) on 1964 [http://www.amazon.com/Before-Storm-Goldwater-Unmaking-Consensus/dp/0809028581/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193684721&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Nixonland-Rise-President-Fracturing-America/dp/074324303X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241924189&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Schneider, Gregory L. ed. ''Conservatism in America Since 1930: A Reader'' (2003)
*Schoenwald; Jonathan . ''A Time for Choosing: The Rise of Modern American Conservatism'' (2002) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104931191 online edition] also [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Schweizer, Peter, and Wynton C. Hall, eds. ''Landmark Speeches of the American Conservative Movement'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Landmark-Speeches-American-Conservative-Movement/dp/1585445983/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193685365&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/conservatives/ What Liberals Say - Category: Conservatives], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Conservative]]
[[Category:Taxation]]
[[Category:American History]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:New Deal]]

*[http://www.conservativedirectory.com Directory of Conservative Websites - Category: Conservatives], [[Politics]]

[[Category:Conservative]]
{{Conservatism}}

User:AusRight

2009-12-24T01:04:29Z

AusRight: I took the test again

{{User Christian1}} 

My political beliefs are as follows: I would consider myself a conservative especially socially and a firm believer of Capitalism.

Although I would call myself conservative I support Gun control as I believe that ordinary citizens should not take the law into their own hands (that is why we have police), I believe that Health Care is a right and that the Government has a '''moral responsibly''' to give basic care to all of its citizens. The military budget should be reduced as from an Australian context we should only need to keep good relations with neighbors and save money. I also support progressive taxation as it doesn't burden the poor who are already finding the mortgage/rent, utilities and food bills hard to pay off and the state can make decent money by taxing the rich.

Apart from that I am strongly conservative as I am strongly against Gay marriage as it is immoral and unnatural, I believe in restricting abortion rights and having less of them as it is not up to women to kill innocent children and it will harm these women so it should be seldom used. I am strongly for restricting immigration and setting up an official language and all immigrants will have to learn it to a sufficient degree. Finally I believe that Unemployment benefits should be scaled down because if you are able bodied and can work than you should work. 

{{User political compass|1.12 |5.08}} 
{{User CPLeader|Andy Schlafly}} 
{{User Barnstar?}} 
{{User 6000YearOldEarth}} 
{{User KnowsNoEvo}} 
{{User research}} 
{{User Worldconservative}} 
{{User Aussie}} 
{{User antigun}} 
{{User guncontrol}} 
{{User Republican}} 
{{User weapon|'RPD'}}

User:AusRight

2009-12-24T01:00:37Z

AusRight: Started the page

{{User Christian1}} 

My political beliefs are as follows: I would consider myself a conservative especially socially and a firm believer of Capitalism.

Although I would call myself conservative I support Gun control as I believe that ordinary citizens should not take the law into their own hands (that is why we have police), I believe that Health Care is a right and that the Government has a '''moral responsibly''' to give basic care to all of its citizens. The military budget should be reduced as from an Australian context we should only need to keep good relations with neighbors and save money. I also support progressive taxation as it doesn't burden the poor who are already finding the mortgage/rent, utilities and food bills hard to pay off and the state can make decent money by taxing the rich.

Apart from that I am strongly conservative as I am strongly against Gay marriage as it is immoral and unnatural, I believe in restricting abortion rights and having less of them as it is not up to women to kill innocent children and it will harm these women so it should be seldom used. I am strongly for restricting immigration and setting up an official language and all immigrants will have to learn it to a sufficient degree. Finally I believe that Unemployment benefits should be scaled down because if you are able bodied and can work than you should work. 

{{User political compass|0.75 |5.64}} 
{{User CPLeader|Andy Schlafly}} 
{{User Barnstar?}} 
{{User 6000YearOldEarth}} 
{{User KnowsNoEvo}} 
{{User research}} 
{{User Worldconservative}} 
{{User Aussie}} 
{{User antigun}} 
{{User guncontrol}} 
{{User Republican}} 
{{User weapon|'RPD'}}

Australian House of Representatives

2009-12-24T00:33:45Z

AusRight: Added more information

The '''Australian House of Representatives''' often called the "'''House of Reps'''" is one of the houses in the Parliament of Australia along with the [[Australian Senate]]. It is very similar to the [[United States House of Representatives]] in the sense that it is the lower house and has more MPs (members of parliament) that the Senate. Just like the Australian Senate it is located in the Nations capital [[Canberra]]

==Voting on bills==
Bills are generally introduced by the Government into the House and this is followed by debating the bill and then having a vote on it. As one party (or a Coalition) has to hold an absolute majority in this house to form government a bill can easily be passed by the government as long as most members vote for it.

==Composition==
Unlike the Australian Senate the House of Representatives does not use proportional representation but instead [[preferential voting]] for 150 electorates or seats. To make it more fair the electorates are all roughly the same size in population (90,000) although some electorates are slightly lower or slightly higher and some rural electorates are very large to have the same amount of electors. There are 83 members from the Australian Labor Party, 55 from the Liberal Party, 9 from the National Party (together they have 64 members as they form a coalition) and 3 independents. The party (or coalition of parties) that holds the majority of MPs in the House of Representatives forms the Federal Government. Since December 2007 this has been the ALP, with a majority of 16 seats.

==Re-election and terms==
Members of Parliament are re-elected at each federal election which is usually held every 3 years.

ABC (Australia)

2009-12-24T00:16:12Z

AusRight: Bolded the starting text

ABC

2009-12-24T00:15:19Z

AusRight: Not to be confused with the Australian public broadcatser ABC (Australia)

''Not to be confused with the Australian public broadcaster'' [[ABC (Australia)]]

[[Image:American Broadcasting Company Logo.png|right|100px|thumb|American ABC logo]]

'''[[American Broadcasting Company]]''': A [[television]] network in the [[United States]] which has been broadcasting since 1948. It is a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company.
**'''ABC Radio Networks''', known as '''ABC Radio''', formerly owned by ABC television but independent since 2007. It originated in 1927 as the "Blue Network", owned by RCA. It became independent of RCA in 1945.

==[[Charles Gibson]]==
Anchorman of ABC News Worldnews Tonight mentioned Conservapedia in a February 2007 segment. [http://xml.searchvideo.com/rd?i=2730017915&a=5dd5ca8652ca1f99f727d2f07104ae9e&p=1&q=language%3Aen%20conservapedia&vl=2721908557%202661562237%203090979217%201476579137%20269517351%201620947046%201937947638%202035605817%201045230044%203890262897%20 See Video]

==See Also==
* [http://www.abc.go.com American Broadcasting Company] official web-site
* [http://www.abc.net.au Australian Broadcasting Corporation] official web-site

[[Category:Broadcasting]]
[[Category:TV Networks]]
[[Category:Radio]]

ABC (Australia)

2009-12-24T00:13:35Z

AusRight: Not to be confused with the American Broadcasting Company

''Not to be confused with the'' [[American Broadcasting Company]]

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, shortened to ''ABC'' is a public broadcaster in Australia. The ABC is operated on a budget of over $1 Billion (Australian) <ref> http://www.budget.gov.au/2009-10/content/bp4/html/bp4_agency_resourcing_04_bcde.htm </ref> and has been criticized for it left leaning bias by conservative figureheads in Australia. <ref> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_your_abc_of_bias/ </ref>

==History==
The ABC originally started out as a radio station called the Australian Broadcasting Company in 1923 and in 1932 the company was nationalized under the Australian Broadcasting Commission Act. <ref> http://www.acmi.net.au/AIC/RADIO_HIST_AUS.html </ref> <ref>http://www.radio.adelaide.edu.au/intro/history_OZ-radio.pdf#search=%22%22Australian%20Broadcasting%20Company%22%22</ref> It started broadcasting as a television service in1956 and in the 2000’s digital channels were added such as ABC2.

== Funding==
The ABC is completely funded by the Federal Government except for a small percentage which is generated through the profit of items sold in the ABC shop such as DVD’s. The operating budget for the ABC is slightly over $1 Billion according to the latest Government budget data. <ref> http://www.budget.gov.au/2009-10/content/bp4/html/bp4_agency_resourcing_04_bcde.htm </ref>

==Ratings and programs==
As it is not a commercial network it does not necessarily go for high rating programs but concentrates much of its air time on news and current affair programs such as “The 7.30 Report”, “Four Corners”, “Lateline” and the “ABC News” as well as many local programs such as children’s programs from 6am to 10am every weekday. <ref>http://www.abc.net.au/news/programs</ref>. It consistently polls around 15 – 20% of the overall population share every day. <ref>http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2009/12/week-52-3.html</ref> <ref> http://www.throng.com.au/ratings/free-air-tv-ratings-monday-december-7-2009</ref>

==Politics and allegations of bias==

The ABC been accused by Australian conservatives over allegations of left wing bias in its journalism especially when it over represents leftist issues in Australia such as immigration, republicanism, multiculturalism, reconciliation and its support for the centre-left Australian Labor Party. <ref>http://candobetter.org/node/17</ref> <ref>http://www.themonthly.com.au/monthly-essays-robert-manne-new-teeth-aunty-reinvigorating-national-broadcaster-749</ref> Conservative commentators in Australia such as Andrew Bolt as well as Coalition members have stated that they believe the ABC to contain bias from the left. <ref>http://newmatilda.com/2009/08/24/small-l-liberal-not-left</ref> John Howard who was the Liberal Party Prime Minister of Australia from 1996 – 2007 had cut the funding to the ABC by close to 10% for what he believed to be left wing bias. In a 2004 poll of journalists the ABC came in second to the question of “the most politically biased media organisation in Australia”. <ref>http://www.roymorgan.com/resources/pdf/papers/20040903.pdf</ref>

ABC (Australia)

2009-12-24T00:12:13Z

AusRight: Started the page with some basic information

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, shortened to ''ABC'' is a public broadcaster in Australia. The ABC is operated on a budget of over $1 Billion (Australian) <ref> http://www.budget.gov.au/2009-10/content/bp4/html/bp4_agency_resourcing_04_bcde.htm </ref> and has been criticized for it left leaning bias by conservative figureheads in Australia. <ref> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_your_abc_of_bias/ </ref>

==History==
The ABC originally started out as a radio station called the Australian Broadcasting Company in 1923 and in 1932 the company was nationalized under the Australian Broadcasting Commission Act. <ref> http://www.acmi.net.au/AIC/RADIO_HIST_AUS.html </ref> <ref>http://www.radio.adelaide.edu.au/intro/history_OZ-radio.pdf#search=%22%22Australian%20Broadcasting%20Company%22%22</ref> It started broadcasting as a television service in1956 and in the 2000’s digital channels were added such as ABC2.

== Funding==
The ABC is completely funded by the Federal Government except for a small percentage which is generated through the profit of items sold in the ABC shop such as DVD’s. The operating budget for the ABC is slightly over $1 Billion according to the latest Government budget data. <ref> http://www.budget.gov.au/2009-10/content/bp4/html/bp4_agency_resourcing_04_bcde.htm </ref>

==Ratings and programs==
As it is not a commercial network it does not necessarily go for high rating programs but concentrates much of its air time on news and current affair programs such as “The 7.30 Report”, “Four Corners”, “Lateline” and the “ABC News” as well as many local programs such as children’s programs from 6am to 10am every weekday. <ref>http://www.abc.net.au/news/programs</ref>. It consistently polls around 15 – 20% of the overall population share every day. <ref>http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2009/12/week-52-3.html</ref> <ref> http://www.throng.com.au/ratings/free-air-tv-ratings-monday-december-7-2009</ref>

==Politics and allegations of bias==

The ABC been accused by Australian conservatives over allegations of left wing bias in its journalism especially when it over represents leftist issues in Australia such as immigration, republicanism, multiculturalism, reconciliation and its support for the centre-left Australian Labor Party. <ref>http://candobetter.org/node/17</ref> <ref>http://www.themonthly.com.au/monthly-essays-robert-manne-new-teeth-aunty-reinvigorating-national-broadcaster-749</ref> Conservative commentators in Australia such as Andrew Bolt as well as Coalition members have stated that they believe the ABC to contain bias from the left. <ref>http://newmatilda.com/2009/08/24/small-l-liberal-not-left</ref> John Howard who was the Liberal Party Prime Minister of Australia from 1996 – 2007 had cut the funding to the ABC by close to 10% for what he believed to be left wing bias. In a 2004 poll of journalists the ABC came in second to the question of “the most politically biased media organisation in Australia”. <ref>http://www.roymorgan.com/resources/pdf/papers/20040903.pdf</ref>

Australian Senate

2009-12-21T05:09:19Z

AusRight: Started the page with some basic information

The Australian Senate is one of the Houses in the Parliament of Australia along with the Australian House of Representatives. It is very similar to the [[United States Senate]] in the sense that it is the upper house and has less members that the House of representatives. Senators are elected using proportional representation and some preferential voting. There are 12 Senators from each of the 6 states in Australia (despite their population differences) and 2 each from the 2 territories making a total of 76 Senators.

==Voting on bills==

If a bill is introduced into the House of Representatives and is successfully passed it then goes to the Senate where it will be debated and then a vote will be held in relation to that bill. As the Senate uses proportional representation it means that once a quota for 1 Senator is reached then that Senator is elected and because of this even if a party such as the Liberal party is in a minority in the House of Representatives it has the same amount of Senators as the ALP in the Senate at 32 each. This means that the ALP or the Liberal Party after passing the bill in the House of Representatives often find it difficult to pass the bill in the Senate as they need 39 Senators to pass that bill.

==Composition==
As mention before the Senate has 12 Senators from each of the 6 states and 2 from the 2 territories.
 
'''States''':

NSW: 6 ALP, 4 Liberal, 2 National 
VIC: 5 ALP, 6 Liberal, 1 Family First 
QLD: 5 ALP, 5 Liberal, 2 National 
WA: 4 ALP, 6 Liberal, 2 Green 
SA: 5 ALP, 5 Liberal, 1 Green, 1 Ind 
TAS: 5 ALP, 5 Liberal, 2 Green 
 
'''Territories''':

ACT: 1 ALP, 1 Liberal 
NT: 1 ALP, 1 Liberal 
 
This gives a total of 32 Senators for the Australian Labor Party, 33 Senators for the Liberal Party, 5 green Senators, 4 National Senators, 1 Family first Senators and 1 Independent.

==Re-election and terms==

At every federal election their are 40 Senators up for re-election. This is comprised of 6 from each state and 2 from each territory. Senators serve terms of 6 years which is double what House of Representative members serve. A double-dissolution election can be called if there is deadlock in the Senate and the last time this occurred was during the Whitlam era nearly 40 years ago.

Preferential voting

2009-12-21T03:45:23Z

AusRight: Expanded and cleaned up page

Preferential voting is a system of voting by which the candidates are ranked in a list according to how many their are (like 1 - 6 for example). It is used in some countries around the world to a various extent such as Ireland but it is far more widely used in Australia in both Local government elections, State election and Federal elections to decide candidates.

==Australia==

In Australia this form of voting has been in place for a long time and has given some benefit to small parties such as the Democrats, The Greens and One Nation who would find it financially difficult to run a campaign in a country which uses first past the post systems such as the US and the UK. A result in an Australian electorate could look something like this:

:{| cellpadding="4"
|-
| White(One Nation)|| 6,000 || 06.0%
|-
| Wilson (Labor) || 45,000 || 45.0%
|-
| Jones (Liberal) || 35,000 || 35.0%
|-
| Taylor (Green) || 10,000 || 10.0%
|-
| Walker (Ind) || 4,000 || 04.0%
|}

As in most cases a single candidate will not receive more than 50% of the votes (unless the seat is very secure) that is needed to win that electorate so then after the first preference votes (or primary votes) are counted the person with the lowest amount of votes, which in this case is Walker who is an independent will have their votes given among the people that were number 2 on that persons preference list.

:{| cellpadding="4"
|-
| White(One Nation)|| 6,000 || 06.0%
|-
| Wilson(Labor) || 45,000 || 45.0%
|-
| Jones (Liberal) || 39,000 || 39.0%
|-
| Taylor (Green) || 10,000 || 10.0%
|}

Walkers' 4000 votes were all given to Jones the Liberal Candidate (Note that this is a heavily simplified version of the Australian preferences system as most of the time votes will go to every other candidate on the list and not just to 1 candidate) giving him 39% of the total vote.

:{| cellpadding="4"
|-
| Wilson (Labor) || 51,000 || 45.0%
|-
| Jones (Liberal) || 39,000 || 45.0%
|-
| Taylor (Green) || 10,000 || 10.0%
|}

White from the One Nation political party is next to have their preferences tallied up as they have the next lowest amount of primary votes at 6%. In this case all of his second preference votes go to the Liberal party meaning that they now has 45% of the total vote. In this case the Greens second preference has to be counted to give a 2 party preferred result. Even if a party has won by this stage the third parties' preferences have to be counted to give a 2pp result.

:{| cellpadding="4"
|-
| Wilson (Labor) || 54,000 || 52.0%
|-
| Jones (Liberal) || 46,000 || 48.0%
|}

The 2 party preferred result is now obtained from the Greens second preference votes and 7,000 votes were given to the ALP giving them a final percentage of 52% which gives them a tight victory and the 3,000 green votes that were given to the Liberal Party mean that they have 48% of the 2pp result. Voting is now complete and no more has to be done unless the result were really close and therefore a second check will be needed to confirm the results.

==Advantages==

Advantages of this system include:

* It virtually guarantees that only a candidate with the support of a majority of the electorate can win. This essentially eliminates the possibility of minority winners as seen in some elections around the world. This means that the winning candidate is the "most preferred" or "least disliked" of all the candidates.

* It makes it possible for voters to support minor parties and independents as they know that their preferences may be used to decide the winner. This is important as votes for minor parties and independents are not wasted.

* It means that parties who have similar philosophies or policies can give preferences to one another in order to help each other win.

* It gives a strong two-party system which ensures solidity in the parliamentary process.

==Disadvantages==

Some disadvantages of this system include:

* It is very complicated compared ti first past the post.

* It produces a higher level of informal votes especially with Australia's compulsory voting.

* The two-party system can be a detriment to minor parties and independents who want to hold office.

* Voters could be forced to give preferences for candidates they might not wish to support in any way although voters for two major parties don't need to worry as they will rarely or if ever need to be counted as they will most likely already have the most primary votes.

==Further Reading==

http://www.australianpolitics.com/elections/features/preferential.shtml

Preferential voting

2009-12-19T12:45:35Z

AusRight: Started the page with basic information.

Preferential voting is a system of voting by which the candidates are ranked in a list from 1 - 6 for example. It is used in some countries around the world to a various extent such as Ireland but it is far more widely used in Australia in both Local government elections, State election and Federal elections to decide candidates.

==Australia==

In Australia this form of voting has been in place for a long time and has given some benefit to small parties such as the Democrats, The Greens and One Nation who would find it Financially hard to run a campaign in a country which uses first past the post systems such as the US and the UK. A result in an Australian electorate could look something like this:

:{| cellpadding="4"
|-
| Ling (One Nation)|| 6,000 || 06.0%
|-
| Smith (Labor) || 45,000 || 45.0%
|-
| Jones (Liberal) || 35,000 || 35.0%
|-
| Johnson (Green) || 10,000 || 10.0%
|-
| Davies (Ind) || 4,000 || 04.0%
|}

As in most cases a single candidate will not receive more than 50% of the votes need to Win that electorate so then after the first preference votes are counted the person with the lowest amount of votes, which in this case is Davies who is an independent will have their votes divided among who was number 2 on that list.

:{| cellpadding="4"
|-
| Ling (One Nation)|| 6,000 || 06.0%
|-
| Smith (Labor) || 45,000 || 45.0%
|-
| Jones (Liberal) || 39,000 || 39.0%
|-
| Johnson (Green) || 10,000 || 10.0%
|}

Davies 4000 votes were all given to Jones the Liberal Candidate (Note that this is a heavily simplified version as most of the time votes will go to every other candidate and not 100% to just 1 candidate) giving him 36% of the total vote.

:{| cellpadding="4"
|-
| Smith (Labor) || 51,000 || 51.0%
|-
| Jones (Liberal) || 39,000 || 39.0%
|-
| Johnson (Green) || 10,000 || 10.0%
|}

Ling from the One Nation political party is next to have their preferences tallied up as they have the next lowest amount of primary votes. In this case all of his second preference votes go to the Australian Labor Party meaning that the ALP now has 51% of the total vote so now they have won and in this case the Greens second preference does not have to be counted as even if 100% of their preferences go to the Liberal Party they will still have a minority of votes with 49% of the Votes. Smith has now officially won that particular electorate or seat and no more voting will be done unless the result was really close and therefore a second check will be needed to confirm the results.

==Advantages==

Advantages of this system include:

* It ensures that only a candidate with the support of an absolute majority of the electorate can win, eliminating the possibility of minority winners. Put another way, the winning candidate is the "most preferred" or "least disliked" candidate.

* It ensures that voters can support minor parties and independent candidates, knowing that their preferences may be used to decide the winner. Thus, votes for minor parties and independents are not wasted.

* It allows parties of like-minded philosophies or policies to "exchange preferences" in order to assist each other to win.

* It promotes a strong two-party system, ensuring stability in the parliamentary process.

==Disadvantages==

Some disadvantages of this system include:

* It is more complicated to administer and count.

* It can produce a higher level of informal voting.

* It promotes a two-party system to the detriment of minor parties and independents.

* Voters are forced to express a preference for candidates they may not wish to support in any way. (The use of optional preferential voting, as used in New South Wales State elections, is a solution to this problem.)

==Further Reading==

http://www.australianpolitics.com/elections/features/preferential.shtml