Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2007-08-06T21:00:14Z

Autofire372:

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

==Discussion==
A few problems with this. It's not exclusive to men, and Bush has pretty much given up on the Constitutional amendment. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:05, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*There are a ''lot'' of problems with this, which I've just tried to fix. The previous article seemed to be mixing up legal marriage and religious marriage. It implied that the President can amend the Constitution. etc. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:02, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Isn't this already kinda covered at [[Homosexuality#Homosexuality and Marriage]]? Maybe we should import content from that section and then link from there to a fleshed-out article here, or flesh out the section there with whatever may come up here. In either way, some kind of synchronization would be of benefit in my eyes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:18, 10 March 2007 (EST)

'''Hey Colin''' what was wrong with Ed poor's version? --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:For starters, this sentence was in the first paragraph: "Very few homosexuals want to "marry" each other; the immediate intent is to remove the stigma of being called a "fornicator"." (no citation) [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, I protected my first page. I am now a total Wikipedia pariah, since I used editorial power to 'win' an edit war. :-( --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

If someone can provide a citation for "Very few homosexuals want to "marry" each other; the immediate intent is to remove the stigma of being called a "fornicator"," I will relent on reverting this back. Do note that I was originally reverting to Aschlafly's version, now I am reverting to a modified Ed Poor version (Aschlafly's first paragraph, the rest Ed's). [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:58, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I had alrady removed the refrence to their intent. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:01, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:It still included "very few want to marry each other" which is either a lie or an uncited fact, neither of which are allowed on Conservapedia. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, lets remove that sentence altogether. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:06, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:There's also "has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality," which is opinion. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 09:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

What was wrong with the sentence I added to the 1st paragraph? It was hardly bad enough for the rollback button. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:20, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:The rollback button is easier to use, my apologies. I doubt the truth of that sentence, but if that is the case, then surely a citation for it won't be hard to find. If you can't find one, I have no problem saying, "Some argue that giving equal rights to gays has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality (which they claim Bible condemns as sin)." This sentence isn't biased, doesn't have as much of a need for a citation (if one at all) and includes more viewpoints than the earlier sentence. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

That sentence is fine except for one thing which I fixed. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:30, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

The sentence "...because the marriage services of Christian denominations - and virtually all other established religions - define marriage as the union of a man and a woman" contains a factual error. It should be corrected to "'''some''' Christian denominations"; many denominations of the UCC, for example, conduct same-sex services. Other parts of the article are not particularly encyclopedic, like the sentence "Morality cannot be legislated." {{unsigned|Gbjxc}}

== Edit war ==
Under the section about domestic violence, the word "survey" is mis-spelt. As the text has been locked, I wonder if one of the Sysops could fix it? [[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 11:35, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Colin's version: accurate and uncontroversial. Ed's version: contentious. Therefore, the current version should remain until this issue is resolved. As sysops, we should be setting an example and sorting this out through discussion. Are we agreed? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Tsumetai and have reverted all but one of my changes. I think I was too 'bold' here. Thanks for everyone's mild response. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Agree re: 'contentious', 'until resolved' & esp. 'setting an example', that is. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:07, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::I was only referring to the one paragraph, but OK. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 09:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
==Let us parley==
Okay...instead of the edit war-ette, let us hash it out here.
I don't have an ax to grind here so you can count me as a neutral "referee" (bribes <nowiki>and plastic</nowiki>accepted).[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Marriage as a right ==

*"Some argue that giving equal rights to gays has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality (which they claim Bible condemns as sin)."

This is complex. It entails the idea that (1) marriage is a right and (2) homosexuals should have '[[equal rights]]'. It involves the idea that (3) the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality as sin is 'merely a claim' rather than 'objective truth'.

Maybe we should lay all cards on the table. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:The Bible's stance on homosexuality isn't a very clear one. Yes, the Old Testament considers it an abomination, but the old testament also says quite a few other things are abominations or illegal that we consider okay today. Moreover, the old testament is somewhat irrelevant to Christianity as only the New Testament really matters. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:33, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You are wrong here, see the passage from the book of Romans, that i quoted below. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 10:33, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The passage from Romans indicates that homosexuality MIGHT be a consequence of idolatry and THAT a God goven consequence.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
::lol, now we must add the view that (4) 'only the New Testament really matters' to the list. How tall will this [[house of cards]] become? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm not saying "only it matters," but clearly many of the Old Testament laws were deemed unnecessary; I mean, you don't keep kosher do you? And who's to say which laws can be dropped and which must be kept? (obviously I can see the need to keep the 10 commandments, as they even help live a Christ-like life) [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Colin: you're not old enough to remember but years ago many states had what were called "blue laws" that made it illegal for business to be conducted on Sunday, (you could OPEN your place if business, that was okay, but you couldn't make any transactions). The effect was that people would do all of their shopping on Saturday. You couldn't get GASOLINE on Sunday! 1 out of ten stations were open. Nevermind "homosexuals" they didn't even get close to being mentioned when you could talk about "Sabbath breakers" all day. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Oh, but I am old enough to remember said blue laws, and to an extent some blue laws are still in place where I live. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::Oh yeah, I failed to recall you live in the "land that time forgot". [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
:::::::Hahaha, yeah, that's rural Tennessee. :-P [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Personally i don't beleive that '''''anything''''' from the old testament is nulified unless it is nulified explicitly in the new testament, e.g. the eating of unclean animals-- I love bacon :) -- The new testament does seem pretty hostile to homosexuality. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:So no polyester/cotton blend shirts for you, eh?[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:48, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Who says so?==
:Some argue that giving equal rights to gays has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality (which they claim Bible condemns as sin). <ref>leviticus 20:13</ref>

*The reference (to Leviticus) would certainly support a statement that "Jewish religious law condemns the practice of male homosexual acts." And, yes, a suitable New Testament reference would broaden this. I don't remember the passage in Romans offhand.

**Romans 1:24-28
::<blockquote>
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their heart to impurity, so that thier bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do these things which are not proper,
</blockquote>
::so yes, the bible is clear on this. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 10:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't want to get into a game of "dueling Scriptures" but if a passage starts out with a "therefore" it ought to include what the "therefore" is there for. Hence:
:::Romans Chapter 1: 21-23(RSV). 21: for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.22Claiming to be wise, they became fools,23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.

:::This would indicate, that the sin of homosexuality is begotten from the parent sin of idolatry.
:::So the Bible is "clear" about idolatry being '''''bad''''', (look what it's gets you!), but not all homosexuals are idolaters, are they? [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
*The reference certainly does not state that giving equal legal rights to male couples has any affect on the spiritual condition of couples bound by the Christian sacrament of holy matrimony.

*The reference does not support the statement that "some argue" this. Probably some do, but it is important to have a good reference here, because without it the reader can't tell ''why'' "some" would say this, or what their argument for such a position is.

Something like this can certainly go in the article, but not as a weaseled "some argue" that does not give any traceable link to ''who'' makes this argument and ''what'' their argument would be. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:42, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd rather not see this sentence or anything similar to it even in the article, but I felt this was the best version to convey the particular sentiment. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, I'd '''rather''' not see it in the article myself, but that's a different issue... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Dpbsmith that we should avoid weasel-worded statemints. Traceable links are useful and often essential.

I agree with Colin that we must not lie! Uncited facts can be a problem, but anything that's true should be pretty easy to find a citation for.
::(Unsigned comments by [[User:Ed Poor]])

What needs to be shown is that this is a) a reasonably widely-held position, and b) what the stated basis of that position is. Should it go in the article just because BenjaminS and his brother hold this position? Or is it a formal position taken in a paper published by some organization like (say) Focus on the Family? Or is there a Gallup poll showing that the majority of Americans hold this position? It matters. And, frankly, as should be clear, I think this sort of material should go in the article ''after'' it's supported, not before. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)



==References==

<references/>

== In general, it is opposed by social conservatives, and most of the support for it is from liberals. vs Poll data ==

: In general, it is opposed by social conservatives, and most of the support for it is from liberals.
Poll data can be found at [http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html]
{|border=1
! 
!Legal
!Illegal
!Amend Constitution
!Leave to the States
|-
|All
|41%
|55
|38
|58
|-
|Men
|38
|59
|39
|58
|-
|Women
|45
|51
|38
|59
|-
|18-29
|55
|42
|32
|67
|-
|65+
|21
|75
|44
|50
|-
|Democrats
|50
|46
|35
|61
|-
|Independents
|47
|50
|38
|60
|-
|Republicans
|24
|72
|43
|52
|-
|Liberal
|69
|27
|28
|67
|-
|Moderate
|44
|52
|30
|68
|-
|Conservative
|20
|77
|55
|42
|-
|Evangelical
|17
|81
|58
|38
|-
|Non-evangelical
|42
|55
|30
|67
|-
|No religion
|66
|26
|19
|78
|-
|East
|48
|46
|36
|63
|-
|Midwest
|40
|56
|42
|53
|-
|South
|35
|63
|42
|55
|-
|West
|49
|48
|30
|66
|-
|Married
|35
|61
|41
|55
|-
|Not Married
|49
|48
|36
|62
|}

Outside of the Liberal and Republicans, Conservative and Evangelical sections, support is fairly much split down the middle (do realize the large overlap between the Republicans, Conservative and Evangelical sections). I find the original claim faulty - most of the support is not from the liberals (though they support it the most). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Not an oxymoron, etc. ==

I changed:
:'''Same-sex marriage''' is an oxymoronic phrase that depicts two people of the same sex attempting to gain the same legal status afforded to men and women.
to
:A '''same-sex marriage''' is a legal relationship between two people of the same sex that has the same legal status as a marriage between a man and a woman. Some regard the phrase as self-contradictory because they do not regard it as a true marriage.

It's not an oxymoron, because it's not a figure of speech made for rhetorical emphasis. In recent years a form of humor has arisen which consists of describing a phrase as an "oxymoron," causing the hearer to do a double-take as he gets the comic interpretation, e.g. "Government organization--that's an oxymoron." But this is not yet accepted as a real meaning for the word, although in a few years it may be. "Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron" could be a joke, but it is not a proper statement either of a fact or of an opinion.

Seconding, "attempting to gain the same legal status" is inaccurate, because same-sex marriage is a reality in several countries and one state of the United States, and these couples do have the same legal status as married couples of the opposite sex. (And couples joined in civil unions in states that have them have the same legal status as married couples of the opposite sex.)

To suggest that, from a ''legal'' point of view, same-sex marriages do not yet exist is to deny a plain reality. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:16, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:The word "marriage" means a man & woman. There is no other meaning to the word. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:19, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::Rob, please stop the business of stating flatly that what RobS thinks a word ought to mean is what the word means. It's a special case of stating that whatever RobS believes must be true.

::"Marriage" is often short for ''Christian marriage,'' which takes place in a church, is officiated by a clergyman, is ordained by God, and is between a man and a woman; but there ''is'' another meaning to the word. ''it can also'' refer to the civil contract, which grants certain legal rights and is officiated by some kind of state official--most clergyman are also state officials--and is governed by state law.

::The marriages between same-sex couples that take place in Massachusetts are "marriages."

::The changes you made are a presentation of your personal opinion, and are not appropriate when stated as fact.

::As for the word "oxymoron," I've substituted "ludicrous self-contradiction."

::P. S. I would like to see some examples that show that the use of "same-sex marriage" within quotation marks is a widespread, standard usage by conservatives. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:06, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

And yet millions of people feel otherwise. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 22:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:Among those millions are the editors of the American Heritage Dictionary:
::1a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. b. The state of being married; wedlock. c. A common-law marriage. d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. 2. A wedding. 3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose). 4. Games The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/2/M0120200.html]
:and those of Merriam-Webster:
::a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
::2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
::3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/marriage]

:Believe me, I check the dictionary about a dozen times for every time I actually quote it, and I wish other contributors would do the same. Whenever I'm not really sure what the nuances or range of meaning of a word are, I check. There are many words whose meanings I ''think'' I know that, it turns out, I don't really know. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:11, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I consider the "oxymoron" PoV to be discredited.
:This is the second time its been stated, dictionaries ''do not'' give definitions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*"'Same-sex marriage' is an oxymoron" is an incorrect use of the word ''oxymoron.''
*"'Same-sex marriage' is a ludicrous self-contradiction" is correct usage, but inaccurate.
*"Some conservatives consider 'same-sex marriage' to be a ludicrous self-contradiction" is accurate, but should be sourced.
*"Because the editors of Conservapedia consider 'same-sex marriage' to be a ludicrous self-contradiction, the term will be used in quotation marks throughout this article" is something that could be worth discussion. '''I'd''' accept this if a) it really is the Conservapedia consensus opinion and b) the article identifies it as such. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:07, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Usage by conservative sources ==

Of the first hundred Google [http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=site:www.nationalreview.com+%22same-sex+marriage%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 search of the National Review], ninety-eight of them simply use the term without quotation marks. This includes a [http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200503160748.asp 2005 editorial]. One [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/george_tubbs200411010830.asp anti-Kerry article] uses the phrase ''same-sex marriage'' without quotation marks numerous times, but uses ''same-sex "marriage"'' twice, I'm not quite sure why. [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bradley200401220909.asp one other] uses the phrase ''Massachusetts same-sex "marriage"''. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:55, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

[http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=site:www.family.org+%22same-sex+marriage%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Focus on the Family] consistently uses ''Same-sex 'marriage''' and ''same-sex "marriage"''. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

[http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=site:www.eagleforum.org+%22same-sex+marriage%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Eagle Forum] uses ''same-sex marriage,'' no quotation marks, 99 times, and [http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2006/june06/pro-family.html same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts] once. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

[http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=site:www.cc.org+%22same-sex+marriage%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Christian Coalition]: 99 usages without quotation marks, [http://www.cc.org/archives/culture/index.html one with]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:02, 15 May 2007 (EDT) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:19, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:How come when I click on these Google results I get these,
*2812 results from NRO for <marraige"> [http://search.nationalreview.com/?q=marriage%22&s=&sdate=&edate=]
*Dr. Dobson specifically refers to "same-sex marraige" and "gay marriage" in an article entitled, ''Marriage on the Ropes'', where the word ''marriage'' occurs 90+ times. [http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm]
*CC first result: California's Supreme Court Overturns San Francisco "Homosexual Marriages" [http://www.cc.org/content.cfm?id=162] and that sirte consistently uses <"marriage"> in this context [http://www.cc.org/content.cfm?id=379&srch=marriage%22]
:Also, the appears to be no uniform way these searches are configured to get results that are already in quotes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:45, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::I was exploring, Rob.

::If you want to remove the second paragraph I just added to the article, on the grounds that you don't like my methodology, go ahead.

::Is your point is that the phrase should be "gay marriage" rather than "same-sex marriage," i.e. that the phrase "same-sex" was chosen to play down the word "gay?" I wasn't even looking at that. I can't speak for others, but I personally would have no objection to moving "same-sex marriage" to "gay marriage" and revising the language accordingly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:56, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==SSM as an attack on the institution of marriage==

Any legal inroads to redefining [[marriage]] from one boy and one girl can only lead to the destruction of marriage as a godly institution. Holy matrimony, which also allows the non-religious to partake, is given by God. Legal perversions, such as [[bigamy]], [[polygamy]] (for which they are raking [[Mitt Romney]] over the coals) and forced "arranged" marriages (where the girl has no choice, a kind of legalized rape), will destroy marriage if permitted.

This is part of the [[homosexual agenda]]. They don't really want to be "married" or "enjoy the benifits of marriage". The [[civil union]] already does this, allowing next of kin rights when you're in the hospital, etc. The purpose is to destroy marriage. What we need to be writing about is why and how the [[gay rights]] movement is trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage. I guess it has something to do with taking away the ability of pastors (and society at large) to condemn homosexuality. It's related to "[[hate speech]]" and [[hate crime]] legislation which forbid criticism of homosexuality as [[sin]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Girls and boys getting married? Should they be referred to as men and women? [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 13:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::Ed, I don't think you're really correct on any of the above. I can't see why homosexuals would want to destroy marriage, and frankly, I think that the imputation of this invidious intent on a group of people is simple fear-mongering, or alarmism in the extreme, without proof. Second, "civil unions" do not carry the federal marriage benefits that President Bush fought so hard for (tax breaks et al). Surely that's a benefit that homosexual couples have an interest in acquiring. Third, and most importantly, perhaps, the idea of the "parade of the horribles" - "if you allow this, you allow bigamy" - has really been refuted a thousand times. If you want, I'd be glad to draw you the legal lines between same-sex marriage, and bigamy et al, but I consider them fairly obvious. Please let me know if you would enjoy the clarification.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 13:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Courts are clogged enouogh with divorce and custody cases; with gay adoption, and what by first glance appears high rates of, let's call it, "extra-marital promiscuity" among homosexuals, the oft quoted 50% "divorce rate" appears to be much higher among gays. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:50, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:The "extra-marital promiscuity" amongst gays might because they can't get married, dude. And administrative convenience is no reason to abridge liberty.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 14:01, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I still don't understand how SSM will destro the insitution of marriage. Does two guys getting married render your own marriage null? It would be different if gays also wanted to pass a law outlawing heterosexual marriage, but last time I checked there was no such movement. Is there a serious fear that if gay marriage is made legal all the good straight Christians will suddenly catch a gay gene or something? Arguing that it is against your churches moral codes is one thing, but arguing that gays are out to destroy your entire way of life seems a little demagogic to me.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:54, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Just for the record, Ed: Two weekends ago I was lunching with a lawyer—a judge, actually, who presides in a different state than ours. I was muttering something about our will. He said that "Everyone needs a lawyer three times in their life when they draw up a will, when they buy a house, and when they get a divorce." He then went on to say in a jocular way "It's just life. Sooner or later you need to shed a spouse, and when you do," etc. etc. I sort of blinked at that, and said that I thought at this point my wife and I were probably married for keeps. (And, yes, was relieved when my wife confirmed it).

:I feel that remarks like that threaten the institution of marriage more than all the civil unions in Vermont. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:14, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::Paris Hilton & Britney Spears, together or separately, are greater threats to marriage than all of the gay unions possible, past present & future.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 14:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Ed, maybe you could explain your reasoning. I can't for the life of me understand how SSM could have a negative effect on anyone else's marriage. Are you worried that those sneaky gays will trick people into marrying them who'd otherwise be marrying opposite-sex partners? I realize that's probably not actually the objection, but what is it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Snipping Wikipedia-sourced long list==
I'm removing this for three reasons. First, Wikipedia itself does not accept Wikipedia as a reliable source, and neither should we... quite apart from issues of institutional rivalry. If someone wants to reinsert this, they should find the sources Wikipedia used, or do fresh research, to support the entries in the list.

Second, the topic of the article is same-sex ''marriage,'' so probably it should only mention places that allow marriage (under the same name, law, and institutional apparatus--same forms are filed, etc.--as traditional marriage.)

Third, the insertion of such a very, very, long list, including places that have only "registered partnerships" and places that are "considering" same-sex marriage, really looks tendentious to me.

In other words, the list should be limited to a) major countries (no need to mention the Netherlands Antilles) that b) allow same-sex ''marriage,'' and c) are accompanied by references. The references are important to allow the reader to verify what the country actually does or does not allow, and ensure that (say) someone doesn't say that "same-sex marriages are allowed in the United States" when they are only allowed in Massachusetts, or anything like that. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:05, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

===Material removed===
Same-sex marriages are allowed in [[Canada]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[South Africa]], [[Monaco]], [[Spain]], [[Cayman Islands]], [[Greenland]], [[Netherland Antilles]], [[Turks and Caicos Islands]], [[Pitcairn Island]], [[French Guiana]], [[Falkland Islands]].

[[Israel]] approves of same-sex marriages performed abroad, but does not perform them in the country.

Same-sex unions or registered partnerships are allowed in [[Hungary]] (from July 2007), [[Andorra]], [[Italy]9 (some regions), [[Luxembourg]], [[the Czech Republic]], [[Denmark]], [[Finland]], [[Germany]], [[Iceland]], [[Norway]], [[Portugal]], [[Slovenia]], [[Sweden]], [[Switzerland]], [[France]], [[United Kingdom]], [[Martinique]], [[Guadeloupe]], [[United States]] ([[Vermont]], [[Connecticut]], [[Massachusetts]], [[New Jersey]], [[California]], [[Maine]], [[District of Coumbia]] and [[Hawaii]]), [[Mexico]] ([[Mexico City]] and [[Coahuila]]), [[Australia]] and [[Norfolk Island]], [[New Caledonia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Brazil]] ([[Rio Grande do Sul]]), [[Argentina]] ([[Buenos Aires City]] and [[Rio Negro Privince]]).

Same-sex unions are considered in [[Hong-Kong]], [[Philippines]], [[Taiwan]], [[Austria]], [[Faroe Islands]], [[Gibraltar]], [[Greece]], [[Gernsey]], [[Ireland]], [[Isle of Man]], [[Jersey]], [[Lichtenstein]], [[Poland]], [[Bermuda]], [[Costa Rica]], [[New Caledonia]], [[Chile]], [[Colombia]], [[Uruguay]].<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world Homosexuality laws of the world at Wikipedia]</ref>

== Comments ==
I suggest also removing the last paragraph. It is an unsourced gay rights opinion, that maybe belongs elsewhere. It is just one of many gay rights opinions, and it strays too far from the subject matter.

I am not sure it is correct to say that Mass. has same-sex marriage under the definition given in the article. Two Mass. people of the same sex can have the same Mass. legal status as a marriage between a man and a woman, but not the same under federal law. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Your second comment: What did you have in mind to do about it? Qualify any statements about Massachusetts in the article, accordingly? Tweak the definition, which I don't think is quite right but didn't want to tinker with myself?

:The article currently says only that Massachusetts is "the sole state to issue same-sex marriage licenses."

:Or are you just pointing this out as relevant to discussions here on the talk page?

::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Here is a link to the HRC page of international marriage status. Surely that is a good enough source to re-include the list of countries that do permit it?
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Partners&CONTENTID=26546&TEMPLATE=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=70

:Why not just add the link itself? I'd add that although I'd personally accept their information as accurate, HRC is not exactly a neutral source, and has an obvious interest in creating an impression that same-sex marriage is widespread. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:14, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

==Section on [[%22Same-sex_marriage%22#Line-drawing_and_the_.22slippery_slope.22_argument|Line-Drawing & Gay Rights]]==
(I tweaked the phrasing to read "Line-drawing and the slippery slope argument," because I think it's best to avoid the phrase "gay rights" here, as I don't think it's Conservapedian consensus that gay marriage is related to legitimate gay "rights.")

RSchlafly says "It is an unsourced gay rights opinion, that maybe belongs elsewhere. It is just one of many gay rights opinions, and it strays too far from the subject matter." I agree. In its present form, on the face of it, it's a personal essay and unsourced opinion by [[User:SpeakerOfTheDead]]. It would not be allowed at Wikipedia.

Both paragraphs begin with weasel terms: "Opponents of same-sex marriage suggest..." and "Gay rights workers suggest..."

In order for it to be valid content in this article, SpeakerOfTheDead needs to show ''by citing sources'' that the slippery-slope argument is an important part of the same-sex marriage debate, not just a peripheral add-on.

That is, he needs to show that opponents are saying something along the lines of "The reason I oppose gay marriage is not so much because of gay marriage in itself, but because of what it could lead to." Rather than "I oppose gay marriage for these moral/religious/societal reasons, oh and by the way here's a bunch of other problems: it would also inevitably lead to legalizing bestiality, etc."

If this can't be done, I agree that it doesn't belong in the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:23, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

: The problems are worse than that. The section just gives a weak version of the slippery slope argument, as if that is the most important argument against same-sex marriage. It is not. I say that the whole section should be omitted. Maybe some real arguments could be put in later. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:22, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well, I pretty much agree with you. Too bad that RobS and SpeakerOfTheDead ''and others'' haven't weighed in. I left a note on SpeakerOfTheDead's Talk page. I would not oppose cutting the text from the article and pasting it here for discussion. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:51, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Removed from article:
:Gay rights activists claim they are seeking equality.

What does "seeking equality" mean? Is it a suggestion that sexual intercourse is in the same moral category as [[race]]? That's funny, because liberals keep saying "race is a construct" and also that "homosexuality is a construct". Are they saying that marriage is just a human invention too?

I'd like to see an argument from gay rights advocates which says why they think two men (or two women) should be allowed to marry. We can then see whether this argument leads to the idea that a man could marry his dog (she'd be his bitch!) or that three men could marry, or that adoptive homosexual parents could give their consent to a 14-year-old girl "marrying" a lesbian woman.

What's the distinction between same-sex "marriage" and other outrages like [[bigamy]] and [[pedophilia]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:24, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:Ed - you asked "Are they saying that marriage is just a human invention too?" Last time I went on a camping trip, I saw some chipmunks engaging in sexual intercourse, I saw a fish eat a crawdad, and I saw a pair of birds engaging in a real bitter fight, or a hot night of passion. Nowhere in the woods did I see a pair of animals in front of a priest, exchanging vows and rings, and dancing like idiots near the open bar. Long story short - only humans get married, because, yes, marriage is a human construct. Care to try again? --[[User:WWillis|WWillis]] 12:32, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Criticism of the "slippery-slope" argument is just an effort to denigrate the underlying argument. The first "criticism" of defenders of marriage must address the fact that these proposals upset a couple of milleniums of understanding what the idea of marraige is common to all cultures and civilizations. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:02, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
: This is indeed a criticism (although I don't agree exactly about the idea of marriage being common to *all* cultures), but the same-sex marriage debate does often collapse into the slippery-slope argument. Santorum was mercifully mocked for making exactly that argument, for example. It's not the only argument, but it is a frequent argument and probably deserves some coverage here. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 13:06, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, once we get to current politics. But marriage itself must be defined first, and it is not defined by agenda driven activists seeking to redefine it right now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Ed, re your question a few posts up: 2 consenting adults is maybe the most important difference between SSM and the other things you mention. In your view, aside from the anatomy, what's the distinction between SSM and "traditional" marriage? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Let's call it the "anti-procreationist lobby". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Not sure I understand the objection. Could you flesh it out a bit? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Dr. Dobson says,
::::::''Opponents of traditional marriage suggest legislative action to redefine marriage as something other than between a man and a woman simply masks the real homosexual agenda, the intent to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) '''without limiting the number of partners or their gender.'''''[http://www.conservapedia.com/%22Same-sex_marriage%22#Issues]

(undent)So it's the slippery slope argument. What's the evidence that the "real homosexual agenda" is to destroy marriage? Do you (or Dobson, or whoever) genuinely believe that the purpose of seeking to legalize same sex marriages is to allow bigamy? Sometimes a cigar is just that. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:37, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:Dr. Dobson says,
::''For millennia, traditional marriage has been celebrated by every culture on earth as the cornerstone of society. But in the late 1960s and early 1970s, no-fault divorce laws, radical feminism and a sweeping [[sexual revolution]] combined here in the United States to rip open the fabric of the family. They left it shaken and wounded. It was a growing apprehension about this situation that led me to resign from my academic position in 1977 and start a fledgling new organization called Focus on the Family. In the 26 years since, we have been working tirelessly to bolster and preserve traditional marriage and parenthood. ''[http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm]
:There is nothing there that cannot be supported by evidence, and there is no reason to not take Dr. Dobson's word for what he says about his life's work. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::But there's nothing in there about gay people being out to destroy traditional marriage. And there is good reason not to take Dr. Dobson at his word if he does make that specific claim without evidence, although I'm sure he sincerely believes what he says. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:55, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==Worldwide Laws==

Why was the section on worldwide laws on same sex marriage deleted? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 15:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:(a) the sources (b) the sources refered to 'partnerships' and 'relationships', not marriage. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:23, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

=="The word's definition"==
RobS, what's your authority for the definition of the word "marriage?" I know you don't accept the dictionary, but I'd like you to cite the source for the definition you use.

And please revise the opening sentence. "Same-sex marriage" is not "also known as homosexuality." For example, homosexuality exists in all fifty states of the United States, but same-sex marriage does not. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Having received no answer, I am citing "the marriage services of Christian denominations" as a source for the definition, and specifically citing the language of the Episcopalian prayer book. I'm also noting that this definition was written into Federal law. Since marriage laws are primarily a state matter, I'm further noting that a few states permit civil unions and one allows same-sex "marriages" under that name, while noting that the Federal government does not recognize these marriages. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:43, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

=="Line-drawing & Gay Rights" section==
I'm moving this here, because although I think it's an arguable point, this section is, as noted a few weeks ago, basically a personal essay, and since that time it hasn't been changed. It doesn't cite or quote what opponents of same-sex marriage actually say, it doesn't cite or quote what gay rights workers actually say, and so forth.

It shouldn't be reinserted unless supporting material can be added clarifying these points. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:39, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

===Material removed===
'''Line-Drawing & [[Gay Rights]]'''

Opponents of same-sex marriage suggest that allowing same-sex marriage will place society on a "slippery slope" towards allowing bigamy, incest, and other moral "wrongs." The argument rests on the idea that the only legal or moral "line" preventing same-sex marriage is morality, which is also the only "line" preventing acceptance of bigamy ''et all''.

Gay rights workers suggest that such argumentation downplays the danger, though, of the evils at the bottom of the slippery slope, and society's interest in preventing these evils. The state has a compelling interest in preventing bigamous relationships, which are (1) a burden on state funding, since marriage triggers social benefits and (2) have a higher incidence of spousal abuse. These "lines" are not predicated on morality, but on facts. Similarly, incest is an evil that society has a factual interest in preventing, since incestual relationships often (1) entail abuse, and (2) result in unhealthy offspring. Since there are non-moral reasons to reject both of these "horribles", gay rights workers insist that acceptance of same-sex marriage (by abrogation of a legitimate state interest in preserving "morality") does not entail acceptance of bigamy or incest.

Talk.origins

2007-08-06T19:47:33Z

Autofire372:

'''Talk.origins''' is a bot-moderated [[usenet]] group with a focus on the [[creation-evolution debate]]. Creators of articles do not necessarily have scientific credentials, nor is their work peer reviewed. It is used by promoters of the [[theory of evolution]] to give an understanding of life and history from an evolutionary view point.

The Talk.Origins charter [http://www.ediacara.org/~to/charter.html] says that moderation will be used to block certain cross-posted messages. The justification for this policy was that readers of other newsgroups may not want to read evolution-related messages. The charter says that the moderation will cease after six months, unless there is a public vote to maintain the moderation. Contrary to this provision, the moderation has continued for over ten years with no vote. The moderation continues because the evolutionists in the group want to maintain the ability to block messages. {{fact}}

== Talk Origins Archive ==
Many of the more popular contributors and their post have been archived at a separate site.
This site contains responses to many of the arguments used by [[creationist]]s.
It is often cited in online debates as an authoritative source.

==Criticisms of Talk Origins Archive ==
Creationists have a number of criticisms of the Talk.origins archive and a number of them can be found at the [[True.Origin Archive]].<ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/</ref> [[CreationWiki]] has a large amount of material asserting that the Talk.origins Archive material is errant. <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul06.html</ref>

==See also==
[[TalkOrigins Archive]]

==External Links==
*[http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/topics talk.origins] via Google Groups
*[http://www.talkorigins.org TalkOrigins Archive] website

==References==
<references/>

[[category:evolution]]
[[category:websites]]

Conservapedia:Template submission

2007-08-06T19:44:42Z

Autofire372:

== Editors: Please place your proposed template here for approval. You may not place templates on any CP page without first submitting it here! ==

'''Please see [[Help:Using templates]] for information on how to format and document your template below. Upon approval, you will find your template included in the list at [[Help:Templates]]. Just title your template, make your own sub header, and use the template found at [[Help:Creating templates]].'''

==Navigation boxes==
{{tl|2008_presidential_candidates}} A nav box for U.S. presidential candidates, 2008. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 14:55, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
*Added to template listing

{{tl|Meet the Press moderators}} A nav box for articles of [[Meet the Press]] moderators. --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 18:04, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

*Done, sorry Tash... --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:12, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

==Userboxes==
{{tl|User_Runescape}} A userbox for users who play [[RuneScape]].--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 17:38, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*Ok. Added to templates, uncategorized

{{tl|User_sysopother}} A userbox for users who are sysops on other wikis. --[[Special:Contributions/Autofire|trans]][[User:Autofire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 15:44, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

----

[[category:conservapedia administration]]

Template:User sysopother

2007-08-06T19:43:19Z

Autofire372: New page: {{Userbox-2 |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id1-c=#fff |id1-s=12 |id1-fc=#000 |id2-c=#000 |id2-s=12 |id2-fc=#fff |info-c=#CCC |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000068 |id1=Sysop |id2=Not here |info=<center>...

{{Userbox-2 |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id1-c=#fff |id1-s=12 |id1-fc=#000 |id2-c=#000 |id2-s=12 |id2-fc=#fff |info-c=#CCC |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000068 |id1=Sysop |id2=Not here |info=<center>This user is a sysop somewhere other than Conservapedia.</center>}}

Separation of church and state

2007-08-06T04:09:18Z

Autofire372: This entry was perfectly neutral

'''Separation of church and state''' is one interpretation of part of the [[Establishment Clause]] of the [[United States Constitution]]. The section in question reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....".<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti 1st Amendment of the US Constitution]</ref> This phrase is interpreted by judges to mean that all issues regarding the [[Government]] and those regarding the [[Church]] be kept separate. The bulk of case law supports this interpretation.<ref>''See, e.g.'' Lemon v. Kurtzman.</ref> However, strict-constructionists insist that the constitution must be interpreted verbatim.

== Keeping the State from the Church's Influence ==
[[Thomas Jefferson]] first coined the phrase in 1801.<ref>[http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html Religion and the Federal Government], ''LOC.gov''</ref>, in his letter of reply to the Danbury Baptist Association:<ref>[http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/dba_jefferson.html Letter from Thomas Jefferson to the DBA]</ref>

:''To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.''

:''Gentlemen''

:''The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.''

:''Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.''

:''I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.''

:''Th Jefferson''
:''Jan. 1. 1802'' [http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html]

The [[Treaty of Tripoli]], drafted during Washington's presidency and ratified by John Adams, states that "The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."<ref>[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11.] Ratified in 1796 and again in 1797.</ref> Many proponents of a Christian America point out that the treaty was superseded by the [[Treaty of Peace and Amity]] in 1805 (although the superseding of the treaty does not change John Adams' secular view of the United States).

== Separating the Church from the State's Influence ==
Like many political doctrines, the separation of church & state is a double-edged sword. If religion cannot influence government, nor can government influence religion. Accordingly, churches and religious organizations are kept from government intrusion with the highest deference to ecclesiastical matters. For example, Title VII contains a built-in exception for religious organizations.<ref>42 U.S.C. 2000(e)-(1).</ref> The provision has been construed to allow churches to handle their ministerial matters without government intrusion in any way.<ref>McClure v. Salvation Army.</ref> In this sense, separation of church & state is ''good'' for the church, as it ensures religious autonomy.
== References ==
<references/>
[[category:politics]]

Talk:Lemon v. Kurtzman

2007-08-06T03:57:48Z

Autofire372: New page: =="Liberal bias"== Andy, I failed to see any liberal bias in the original entry. All you did was insert excessive conservative bias. --~~~~

=="Liberal bias"==

Andy, I failed to see any liberal bias in the original entry. All you did was insert excessive conservative bias. --[[Special:Contributions/Autofire|trans]][[User:Autofire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 23:57, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

Lemon v. Kurtzman

2007-08-06T03:54:14Z

Autofire372: There was no liberal bias

{{caselaw|Lemon vs. Kurtzman|403 U.S. 602|1971}}

'''Lemon vs. Kurtzman''' (1971) was a landmark [[Supreme Court]] case iterating a strong test for [[separation of church and state]] under the [[First Amendment]].

Under the "Lemon Test," to pass constitutional muster as a law that does not violate the [[Establishment Clause]], a law must:
# Have a legitimate secular purpose, and,
# Not have the primary effect of either inhibiting or advancing religion, and,
# Not promote excessive entanglement between church & state.

The "Lemon Test" was the one applied to invalidate the Dover School Board's [[intelligent design]] policy in ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Independent School District]].''

User talk:Republican7623

2007-08-06T03:41:39Z

Autofire372: New page: {{welcome}}

Liberal

2007-08-06T03:05:13Z

Autofire372: rework; emphasis added

'''Liberalism''' is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition. [[Democrats]] and many media outlets in the U.S. are frequently accused by conservatives of [[liberal bias]].

==Liberalism in the US today==
Modern liberalism in the US is typically associated with the left of the political spectrum. The word "Liberal" can mean different things at different times, but is often used as synonym for "Democrat". In the postwar period, "Liberals" advocated equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom. At the same time they supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many Liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy Liberals in the US failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals still support socially liberal positions when it comes to affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.

Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals':

* removal of gender differences, such as treating men and women identically in the [[military]]
* taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]
* [[same-sex marriage]]
* support of [[affirmative action]]
* support of [[political correctness]]
* reinstate the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* no '''mandatory''' [[prayer]] in classrooms
* compelled taxpayer funding of government schools for nearly all ages
* government-controlled medical care
* labor [[union]]s
* elimination of [[abstinence]]-only program funding <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* [[income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation
* a "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written
* support for [[gun control]]
* government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
*[[environmentalism]] <ref> [[Greenpeace]] engages in environmentalism.</ref>
* [[disarmament treaties]]
* [[globalism]]
* opposition to a strong American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF).</ref>
* support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is an organization that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>, such as the Liberal Party of Australia[http://www.liberal.org.au/].

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians that promote lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them 'liberals' or [[neoliberal | neoliberals]]. Thus, just like in the US, 'liberal' is often used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called 'liberal' in Europe, this is usually a way of calling them [[rightist | right-wing]], exactly the opposite of the meaning in the US.
In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy | social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>.

==Original meaning: 'Classical liberalism'==

The original philosophy of liberalism (now sometimes called [[classical liberalism]], or [[libertarianism]] in the US), favors many forms of freedom, such as:

*Freedom of speech
*Freedom of religion
*The right to form political parties and vote
*Freedom to invest in and use private property
*Freedom to work as one chooses
*Freedom to enter into economic contracts
*Free trade and freedom of migration
*Sexual freedom
*Equal rights independent of race or sex

This interpretation of liberalism arose during the [[Enlightenment]], and became influential throught the [[American Revolution]] and [[French Revolution]], and was also spread in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by the [[classical economists]]<ref>[http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php]</ref>.

A prominent publication which promotes liberalism in the original sense of the word is the British news magazine [[The Economist]].

==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[DNC|DNC - Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[NEA|NEA - National Education Association]]
*[[NOW|NOW - National Organization of Women]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==See Also==
* [[Liberal hypocrisy]] 
* [[Essay:Liberal Style]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Political ideologies]]
[[Category:Deceit]]

Liberal

2007-08-06T03:03:42Z

Autofire372: Less strong wording

'''Liberalism''' is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition. [[Democrats]] and many media outlets in the U.S. are frequently accused by conservatives of [[liberal bias]].

==Liberalism in the US today==
Modern liberalism in the US is typically associated with the left of the political spectrum. The word "Liberal" can mean different things at different times, but is often used as synonym for "Democrat". In the postwar period, "Liberals" advocated equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom. At the same time they supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many Liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy Liberals in the US failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals still support socially liberal positions when it comes to affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.

Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals':

* removal of gender differences, such as treating men and women identically in the [[military]]
* taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]
* [[same-sex marriage]]
* support of [[affirmative action]]
* support of [[political correctness]]
* reinstate the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* removal of mandatory [[prayer]] in classrooms
* compelled taxpayer funding of government schools for nearly all ages
* government-controlled medical care
* labor [[union]]s
* elimination of [[abstinence]]-only program funding <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* [[income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation
* a "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written
* support for [[gun control]]
* government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
*[[environmentalism]] <ref> [[Greenpeace]] engages in environmentalism.</ref>
* [[disarmament treaties]]
* [[globalism]]
* opposition to a strong American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF).</ref>
* support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is an organization that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>, such as the Liberal Party of Australia[http://www.liberal.org.au/].

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians that promote lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them 'liberals' or [[neoliberal | neoliberals]]. Thus, just like in the US, 'liberal' is often used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called 'liberal' in Europe, this is usually a way of calling them [[rightist | right-wing]], exactly the opposite of the meaning in the US.
In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy | social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>.

==Original meaning: 'Classical liberalism'==

The original philosophy of liberalism (now sometimes called [[classical liberalism]], or [[libertarianism]] in the US), favors many forms of freedom, such as:

*Freedom of speech
*Freedom of religion
*The right to form political parties and vote
*Freedom to invest in and use private property
*Freedom to work as one chooses
*Freedom to enter into economic contracts
*Free trade and freedom of migration
*Sexual freedom
*Equal rights independent of race or sex

This interpretation of liberalism arose during the [[Enlightenment]], and became influential throught the [[American Revolution]] and [[French Revolution]], and was also spread in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by the [[classical economists]]<ref>[http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php]</ref>.

A prominent publication which promotes liberalism in the original sense of the word is the British news magazine [[The Economist]].

==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[DNC|DNC - Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[NEA|NEA - National Education Association]]
*[[NOW|NOW - National Organization of Women]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==See Also==
* [[Liberal hypocrisy]] 
* [[Essay:Liberal Style]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Political ideologies]]
[[Category:Deceit]]

Unconstitutional

2007-08-06T02:52:44Z

Autofire372: New page: A law is deemed '''unconstitutional''' when it is found, by the Supreme Court of the United States, to violate a provision of the United States Constitution or one of its amendment...

A law is deemed '''unconstitutional''' when it is found, by the [[Supreme Court of the United States]], to violate a provision of the [[United States Constitution]] or one of its amendments.

[[Category:Law]]

User talk:ChrisCubsFan

2007-08-05T20:20:55Z

Autofire372:

{{welcome}}

Wait...you live in Hicksville? As in, Hicksville, NY? --[[Special:Contributions/Autofire|trans]][[User:Autofire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 16:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

User:Philip J. Rayment/Advice to evolutionists

2007-08-05T20:13:11Z

Autofire372: Fixing broken link, apologies to philip

What follows is almost certainly not going to resolve all disputes and result in everybody getting along happily, but hopefully it will go some way towards improving this and similar articles.

Very often I see creationists here on Conservapedia simply changing/deleting/reverting pro-evolution edits, without adequate explanation or justification. But having said that, I intend to point out that at least some of this is brought on by the attitudes and actions of the evolutionary editors.

Although I've seen many examples of this, the one that prompted me to write this was the edits and discussion regarding [[homo neanderthalensis|Homo sapiens neanderthalensis]], so my comments will use that as an example.



One of the main contributors to the article wrote on the article's talk page:{{QuoteBox|I wrote 90% of this article and it now falls under my protection}}and{{QuoteBox|I will not allow creationist material in this article: this one's for science, if you're a YEC, go to a debate page or go vandalize the Dinosaur article}}

In doing so, he implied that creationism was not science and that YECs are vandals.

Following further changes by creationists, several evolutionists objected, but didn't just dispute the facts. They also denigrated creationists, with comments like "''Do they threaten the emotional comfort of your little <s>medieval</s> sheltered world? You think you're making Jesus proud through ignorance?''". (NB: The strikeout was part of the comment when the editor first wrote it.)

One comment that had been inserted was that Neanderthal Man "...had the ability to speak exactly like humans.". Evolutionary editors questioned how this could be determined from fossils.

That's the pertinent history of that article. Now for what the evolutionists did wrong, or perhaps I should say now for what they could have done better.

First, they know full well that a majority of the senior editors are YECs, and that articles that treat the evolutionary view as fact will not be allowed to remain in that state. So they should have qualified things like the time periods that the Neanderthals supposedly lived right from the start. But instead, they wrote the article as though those dates were fact.

Second, they reacted badly to what they saw as unreasonable edits by creationists (and I'm not commenting on whether they were or were not unreasonable). Rather than just discuss the changes calmly, some of the responses (not all, admittedly) denigrated and maligned creationists in general (not just the particular editors involved).

Third, they didn't try actually finding out what the basis for creationist claims were. Instead of asking how fossils could show that Neanderthals could speak exactly like humans, they should have looked at the linked article and found the basis for that claim. It turns out that the basis for it is that evolutionists had earlier claimed that Neanderthals were incapable of human speech (so why don't the evolutionists question how that could be determined from fossils? The criticism seems a bit one-sided to me), but that further study of the relevant bones showed no differences to modern humans, which means that there is no basis for concluding that they ''couldn't'' speak like modern humans. The referenced article therefore concluded that they ''could'' speak like modern humans.

Now this might be a bit of a stretch; it doesn't actually ''prove'' that they could speak like modern humans, but it does seem a reasonable conclusion to draw. So having discovered all this, these evolutionary editors could have proposed a change (or even changed it themselves) to say that "there is no reason to believe that Neanderthals could not speak like modern humans", or something along those lines. I suggest (and would hope) that such a change would be acceptable to both sides, rather than just having endless arguments and reverts.

The example article and discussion is not the worst I've seen. To summarise, very often much of the argument is due to evolutionists continuing to write and act as though they are correct and that creationists are uneducated, unreasonable, and of course wrong. More respect and a willingness to present the evolutionary claims as claims rather than facts would go a long way towards us all getting along better.

On quite a few occasions I find creationists making edits that I (a strong YEC) disagree with, and would possibly side with the evolutionists on particular wording, but because of the denigration, rudeness, and POV-pushing of their responses I find myself arguing with the evolutionists instead of the creationists.

User talk:Landofliberty

2007-08-05T20:05:43Z

Autofire372: New page: {{welcome}}

User:Autofire372/sig

2007-08-05T20:02:25Z

Autofire372: New page: transResident Transfan[[User ...

[[Special:Contributions/Autofire|trans]][[User:Autofire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]]

Alarmist

2007-08-03T03:21:22Z

Autofire372:

An '''Alarmist''', according to the dictionary is "A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe."

In modern usage, such people usually fall under the following categories:

*Bloggers
*[[Global Warming]] enthusaists
*Certain Left-Wing websites

[[Category:Politics]]

Conservapedia:Template submission

2007-08-02T21:38:01Z

Autofire372:

Template:User Runescape

2007-08-02T21:35:08Z

Autofire372: New page: {{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=RS |info=This user plays RuneScape.}}

{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=RS |info=This user plays [[RuneScape]].}}

Rudy Giuliani

2007-07-30T22:00:14Z

Autofire372: Undo revision 255559 by Special:Contributions/Conservatron79 (User talk:Conservatron79)

[[Image:Rudy Giuliani.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Rudolph William "Rudy" Giuliani''' (born May 28, 1944 in [[Brooklyn]], NY) is a former two-term [[Mayor]] of [[New York City]], former [[United States Attorney]] and [[Deputy U.S. Attorney General]]. As mayor of New York City he became a media favorite based on his [[liberal]] positions on [[abortion]] and [[homosexuality]] and his devotion to the press. As mayor he would hold almost daily press conferences, and his personal indiscretions became favorite topics for the media. Despite his shortcomings in preparation and immediate response to the terrorist attacks of [[9/11]], the media hailed him as "America's Mayor" for his frequent media appearances afterwards.

Originally a Democrat who supported [[George McGovern]],<ref>http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/03/13/swiftboat_rudy/</ref> Giuliani is currently a candidate for the [[Republican]] nomination for [[President of the United States of America|President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]].

== Early Life ==

According to his official biography<ref> "A Biography Of Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani" The City of New York Office of the Mayor [http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/bio.html] </ref>
<blockquote>

:In 1944, Rudolph W. Giuliani was born to a working class family in Brooklyn, New York. As the grandson of Italian immigrants, Mayor Giuliani learned a strong work ethic and a deep respect for America's ideal of equal opportunity. He attended Bishop Loughlin Memorial High School (Class of '61) in Brooklyn, Manhattan College (Class of '65) in the Bronx and New York University Law School in Manhattan, graduating magna cum laude in 1968.</blockquote>

== Personal Life ==
Giuliani has been married three times. First to his second cousin [[Regina Peruggi]], on October 26, 1968. In 1976 the couple split. They did not have any children.His second marriage was to [[Donna Hanover]]. Giuliani filed for legal separation from Peruggi on August 12, 1982. Giuliani and Hanover started living together later that year in Washington, D.C. A [[Roman Catholic]] Church [[annulment]] (of the Giuliani-Peruggi marriage) was granted at the end of 1983[93], according to Giuliani, because they did not have the Church dispensation needed.

Giuliani and Hanover then married on April 15, 1984. They had two children, Andrew and Caroline. In May 2000, Giuliani admitted to an extramarital relationship with Judith Nathan. Giuliani called a press conference to reveal he intended to separate from Hanover.
Giuliani then married Judith Nathan in 2003, his third marriage.

==Legal Career==

According to his official biography<ref> "A Biography Of Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani" The City of New York Office of the Mayor [http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/bio.html] </ref>
<blockquote>
:Upon graduation, Rudy Giuliani clerked for Judge Lloyd MacMahon, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York. In 1970, Giuliani joined the office of the U.S. Attorney. At age 29, he was named Chief of the Narcotics Unit and rose to serve as executive US Attorney. In 1975, Giuliani was recruited to Washington, D.C., where he was named Associate Deputy Attorney General and chief of staff to the Deputy Attorney General. From 1977 to 1981, Giuliani returned to New York to practice law at Patterson, Belknap, Webb and Tyler.

:In 1981, Giuliani was named Associate Attorney General, the third highest position in the [[U.S. Department of Justice]]. As Associate Attorney General, Giuliani supervised all of the US Attorney Offices' Federal law enforcement agencies, the Bureau of Corrections, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the US Marshals.

:In 1983, Giuliani was appointed US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, where he spearheaded the effort to jail drug dealers, fight organized crime, break the web of corruption in government, and prosecute white-collar criminals. Few US Attorneys in history can match his record of 4,152 convictions with only 25 reversals. </blockquote>

==Mayoral Campaigns and Service==
According to his official biography<ref> "A Biography Of Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani" The City of New York Office of the Mayor [http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/bio.html] </ref>
<blockquote>
:In 1989, Giuliani entered the race for mayor of New York City as a candidate of the Republican and Liberal parties, losing by the closest margin in City history. However in 1993, his campaign focusing on quality of life, crime, business and education made him the 107th Mayor of the City of New York. In 1997 he was re-elected by a wide margin, carrying four out of New York City's five boroughs.
:As Mayor, Rudy Giuliani has returned accountability to City government and improved the quality of life for all New Yorkers. Under his leadership, overall crime is down 57%, murder has been reduced 65%, and New York City - once infamous around the world for its dangerous streets - has been recognized by the F.B.I. as the safest large city in America for the past five years. <ref> See also "Time's 2001 Person of the Year Rudy Giuliani"[http://www.time.com/time/poy2001/]</ref></blockquote>

In 2002 he published ''Leadership'', recounting his terms as mayor.
 
 
Among Giuliani's most notable accomplishments during his mayoralty was his successful assault on [[pornography]] businesses in [[Times Square]]. The neighborhood had long been a mecca for "sexually oriented businesses", but through a prolonged campaign which included maintaining an alliance of local businesses, conservative and feminist groups and the general public, Giuliani managed to clean up the sex mart which was Times Square and replace it with legitmate theaters, restaurants and shops.

==September 11 Terrorist Attacks==

On Sept. 10, 2001, Giuliani was known as a crime fighter from his days as a United States attorney and as the mayor who had overseen New York's revival. But at home his approval rating hovered around 50 percent. In any case, he was a lame duck, barred by term limits from seeking re-election, in a city that in any case felt increasingly worn out by eight years of combativeness and racial tension. The year before, after a surprisingly rocky re-election campaign, a diagnosis of prostate cancer had led him to reject a run for the Senate seat eventually won by Hillary Rodham Clinton. And while his supporters talked of a presidential bid, the prospect seemed a long shot for a Republican who supported abortion rights and restrictions on gun sales.

A week after the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|9/11 attacks]] and has been on almost every short list of Republican contenders ever since. In his talks, Giuliani uses Sept. 11 to make two points. The first is that he has proven himself to be a leader, and having a proven leader in these troubled times, he tells audiences, is more important than whether you agree with everything he stands for. The other is that his handling of the aftermath of the terrorist attacks proved his competencey. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/us/politics/12topic-giuliani.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref>

The International Association of Fire Fighters, America's largest union of [[firefighter]]s, posted a grievence against Giuliani's November 2001 decision to reduce the number of firefighters searching the rubble of Ground Zero for the remains of some 300 fallen comrades. Their argument is that Giuliani's decisions meant that firefighters and citizens who died would either remain buried at Ground Zero forever or be removed like other rubble and garbage and deposited in landfills.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/09/giuliani.firefighters.ap/index.html</ref>

According to one news report, "Giuliani's backers also released an open letter to firefighters from retired New York firefighter Lee Ielpi that calls the union's accusations 'offensive and inaccurate.' Ielpi lost his oldest son, 29-year-old New York City firefighter Jonathan Lee Ielpi, on Sept. 11.

'I was deeply disappointed and disheartened to learn of the recent partisan political activities' by the IAFF, he wrote. 'Firefighters have no greater friend and supporter than Rudy Giuliani,' Ielpi said."<ref> Firefighters Claim Giuliani Ignored Needs After 9/11 (Update2) by Kim Chipman Bloomberg News, March 9, 2007 [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a8o5p2XiTQhk&refer=us]</ref>
Giuliani's camapign staff noted that the IAFF endorsed Senator [[John Kerry]]'s presidential bid in 2003 when the Massachusetts Democrat was still considered a long shot.<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a8o5p2XiTQhk&refer=us</ref>

==2008 Presidential Campaign==

He is running for the Republican nomination for president of the United States in 2008. The [[National Catholic Register]] is advising Catholics not to vote for Giuliani in 2008 because he is pro-choice. <ref>[http://ncregister.com/site/article/2017 No Deal Rudy]</ref> 

Giuliani is leading in most polling for the 2008 Republican nomination.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html</ref>

In an apparent attempt to appease (or mislead) [[conservatives]], Giuliani picked [[libertarians]] (Ted Olson and Miguel Estrada) and an executive (Larry Thompson), all likely to be pro-choice, to head his panel for nominating judges.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289367,00.html</ref> Olson opposed [[conservative]] [[John Roberts]] in 1982 on limiting jurisdiction,<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/27/roberts.documents/index.html</ref> and Estrada applied RICO against abortion protesters and forced open the airwaves to profanity. The [[neoconservative]] (socially [[liberal]]) [http://powerlineblog.com/archives/018248.php Power Line blog] declared without basis, "It would be hard to come up with a group of lawyers and judges that would be more reassuring to conservatives in this regard."

== Further Reading ==

*About: Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11, 2006
*Rudy! An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, Wayne Barrett, 2005
*The Prince of the City: Giuliani, New York and the Genius of American Life, by Fred Siegel, 2005
*Rudy Giuliani: Emperor of the City, by Andrew Kirtzman, 2000

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Guiliani, Rudolph}}
[[Category:Mayors]]
[[Category:2008 presidential candidates]]

Affirmative Action

2007-07-27T01:48:56Z

Autofire372: Undo revision 252139 by Special:Contributions/Oreillyrules (User talk:Oreillyrules) Why was this not fixed?

'''Affirmative action''' is a name given to any of several disparate policies intended to
remedy the historical effects of race discrimination.

The original concept of affirmative action was that it is desirable to not merely act on non-discrimination passively (i.e., saying "this job is open to any applicant", but then making no efforts to find minority applicants), but should also be done ''affirmatively'', by taking definite actions to find applicants from minorities.

This would be, in its way, admirable.
However, in current use, affirmative action goes beyond this, often mandating the use of quotas for setting aside jobs or a portion of college entrance positions for each minority (including also some "minorities" which are actually majorities). In effect, this means selecting applicants by the color of their skin, precisely what the original concept of non-discrimination forbids. This is sometimes called "reverse discrimination," although this term is rather contradictory-- discrimination remains discrimination.

Regents v. Bakke effectively outlawed this "sometimes called 'reverse discrimination.'"

[[Dinesh D'Souza]] wrote:
:Many whites have become increasingly scornful of black demands, and vehemently reject racial preferences. Most blacks, by contrast, support affirmative action as indispensable to fighting the enduring effects of white racism. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/endofrac.htm]

==External links==
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/endofrac.htm The End of Racism: The White Man's Burden] - Dinesh D'Souza

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:United States law]]

Turkey (bird)

2007-07-21T16:20:03Z

Autofire372: Undo revision 243941 by Special:Contributions/Ilovegodmorethanyou (User talk:Ilovegodmorethanyou)

The '''Turkey''' is a very large variety of flightless bird. [[Benjamin Franklin]] thought that the turkey should be the national bird of [[America]] rather than the the [[bald eagle]]. Turkey is a traditional [[Thanksgiving]] food. It is usually roasted.

[[Category:Birds]]
[[Category:Livestock]]
[[Category:Meat]]

Gunpowder

2007-07-20T20:12:50Z

Autofire372: Undo revision 243124 by Special:Contributions/Reign (User talk:Reign)

'''Gunpowder''' is one of man's most significant [[invention]]s. It is a chemical mixture which burns extremely rapidly, and was used as a propellant in early [[small arms]] and [[cannon]]s. Experiments to improve the effectiveness and safety were some of the first true [[chemistry]] in the modern sense of the word. Formerly most (al)chemical experiments were obsessed with pursuing [[mysticism|mystical]] and [[occult]] goals such as eternal life.

Gunpowder is no longer used in weapons, but remains in use in [[fireworks]] and [[special effects]].

[[Category:Weapons]]

All Things Considered

2007-07-18T20:11:38Z

Autofire372:

All Things Considered is one of the Nations most popular radio talk shows it airs every weekday for two hours. All Things Considered comes true to its name and covers every thing from Science to Politics, the shoe is hosted by Michele Norris, Robert Siegal, and Melissa Block.

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2007-07-17T22:29:21Z

Autofire372: Liberal likes conservative songs

See [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZkNDU5MmViNzVjNzkzMDE3NzNlN2MyZjRjYTk4YjE= this]. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 10:04, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

: The [[neoconservative]] ''National Review'' list is 95% garbage, not [[conservative]] at all. I only found one tune on the list that should be added ours ("Stand by your man"), and National Review had it at #50.

: The contrast here with ''National Review'' illustrates the need for ''Conservapedia''. But thanks for your link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Oops... it seems that I added a bunch of songs from that list. Several of mine (Brick, Red Barchetta, I Can't Drive 55, Sweet Home Alabama, and Revolution 1) were on there. That's interesting, though... the NR person and I thought alike on this one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Sweet Home Alabama? I love that song (and I'm a liberal)! Revolution's great, too.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:29, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:True

2007-07-17T18:30:24Z

Autofire372: New page: ==Redirect not redirecting== Can someone fix?--~~~~

==Redirect not redirecting==
Can someone fix?--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 14:30, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Rush Limbaugh

2007-07-17T18:03:41Z

Autofire372:

Rush _was_ caught illegally scoring painkillers. Should we leave that out just because it 'looks bad'? Truth is truth, even when it's ugly. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: It's gossip. It's not educational. We're not Wikipedia where nearly every entry has some gossip in it. Feel free to see what other editors think, but that's my view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've got to wonder where the line is drawn for this. This site still needs so many fundamental topics covered, but since January there's been an article on Chappaquiddick. Still, CP doesn't want to include the dirty bits of people's biographies? Hunh.

::And before you say it, I'm no Ted Kennedy fan (if I had a vote in MA. I doubt I'd have ever voted for him), but I just about lost it when "Random page" led me that article. Where are the priorities? :p Anyway, the "gossip" argument doesn't hold much weight imo. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not gossip, it is part of his biograpghy. ref <http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/10/rush.limbaugh/>

Yes, but it makes him look bad, therefore it lacks sufficient truthiness to be posted here. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:28, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I would say it can be mentioned only because he talked often about illegal drug users on his show, so the irony is rather large. Also, it was in the news extensively. BUT, it needs to be dealt with factually, not emotionally from either side.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== First source ==

Could somebody tell me how the first source backs the statement? I couldn't find any mention of "Limbaugh" or "Franken" on that page... I left it in because I didn't dive deeper into the thread, but a quick explanation would be appreciated :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought it was Bill O'Rielly and Al Franken that clashed constantly?

==On painkillers==
Limbaugh himself admitted doing it, so it's not gossip. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Parkinson's ==

The previous editor said that Fox's jerking actions were the results of his medication, not his disease. However, the citation itself says the exact opposite, stating that Fox often goes '''off''' of his medicine to make the symptoms more pronounced. Any assertion to the contrary of would need a new cite, one strong enough to disprove the citation offered (USA Today), common knowledge, and medical journals.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:For what it is worth, my grandfather suffered from Parkinson's. The shaking occurs because of the disease, not the medication.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::Absolutely, that's true. But Rush didn't know it, and claimed that Fox was faking the shaking by taking his medication. Completely wrong, and completely vile. - [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Denounced as a Witch? ==

Can anyone verify that? Took it out until someone can.

== Trivia ==

I removed the unsourced trivia (deaf in left ear, six toes, three divorces). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 08:14, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: I agree with this removal. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 10:16, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Illegally" ==
It is a descriptive term—not a legal claim. For example, the article on Hitler says he “murdered” 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, should that be deleted because Hitler was never arrested? Or tried for murder? Likewise, in the Clinton article says he “committed perjury”, but Clinton was never arrested or tried for perjury (He was Impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors” but not convicted), should that be deleted? Of course not, nether should be deleted, the claims describe the facts not the legal situation. Here, what Rush did was illegal, though he was never charged—I see no reason to omit that fact.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:49, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

: It is libel to say that someone committed a crime, when he was never convicted. Yes, those other pages should be fixed. Hitler is dead, and cannot sue. The Clinton page is wrong. Clinton was accused, but acquitted by the Senate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:27, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I disagree with your reading of libel law—it’s only libel (since we are talking about a public figure) if the person making the statement can be shown to know it was false. But, that aside, if you honestly believe the position you are advancing here, I have pointed out two major changes that need to be made and I urge you to do so (I will refrain from doing so, since I am not yet convinced by your position)—if your position is correct then there should be no major backlash.
::I maintain that, libel aside, if one breaks the law one has committed an illegal act, whether on not they were ever charged with a crime, and whether or not they are ever convicted. If that is correct, then the adjective belongs in the article, if it is not then it should be taken out of the article—I’ve yet to hear any argument that it is not correct. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Controversy section - how much should be kept or removed? ==
How is any of that information relevant or encyclopedic? I thought we were trying to avoid the gossip that is so prevelant on Wikipedia. I removed it, but some liberal agitator put it back almost immediately.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 16:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:See [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] scandals the political personality is known to have been involved in—not just rumored to have been involved in—are considered appropriate content. Here, Limbaugh is known to have been involved in all of these scandals and has given comments on them, so they are not simply gossip and are considered appropriate content.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::<s>Don't misquote: it says 'non-gossip scandals'.</s> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:14, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: "It's pure gossip. If I were to add a reference to a cigar in Clinton's article or Gore's son's pot arrest, you'd throw a fit and you know it.)" -- If Gore's son's arrest would be appropriate material, so would Bush twins being arrested for under age drinking[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBX/is_1_8/ai_78052874][http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1379000.stm]. Things the ''politician'' were involved in yes. Family members - no. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::So you would have no problem with me adding a cigar reference to Clinton's article?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Is that appropriately family friendly that should be read by a 12 year old? As it stands, the Starr report is blocked at the company I work at for "Erotica and Sex". I seem to recall that under the Communications Decency Act (granted, struck down) that the Starr report would have been considered an explicit document[http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=846]. Feel free to link to it, but I doubt such explicit material is appropriate here when other explicit material is blocked. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
::::It would be no worse than the references to @n@l $ex found [[homosexuality|here]], which I have complained about in that talk page.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:10, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

When you read an article about a perversion, you expect to see references to gross or raunchy stuff. Not when you are reading the biography of a respected adult. Clinton and Limbaugh are respected adults (okay, maybe only liberals respect Clinton). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: The Oxycontin story is significant, but the other stuff is just stupid trivia. It is not a scandal just because someone criticizes him. Rush says controversial stuff every day. I say it should be deleted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::Removed all but the pain-killer story. If we report every unkind remark made by politicians and pundits, we'll be swamped in gossip. Better to talk about the things he repeatedly says, like ''feminazi'' or ''talent on loan from God''.

::I don't really want to explain to my kids what a semen-stained dress is, or what Clinton and his girl intern were doing with a cigar. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Me either, and thanks to you and RSchlafly for making the right decision on how to improve this article.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::At the very least, Limbaugh’s repeated comments condemning illegal drug users should be restored to the Oxicoton controversy—otherwise it lacks context. It was the hypocrisy of doing what he had soundly condemned that made this scandal so big.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::The Viagra stuff is also a legitimate scandal—it involves illegal drug use just like the other one—and it is all the more relevant as it follows the Oxycontin scandal (illegal drug use after illegal drug use after criticizing illegal drug use is legitimate information). As far as the other two “Controversies” go—Allegedly attacking a 13 year-old child for who her parents are says as much about who Rush is perceived to be as the fact there is a newsletter named after him, and is relevant to understanding both why he and why talk radio are so controversial—the Michael J. Fox thing is probably relevant as the most recent time Rush made the national news (it was all over CNN, over and over and over again—in a very boring and monotonous way, but in a way that made national headlines that his other controversial statements don’t).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:34, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservapedia is not a forum for liberals to attack people they don't like with rumors and innuendo. Viagra is not an illegal drug, and Limbaugh was never arrested for being in possession of it. If you want to be a scandalmonger, feel free to take it to Wikipedia where it belongs.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Utilizing a prescription not made out to you is a crime—hard to prove, so no arrest, but, I think, relevant given his past drug abuse. I’d be happy to discuss the merits of my position with you, but if you insist on descending to ad hominem attacks, I fear that will be impossible.
::::My objection to Rush, by the way, is not a “liberal” one, I think he makes conservatives sound like school-yard bullies—and no one (or very few people) would vote for the school-yard bully—if I was a “liberal” I would love Rush the same way that most conservatives I know love [[Michael Moore]] (he makes liberals look so bad that it is easier to convince undecided voters).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not a scandal that Rush makes fun of people. Do you ever listen to his show? He makes fun of people a lot. I did revised the oxycontin paragraph. We really don't know that anyone did anything illegal, except that his housekeeper got immunity for something. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:58, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, I think there is a difference between making fun of politicians and a 13-year old child, but if you don’t that’s fine. (I don’t listen to his show anymore, because I find his “humor” offensive, and counter-productive.) What about the Viagra and the Michael J. Fox things? Also, the revised section on painkillers is, currently, miss-sourced. The link goes to the transcript of Rush’s admission that he had been abusing pain-killers which doesn’t support the vast majority of the claims in the paragraph it is currently the reference for (in fact most of the events in the paragraph it is the reference for occurred after the statement was made).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that it is tacky to make fun of a 13-year-old, but not a scandal. Viagra and Fox? Not scandals at all. Who cares? I wrote the painkiller stuff largely on memory. If I got anything wrong, please correct it. I didn't like the earlier text that implied that Rush had hired someone to buy illegal drugs for him. The charges were dropped. The prosecutor claimed to want to get him for "doctor shopping" anyway, and different offense. The prosecution appeared to be politically motivated to me. But I left that out. Try to stick to the facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:47, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::It all seems politically motived to me, except the inconsistency about the prescription pain-killers. Wikipedia recently beefed up their standards on "how much you can attack a public figure" in a biography article.

::Basically, people attack your character when they run out of ways to respond to your ideas. It's like an [[ad hominem]] argument. He insulted a kid, so his critique of feminism must be wrong. Should we attack Clinton's senate votes on the grounds that she abused FBI files or (may have) covered up the death of [[Vince Foster]]? I'd rather not.

::We should present verifiable (reliable) information about the careers and viewpoints of public figures. Well, that's only my opinion - I'm the new guy around here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I guess I’m not seeing the same distinction you are—I’m more than willing to concede the point, but I’d like it if there could be clearer guidance on what counts as a “scandal” and what is “just gossip”. (I wouldn’t have bothered to defend the inclusion of these scandals for nearly as long as I have were I not concerned that their removal as “gossip” would get the people who added them (and I am one of those people) labeled as a violator of the [[Conservipedia Commandments]], or just as too liberal, and then banned—my inclusion of the Viagra information was (I assure you) in good faith, but, apparently, I was adding gossip— clarity is much needed here and would be much appreciated).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:32, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Nobel Peace Prize nomination? ==

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/nomination_facts.html says:

:*Can I nominate someone for the Nobel Prize?

::If you are not invited you cannot nominate.

:*Has X been nominated as a candidate for the Nobel Prize?

::Information about the nominations, investigations, and opinions concerning the award is kept secret for fifty years.

:*What about the rumours circling around the world about certain people being nominated for the Nobel Prize this year?

::Well, either it's just a rumour, or someone among the invited nominators has leaked information. Since the nominations are kept secret for 50 years, you'll have to wait until then to find out.

Although the Landmark Legal Foundation issued a [http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-01-2007/0004518421&EDATE press release] giving the text of a letter offering Limbaugh's name as an "unsolicited nomination," it does not give any evidence whatsoever that the Foundation, or Mark R. Levin, was invited to make any such nomination. If there was no invitation, there was no nomination. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

P. S. Personally, I think Levin's use of the word "unsolicited" strongly suggests that he is not an invited nominator. The Nobel Foundation has a list of [http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/nominators.html qualifications for nominators], and the only one I can see him as meeting as "directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes."

I think it's a (successful) publicity stunt to counter the (equally baseless) rumors that Al Gore has been nominated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

P. P. S. Google News search on [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Rush_Limbaugh&action=edit&section=8 limbaugh nobel peace prize] only turns up four hits, none of them looking to me like a genuine news story. Two are from Rush Limbaugh's own website, one is about a (phony) "nomination" of Muhammed Ali, and one rambling essay that touches on Gore's rumored nomination and also mention Rush Limbaugh (not Limbaugh's nomination, just Limbaugh) separately many paragraph's later. '''If''' someone can find evidence that anything resembling a news source has reported this, a line could be added to the effect that "News sources have reported that 'Rush Limbaugh was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.'" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Rush's "Nobel nomination" was by Mark R. Levin, aka F. Lee Levin ( who is a Limbaugh flunky ).

::If we include his <ahem> "nomination" we should also include Elvis' FBI badge. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:50, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Help! ==

<s>I tried to undo vandalism, but it was spread across two edits. Someone please revert!--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 13:59, 17 July 2007 (EDT)</s>
:Nevermind. I got it.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 14:03, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Rush Limbaugh

2007-07-17T18:03:06Z

Autofire372:

Rush _was_ caught illegally scoring painkillers. Should we leave that out just because it 'looks bad'? Truth is truth, even when it's ugly. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: It's gossip. It's not educational. We're not Wikipedia where nearly every entry has some gossip in it. Feel free to see what other editors think, but that's my view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've got to wonder where the line is drawn for this. This site still needs so many fundamental topics covered, but since January there's been an article on Chappaquiddick. Still, CP doesn't want to include the dirty bits of people's biographies? Hunh.

::And before you say it, I'm no Ted Kennedy fan (if I had a vote in MA. I doubt I'd have ever voted for him), but I just about lost it when "Random page" led me that article. Where are the priorities? :p Anyway, the "gossip" argument doesn't hold much weight imo. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not gossip, it is part of his biograpghy. ref <http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/10/rush.limbaugh/>

Yes, but it makes him look bad, therefore it lacks sufficient truthiness to be posted here. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:28, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I would say it can be mentioned only because he talked often about illegal drug users on his show, so the irony is rather large. Also, it was in the news extensively. BUT, it needs to be dealt with factually, not emotionally from either side.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== First source ==

Could somebody tell me how the first source backs the statement? I couldn't find any mention of "Limbaugh" or "Franken" on that page... I left it in because I didn't dive deeper into the thread, but a quick explanation would be appreciated :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought it was Bill O'Rielly and Al Franken that clashed constantly?

==On painkillers==
Limbaugh himself admitted doing it, so it's not gossip. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Parkinson's ==

The previous editor said that Fox's jerking actions were the results of his medication, not his disease. However, the citation itself says the exact opposite, stating that Fox often goes '''off''' of his medicine to make the symptoms more pronounced. Any assertion to the contrary of would need a new cite, one strong enough to disprove the citation offered (USA Today), common knowledge, and medical journals.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:For what it is worth, my grandfather suffered from Parkinson's. The shaking occurs because of the disease, not the medication.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::Absolutely, that's true. But Rush didn't know it, and claimed that Fox was faking the shaking by taking his medication. Completely wrong, and completely vile. - [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Denounced as a Witch? ==

Can anyone verify that? Took it out until someone can.

== Trivia ==

I removed the unsourced trivia (deaf in left ear, six toes, three divorces). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 08:14, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: I agree with this removal. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 10:16, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Illegally" ==
It is a descriptive term—not a legal claim. For example, the article on Hitler says he “murdered” 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, should that be deleted because Hitler was never arrested? Or tried for murder? Likewise, in the Clinton article says he “committed perjury”, but Clinton was never arrested or tried for perjury (He was Impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors” but not convicted), should that be deleted? Of course not, nether should be deleted, the claims describe the facts not the legal situation. Here, what Rush did was illegal, though he was never charged—I see no reason to omit that fact.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:49, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

: It is libel to say that someone committed a crime, when he was never convicted. Yes, those other pages should be fixed. Hitler is dead, and cannot sue. The Clinton page is wrong. Clinton was accused, but acquitted by the Senate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:27, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I disagree with your reading of libel law—it’s only libel (since we are talking about a public figure) if the person making the statement can be shown to know it was false. But, that aside, if you honestly believe the position you are advancing here, I have pointed out two major changes that need to be made and I urge you to do so (I will refrain from doing so, since I am not yet convinced by your position)—if your position is correct then there should be no major backlash.
::I maintain that, libel aside, if one breaks the law one has committed an illegal act, whether on not they were ever charged with a crime, and whether or not they are ever convicted. If that is correct, then the adjective belongs in the article, if it is not then it should be taken out of the article—I’ve yet to hear any argument that it is not correct. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Controversy section - how much should be kept or removed? ==
How is any of that information relevant or encyclopedic? I thought we were trying to avoid the gossip that is so prevelant on Wikipedia. I removed it, but some liberal agitator put it back almost immediately.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 16:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:See [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] scandals the political personality is known to have been involved in—not just rumored to have been involved in—are considered appropriate content. Here, Limbaugh is known to have been involved in all of these scandals and has given comments on them, so they are not simply gossip and are considered appropriate content.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::<s>Don't misquote: it says 'non-gossip scandals'.</s> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:14, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: "It's pure gossip. If I were to add a reference to a cigar in Clinton's article or Gore's son's pot arrest, you'd throw a fit and you know it.)" -- If Gore's son's arrest would be appropriate material, so would Bush twins being arrested for under age drinking[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBX/is_1_8/ai_78052874][http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1379000.stm]. Things the ''politician'' were involved in yes. Family members - no. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::So you would have no problem with me adding a cigar reference to Clinton's article?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Is that appropriately family friendly that should be read by a 12 year old? As it stands, the Starr report is blocked at the company I work at for "Erotica and Sex". I seem to recall that under the Communications Decency Act (granted, struck down) that the Starr report would have been considered an explicit document[http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=846]. Feel free to link to it, but I doubt such explicit material is appropriate here when other explicit material is blocked. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
::::It would be no worse than the references to @n@l $ex found [[homosexuality|here]], which I have complained about in that talk page.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:10, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

When you read an article about a perversion, you expect to see references to gross or raunchy stuff. Not when you are reading the biography of a respected adult. Clinton and Limbaugh are respected adults (okay, maybe only liberals respect Clinton). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: The Oxycontin story is significant, but the other stuff is just stupid trivia. It is not a scandal just because someone criticizes him. Rush says controversial stuff every day. I say it should be deleted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::Removed all but the pain-killer story. If we report every unkind remark made by politicians and pundits, we'll be swamped in gossip. Better to talk about the things he repeatedly says, like ''feminazi'' or ''talent on loan from God''.

::I don't really want to explain to my kids what a semen-stained dress is, or what Clinton and his girl intern were doing with a cigar. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Me either, and thanks to you and RSchlafly for making the right decision on how to improve this article.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::At the very least, Limbaugh’s repeated comments condemning illegal drug users should be restored to the Oxicoton controversy—otherwise it lacks context. It was the hypocrisy of doing what he had soundly condemned that made this scandal so big.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::The Viagra stuff is also a legitimate scandal—it involves illegal drug use just like the other one—and it is all the more relevant as it follows the Oxycontin scandal (illegal drug use after illegal drug use after criticizing illegal drug use is legitimate information). As far as the other two “Controversies” go—Allegedly attacking a 13 year-old child for who her parents are says as much about who Rush is perceived to be as the fact there is a newsletter named after him, and is relevant to understanding both why he and why talk radio are so controversial—the Michael J. Fox thing is probably relevant as the most recent time Rush made the national news (it was all over CNN, over and over and over again—in a very boring and monotonous way, but in a way that made national headlines that his other controversial statements don’t).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:34, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservapedia is not a forum for liberals to attack people they don't like with rumors and innuendo. Viagra is not an illegal drug, and Limbaugh was never arrested for being in possession of it. If you want to be a scandalmonger, feel free to take it to Wikipedia where it belongs.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Utilizing a prescription not made out to you is a crime—hard to prove, so no arrest, but, I think, relevant given his past drug abuse. I’d be happy to discuss the merits of my position with you, but if you insist on descending to ad hominem attacks, I fear that will be impossible.
::::My objection to Rush, by the way, is not a “liberal” one, I think he makes conservatives sound like school-yard bullies—and no one (or very few people) would vote for the school-yard bully—if I was a “liberal” I would love Rush the same way that most conservatives I know love [[Michael Moore]] (he makes liberals look so bad that it is easier to convince undecided voters).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not a scandal that Rush makes fun of people. Do you ever listen to his show? He makes fun of people a lot. I did revised the oxycontin paragraph. We really don't know that anyone did anything illegal, except that his housekeeper got immunity for something. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:58, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, I think there is a difference between making fun of politicians and a 13-year old child, but if you don’t that’s fine. (I don’t listen to his show anymore, because I find his “humor” offensive, and counter-productive.) What about the Viagra and the Michael J. Fox things? Also, the revised section on painkillers is, currently, miss-sourced. The link goes to the transcript of Rush’s admission that he had been abusing pain-killers which doesn’t support the vast majority of the claims in the paragraph it is currently the reference for (in fact most of the events in the paragraph it is the reference for occurred after the statement was made).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that it is tacky to make fun of a 13-year-old, but not a scandal. Viagra and Fox? Not scandals at all. Who cares? I wrote the painkiller stuff largely on memory. If I got anything wrong, please correct it. I didn't like the earlier text that implied that Rush had hired someone to buy illegal drugs for him. The charges were dropped. The prosecutor claimed to want to get him for "doctor shopping" anyway, and different offense. The prosecution appeared to be politically motivated to me. But I left that out. Try to stick to the facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:47, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::It all seems politically motived to me, except the inconsistency about the prescription pain-killers. Wikipedia recently beefed up their standards on "how much you can attack a public figure" in a biography article.

::Basically, people attack your character when they run out of ways to respond to your ideas. It's like an [[ad hominem]] argument. He insulted a kid, so his critique of feminism must be wrong. Should we attack Clinton's senate votes on the grounds that she abused FBI files or (may have) covered up the death of [[Vince Foster]]? I'd rather not.

::We should present verifiable (reliable) information about the careers and viewpoints of public figures. Well, that's only my opinion - I'm the new guy around here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I guess I’m not seeing the same distinction you are—I’m more than willing to concede the point, but I’d like it if there could be clearer guidance on what counts as a “scandal” and what is “just gossip”. (I wouldn’t have bothered to defend the inclusion of these scandals for nearly as long as I have were I not concerned that their removal as “gossip” would get the people who added them (and I am one of those people) labeled as a violator of the [[Conservipedia Commandments]], or just as too liberal, and then banned—my inclusion of the Viagra information was (I assure you) in good faith, but, apparently, I was adding gossip— clarity is much needed here and would be much appreciated).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:32, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Nobel Peace Prize nomination? ==

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/nomination_facts.html says:

:*Can I nominate someone for the Nobel Prize?

::If you are not invited you cannot nominate.

:*Has X been nominated as a candidate for the Nobel Prize?

::Information about the nominations, investigations, and opinions concerning the award is kept secret for fifty years.

:*What about the rumours circling around the world about certain people being nominated for the Nobel Prize this year?

::Well, either it's just a rumour, or someone among the invited nominators has leaked information. Since the nominations are kept secret for 50 years, you'll have to wait until then to find out.

Although the Landmark Legal Foundation issued a [http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-01-2007/0004518421&EDATE press release] giving the text of a letter offering Limbaugh's name as an "unsolicited nomination," it does not give any evidence whatsoever that the Foundation, or Mark R. Levin, was invited to make any such nomination. If there was no invitation, there was no nomination. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

P. S. Personally, I think Levin's use of the word "unsolicited" strongly suggests that he is not an invited nominator. The Nobel Foundation has a list of [http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/nominators.html qualifications for nominators], and the only one I can see him as meeting as "directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes."

I think it's a (successful) publicity stunt to counter the (equally baseless) rumors that Al Gore has been nominated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

P. P. S. Google News search on [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Rush_Limbaugh&action=edit&section=8 limbaugh nobel peace prize] only turns up four hits, none of them looking to me like a genuine news story. Two are from Rush Limbaugh's own website, one is about a (phony) "nomination" of Muhammed Ali, and one rambling essay that touches on Gore's rumored nomination and also mention Rush Limbaugh (not Limbaugh's nomination, just Limbaugh) separately many paragraph's later. '''If''' someone can find evidence that anything resembling a news source has reported this, a line could be added to the effect that "News sources have reported that 'Rush Limbaugh was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.'" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Rush's "Nobel nomination" was by Mark R. Levin, aka F. Lee Levin ( who is a Limbaugh flunky ).

::If we include his <ahem> "nomination" we should also include Elvis' FBI badge. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:50, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Help! ==

I tried to undo vandalism, but it was spread across two edits. Someone please revert!--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 13:59, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
:Nevermind. I got it.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 14:03, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Rush Limbaugh

2007-07-17T18:02:33Z

Autofire372: Fixed vandalism

'''Rush Limbaugh''' (born January 12, 1951) is a [[conservative]] [[United States of America|American]] radio talk show host.
[[Image:Limbaugh.jpg|thumb|right|Rush Limbaugh]]

== Radio ==

Limbaugh, who hosts a radio show famed for its blustery denunciations of anything [[liberal]]. He is often at odds with [[liberal]] activist [[Al Franken]]<ref>[http://fireside.designcommunity.com/topic-9993.html Forum thread] discussing a NYT Editorial</ref>. He habitually refers to [[feminists]] who support [[abortion]] as ''feminazis'' and to his own self as "talent on loan from God".

Limbaugh's style has been credited with "reviving AM radio in the United States, and is considered by many to have been a catalyst for the [[Republican Party]]'s 1994 Congressional victories"<ref>[http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10813FA3B5D0C708EDDAB0894DE494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fL%2fLimbaugh%2c%20Rush Radio Talk Show Host Fears For True Conservatism's Fate], New York Times</ref>.
Rush's conservative talk show is nationally syndicated and averages over 13.5 million listeners weekly, making Rush the '#1 Radio Talk Show Host'.<ref>
[http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34 The Top Talk Radio Audiences] Tallkers magazine online</ref>

On October 6, 2003 Limbaugh told his audience he was addicted to OxyContin and other painkillers citing a failed back surgery as the cause of his pain and subsequent dependence. <ref>The Rush Limbaugh Show, October 6, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/10/rush.limbaugh/ "Limbaugh admits addiction to pain medication"</ref> Limbaugh underwent treatment for his addiction, and charges against him for alleged "doctor shopping" to procure prescription medications were dropped on the condition that he continue treatment for his addiction.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/28/national/main1561324.shtml</ref>

== Other Media Work ==

The Limbaugh Letter is a monthly publication that contains conservative articles and humor in Rush's style.

Limbaugh is involved in the conservative satire show "The 1/2 Hour News Hour" show on the [[Fox News Channel]]. <ref>
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021602098.html Fox News Channel's '1/2 Hour News Hour': Right Funny, in Spots] washingtonpost.com</ref>

Limbaugh briefly held a position as a commentator on ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown pre-game show. He resigned from the show on October 2, 2006 after criticism of his statement that Philadelphia Eagles quaterback Donovan McNabb was overrated because the media wanted to see a black NFL player succeed.<ref>http://espn.go.com/gen/news/2003/1001/1628537.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html Official Rush Limbaugh website]
{{DEFAULTSORT: Limbaugh, Rush}}
[[Category:Broadcasters]]

Talk:Rush Limbaugh

2007-07-17T17:59:32Z

Autofire372: Help!

Rush _was_ caught illegally scoring painkillers. Should we leave that out just because it 'looks bad'? Truth is truth, even when it's ugly. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: It's gossip. It's not educational. We're not Wikipedia where nearly every entry has some gossip in it. Feel free to see what other editors think, but that's my view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've got to wonder where the line is drawn for this. This site still needs so many fundamental topics covered, but since January there's been an article on Chappaquiddick. Still, CP doesn't want to include the dirty bits of people's biographies? Hunh.

::And before you say it, I'm no Ted Kennedy fan (if I had a vote in MA. I doubt I'd have ever voted for him), but I just about lost it when "Random page" led me that article. Where are the priorities? :p Anyway, the "gossip" argument doesn't hold much weight imo. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not gossip, it is part of his biograpghy. ref <http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/10/rush.limbaugh/>

Yes, but it makes him look bad, therefore it lacks sufficient truthiness to be posted here. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:28, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I would say it can be mentioned only because he talked often about illegal drug users on his show, so the irony is rather large. Also, it was in the news extensively. BUT, it needs to be dealt with factually, not emotionally from either side.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== First source ==

Could somebody tell me how the first source backs the statement? I couldn't find any mention of "Limbaugh" or "Franken" on that page... I left it in because I didn't dive deeper into the thread, but a quick explanation would be appreciated :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought it was Bill O'Rielly and Al Franken that clashed constantly?

==On painkillers==
Limbaugh himself admitted doing it, so it's not gossip. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Parkinson's ==

The previous editor said that Fox's jerking actions were the results of his medication, not his disease. However, the citation itself says the exact opposite, stating that Fox often goes '''off''' of his medicine to make the symptoms more pronounced. Any assertion to the contrary of would need a new cite, one strong enough to disprove the citation offered (USA Today), common knowledge, and medical journals.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:For what it is worth, my grandfather suffered from Parkinson's. The shaking occurs because of the disease, not the medication.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::Absolutely, that's true. But Rush didn't know it, and claimed that Fox was faking the shaking by taking his medication. Completely wrong, and completely vile. - [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Denounced as a Witch? ==

Can anyone verify that? Took it out until someone can.

== Trivia ==

I removed the unsourced trivia (deaf in left ear, six toes, three divorces). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 08:14, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: I agree with this removal. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 10:16, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Illegally" ==
It is a descriptive term—not a legal claim. For example, the article on Hitler says he “murdered” 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, should that be deleted because Hitler was never arrested? Or tried for murder? Likewise, in the Clinton article says he “committed perjury”, but Clinton was never arrested or tried for perjury (He was Impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors” but not convicted), should that be deleted? Of course not, nether should be deleted, the claims describe the facts not the legal situation. Here, what Rush did was illegal, though he was never charged—I see no reason to omit that fact.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:49, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

: It is libel to say that someone committed a crime, when he was never convicted. Yes, those other pages should be fixed. Hitler is dead, and cannot sue. The Clinton page is wrong. Clinton was accused, but acquitted by the Senate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:27, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I disagree with your reading of libel law—it’s only libel (since we are talking about a public figure) if the person making the statement can be shown to know it was false. But, that aside, if you honestly believe the position you are advancing here, I have pointed out two major changes that need to be made and I urge you to do so (I will refrain from doing so, since I am not yet convinced by your position)—if your position is correct then there should be no major backlash.
::I maintain that, libel aside, if one breaks the law one has committed an illegal act, whether on not they were ever charged with a crime, and whether or not they are ever convicted. If that is correct, then the adjective belongs in the article, if it is not then it should be taken out of the article—I’ve yet to hear any argument that it is not correct. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Controversy section - how much should be kept or removed? ==
How is any of that information relevant or encyclopedic? I thought we were trying to avoid the gossip that is so prevelant on Wikipedia. I removed it, but some liberal agitator put it back almost immediately.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 16:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:See [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] scandals the political personality is known to have been involved in—not just rumored to have been involved in—are considered appropriate content. Here, Limbaugh is known to have been involved in all of these scandals and has given comments on them, so they are not simply gossip and are considered appropriate content.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::<s>Don't misquote: it says 'non-gossip scandals'.</s> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:14, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: "It's pure gossip. If I were to add a reference to a cigar in Clinton's article or Gore's son's pot arrest, you'd throw a fit and you know it.)" -- If Gore's son's arrest would be appropriate material, so would Bush twins being arrested for under age drinking[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBX/is_1_8/ai_78052874][http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1379000.stm]. Things the ''politician'' were involved in yes. Family members - no. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::So you would have no problem with me adding a cigar reference to Clinton's article?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Is that appropriately family friendly that should be read by a 12 year old? As it stands, the Starr report is blocked at the company I work at for "Erotica and Sex". I seem to recall that under the Communications Decency Act (granted, struck down) that the Starr report would have been considered an explicit document[http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=846]. Feel free to link to it, but I doubt such explicit material is appropriate here when other explicit material is blocked. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
::::It would be no worse than the references to @n@l $ex found [[homosexuality|here]], which I have complained about in that talk page.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:10, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

When you read an article about a perversion, you expect to see references to gross or raunchy stuff. Not when you are reading the biography of a respected adult. Clinton and Limbaugh are respected adults (okay, maybe only liberals respect Clinton). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: The Oxycontin story is significant, but the other stuff is just stupid trivia. It is not a scandal just because someone criticizes him. Rush says controversial stuff every day. I say it should be deleted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::Removed all but the pain-killer story. If we report every unkind remark made by politicians and pundits, we'll be swamped in gossip. Better to talk about the things he repeatedly says, like ''feminazi'' or ''talent on loan from God''.

::I don't really want to explain to my kids what a semen-stained dress is, or what Clinton and his girl intern were doing with a cigar. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Me either, and thanks to you and RSchlafly for making the right decision on how to improve this article.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::At the very least, Limbaugh’s repeated comments condemning illegal drug users should be restored to the Oxicoton controversy—otherwise it lacks context. It was the hypocrisy of doing what he had soundly condemned that made this scandal so big.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::The Viagra stuff is also a legitimate scandal—it involves illegal drug use just like the other one—and it is all the more relevant as it follows the Oxycontin scandal (illegal drug use after illegal drug use after criticizing illegal drug use is legitimate information). As far as the other two “Controversies” go—Allegedly attacking a 13 year-old child for who her parents are says as much about who Rush is perceived to be as the fact there is a newsletter named after him, and is relevant to understanding both why he and why talk radio are so controversial—the Michael J. Fox thing is probably relevant as the most recent time Rush made the national news (it was all over CNN, over and over and over again—in a very boring and monotonous way, but in a way that made national headlines that his other controversial statements don’t).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:34, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservapedia is not a forum for liberals to attack people they don't like with rumors and innuendo. Viagra is not an illegal drug, and Limbaugh was never arrested for being in possession of it. If you want to be a scandalmonger, feel free to take it to Wikipedia where it belongs.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Utilizing a prescription not made out to you is a crime—hard to prove, so no arrest, but, I think, relevant given his past drug abuse. I’d be happy to discuss the merits of my position with you, but if you insist on descending to ad hominem attacks, I fear that will be impossible.
::::My objection to Rush, by the way, is not a “liberal” one, I think he makes conservatives sound like school-yard bullies—and no one (or very few people) would vote for the school-yard bully—if I was a “liberal” I would love Rush the same way that most conservatives I know love [[Michael Moore]] (he makes liberals look so bad that it is easier to convince undecided voters).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not a scandal that Rush makes fun of people. Do you ever listen to his show? He makes fun of people a lot. I did revised the oxycontin paragraph. We really don't know that anyone did anything illegal, except that his housekeeper got immunity for something. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:58, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, I think there is a difference between making fun of politicians and a 13-year old child, but if you don’t that’s fine. (I don’t listen to his show anymore, because I find his “humor” offensive, and counter-productive.) What about the Viagra and the Michael J. Fox things? Also, the revised section on painkillers is, currently, miss-sourced. The link goes to the transcript of Rush’s admission that he had been abusing pain-killers which doesn’t support the vast majority of the claims in the paragraph it is currently the reference for (in fact most of the events in the paragraph it is the reference for occurred after the statement was made).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that it is tacky to make fun of a 13-year-old, but not a scandal. Viagra and Fox? Not scandals at all. Who cares? I wrote the painkiller stuff largely on memory. If I got anything wrong, please correct it. I didn't like the earlier text that implied that Rush had hired someone to buy illegal drugs for him. The charges were dropped. The prosecutor claimed to want to get him for "doctor shopping" anyway, and different offense. The prosecution appeared to be politically motivated to me. But I left that out. Try to stick to the facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:47, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::It all seems politically motived to me, except the inconsistency about the prescription pain-killers. Wikipedia recently beefed up their standards on "how much you can attack a public figure" in a biography article.

::Basically, people attack your character when they run out of ways to respond to your ideas. It's like an [[ad hominem]] argument. He insulted a kid, so his critique of feminism must be wrong. Should we attack Clinton's senate votes on the grounds that she abused FBI files or (may have) covered up the death of [[Vince Foster]]? I'd rather not.

::We should present verifiable (reliable) information about the careers and viewpoints of public figures. Well, that's only my opinion - I'm the new guy around here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I guess I’m not seeing the same distinction you are—I’m more than willing to concede the point, but I’d like it if there could be clearer guidance on what counts as a “scandal” and what is “just gossip”. (I wouldn’t have bothered to defend the inclusion of these scandals for nearly as long as I have were I not concerned that their removal as “gossip” would get the people who added them (and I am one of those people) labeled as a violator of the [[Conservipedia Commandments]], or just as too liberal, and then banned—my inclusion of the Viagra information was (I assure you) in good faith, but, apparently, I was adding gossip— clarity is much needed here and would be much appreciated).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:32, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Nobel Peace Prize nomination? ==

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/nomination_facts.html says:

:*Can I nominate someone for the Nobel Prize?

::If you are not invited you cannot nominate.

:*Has X been nominated as a candidate for the Nobel Prize?

::Information about the nominations, investigations, and opinions concerning the award is kept secret for fifty years.

:*What about the rumours circling around the world about certain people being nominated for the Nobel Prize this year?

::Well, either it's just a rumour, or someone among the invited nominators has leaked information. Since the nominations are kept secret for 50 years, you'll have to wait until then to find out.

Although the Landmark Legal Foundation issued a [http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-01-2007/0004518421&EDATE press release] giving the text of a letter offering Limbaugh's name as an "unsolicited nomination," it does not give any evidence whatsoever that the Foundation, or Mark R. Levin, was invited to make any such nomination. If there was no invitation, there was no nomination. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

P. S. Personally, I think Levin's use of the word "unsolicited" strongly suggests that he is not an invited nominator. The Nobel Foundation has a list of [http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/nominators.html qualifications for nominators], and the only one I can see him as meeting as "directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes."

I think it's a (successful) publicity stunt to counter the (equally baseless) rumors that Al Gore has been nominated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

P. P. S. Google News search on [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Rush_Limbaugh&action=edit&section=8 limbaugh nobel peace prize] only turns up four hits, none of them looking to me like a genuine news story. Two are from Rush Limbaugh's own website, one is about a (phony) "nomination" of Muhammed Ali, and one rambling essay that touches on Gore's rumored nomination and also mention Rush Limbaugh (not Limbaugh's nomination, just Limbaugh) separately many paragraph's later. '''If''' someone can find evidence that anything resembling a news source has reported this, a line could be added to the effect that "News sources have reported that 'Rush Limbaugh was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.'" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Rush's "Nobel nomination" was by Mark R. Levin, aka F. Lee Levin ( who is a Limbaugh flunky ).

::If we include his <ahem> "nomination" we should also include Elvis' FBI badge. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:50, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Help! ==

I tried to undo vandalism, but it was spread across two edits. Someone please revert!--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 13:59, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Rush Limbaugh

2007-07-17T17:56:32Z

Autofire372: Undo revision 237978 by Special:Contributions/Kman628 (User talk:Kman628)

'''Rush Limbaugh''' (born January 12, 1951) is a [[conservative]] [[United States of America|American]] radio talk show host.
[[Image:Limbaugh.jpg|thumb|right|Rush Limbaugh]]

== Radio ==

Limbaugh is a homosexual who hosts a radio show famed for its blustery denunciations of anything [[liberal]]. He is often at odds with [[liberal]] activist [[Al Franken]]<ref>[http://fireside.designcommunity.com/topic-9993.html Forum thread] discussing a NYT Editorial</ref>. He habitually refers to [[feminists]] who support [[abortion]] as ''feminazis'' and to his own self as "talent on loan from God".

Limbaugh's style has been credited with "reviving AM radio in the United States, and is considered by many to have been a catalyst for the [[Republican Party]]'s 1994 Congressional victories"<ref>[http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10813FA3B5D0C708EDDAB0894DE494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fL%2fLimbaugh%2c%20Rush Radio Talk Show Host Fears For True Conservatism's Fate], New York Times</ref>.
Rush's conservative talk show is nationally syndicated and averages over 13.5 million listeners weekly, making Rush the '#1 Radio Talk Show Host'.<ref>
[http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34 The Top Talk Radio Audiences] Tallkers magazine online</ref>

On October 6, 2003 Limbaugh told his audience he was addicted to OxyContin and other painkillers citing a failed back surgery as the cause of his pain and subsequent dependence. <ref>The Rush Limbaugh Show, October 6, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/10/rush.limbaugh/ "Limbaugh admits addiction to pain medication"</ref> Limbaugh underwent treatment for his addiction, and charges against him for alleged "doctor shopping" to procure prescription medications were dropped on the condition that he continue treatment for his addiction.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/28/national/main1561324.shtml</ref>

== Other Media Work ==

The Limbaugh Letter is a monthly publication that contains conservative articles and humor in Rush's style.

Limbaugh is involved in the conservative satire show "The 1/2 Hour News Hour" show on the [[Fox News Channel]]. <ref>
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021602098.html Fox News Channel's '1/2 Hour News Hour': Right Funny, in Spots] washingtonpost.com</ref>

Limbaugh briefly held a position as a commentator on ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown pre-game show. He resigned from the show on October 2, 2006 after criticism of his statement that Philadelphia Eagles quaterback Donovan McNabb was overrated because the media wanted to see a black NFL player succeed.<ref>http://espn.go.com/gen/news/2003/1001/1628537.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html Official Rush Limbaugh website]
{{DEFAULTSORT: Limbaugh, Rush}}
[[Category:Broadcasters]]

Benito Mussolini

2007-07-16T02:15:17Z

Autofire372: Undo revision 234783 by Special:Contributions/Lenerd (User talk:Lenerd)

'''Benito Andrea Amilcare Mussolini''' was a journalist and politician from [[Italy]]. Self-proclaimed "socialist heretic", he was nominated prime minister by Vittorio Emanuele III di Savoia, King of Italy, in the time of [[World War II]]. He was head of one of the strong forms of government seen in Europe in this time. He created the political structure Fasci Italiani di Combatimento, which is what later would be known as [[Fascism]], a term which was later used to describe the merging of government and corporation.
{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Mussolini.gif|150px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: red no-repeat scroll top left;"|Benito Mussolini
|-
|Born
|July 29, 1883
|-
|Died
|April 28, 1945
|-
|}

==Early Life==

Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini was born July 29, 1883 and died April 28, 1945. Mussolini was born in the north Italian town of Pergine Valsugana in the northern Italian province of Trento. His father was a cobbler and his mother a washerwoman. The Mussolinis were a relatively poor family in comparison with the majority of the neighbours and it is believed that Mussolini was ridiculed by his peers at La scuola elementare di Valsugana due to his shabby clothes and dirty appearance. Many historians attribute Mussolini's aggressive nature. His father was an socialist and raised Mussolini as a socialist. He was named after Benito Juarez (Mexican President). At the age of 12 Benito was sent to an Italian Military academy in Turin where he completed his secondary education. Mussolini graduated from school in 1901 and then went on to study at L'Università di Roma where he completed a degree in Social Sciences. It was during his university days that Mussolini first became exposed to politics. It is reported that Mussolini would spend long afternoons in the university library reading the memoirs of various European kings and other books about political ideologies. At one time he was the editor of "Avanti" (a self declared socialist paper).

==Break with Socialism==

He graudally began to have a falling out with his fellow socialists. His final break with socialism came during World War 1, since he changed his former position of neutrality and supported Italy's involvement in the war. He then grew to despise socialism.
By February 1918, he was calling for the emergence of a leader "ruthless and energetic enough to make a clean sweep." In May, he hinted in a speech in Bologna that he might be that leader.

==Rise to Power==

In 1923 after rising through the ranks Mussolini became the elected member for Tuscany in Italian Parliament. In 1927 he took over from Mario Felloni as the leader of Cullo Cappelli who were the opposition. Leading up to the 1928 election Mussolini began to begin his campaign. During this time Italy was in an economic slump and the Italian public were not satisfied with the president of the time, Francisco Delosini and his Treasurer Guido Michenelli's management of the federal budget. Mussolini preyed on this dissatisfaction and promised to eliminate all debt within the government. In 1922, Mussolini was invited by King Vittorio Emanuele III to form a new Italian government. A law passed on Christmas Eve 1925 changed Mussolini's title from "president of the Council of Ministers" (prime minister) to "head of the government." He was no longer responsible to Parliament, and could only be removed by the king.

==Alliance with Hitler==

In 1931 Mussolini first came into contact with [[Adolf Hitler]] at a European Leaders' convention and an alliance was formed. For the rest of the 1930's Mussolini began to recklessly spend Italy's money on obsolete arms which he planned to issue to the army if Hitler ever attempted to take over Europe.

==World War II==

In September 1939 when [[England]] and [[France]] declared war on [[Germany]] after they invaded [[Poland]]. Mussolini made the announcement that Italy would join Germany in the war effort against the allied forces. He waited however, until after France had surrendered before invading southern France and officially entering the war. During World War 2, he increased his military, limited free speech and pushed his political views on all of his country even more so.

===Mussolini Deposed===

When the [[Allies]] invaded the Italian island of [[Sicily]] in 1943, King [[Vittorio Emmanuel III]] panicked at the thought of an Allied invasion of the Italian mainland. He immediately stripped Mussolini of his power and ordered Mussolini to be arrested.

===Reinstatement===

He was rescued through covert operations by German special forces (most notably [[Otto Skorzeny]]) without a single casualty occuring during the rescue operation. Mussolini was then installed as the head of the German puppet state, Repubblica Sociale Italiana (RSI) based at Salo in northern Italy - hence its alternative name of the Salo Republic.

===Capture and Death===

He was later recaptured at the end of the war by partisans. He and his mistress were shot and hanged upside down.

==Family Members==

His legacy is continued by his neo-fascist granddaughter Alessandra Mussolini, who is a current member of the European Parliament. His daughter-in-law, Anna Maria Scicolone, was the sister of actress [[Sophia Loren]].

==See Also==
[[Margherita Grassini]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.nndb.com/people/468/000045333/ Benito Mussolini] NNDB.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Mussolini, Benito}}
[[Category:Heads of state]]
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Fascists]]
[[Category:Dictators]]

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2007-07-15T02:23:26Z

Autofire372:

{{debate}}

Since Conservapedia has been called unbalanced, I thought it would be good to start a discussion on this topic here in order to get a more varied opinion.{{Unsigned|Foo}}
:Well, that sounds fair.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It seems to be horribly biased toward protest-antism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 10:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

* I find this debate page to be rather humorous. Notice how many of the Yes responses are written by trolls to be intentionally inflammatory? Personally, I've found this type of stunt to be mostly a liberal preoccupation. You very seldom see conservatives pretend to be liberals to badmouth liberal ideology, but it appears to be a popular pastime among 'tolerant' liberal thinkers. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:47, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Wikipedia is anti-Christian and anti-American. We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out.
[[User:HarryPalms|HarryPalms]]
::How is saying that it's biased in the opposite way to something else evidence that it is "fair and balanced"? You seem to be admitting that it is in fact neither [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 16:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:How can Wikipedia have a liberal bias? Anyone can edit it and biased opinions are scrupulously edited out. Conservapedia is not based on the principles of balanced scrutiny or honesty like Wikipedia is; it is just a place where conservatives can blast their misinformed opinions at other conservatives. This is just like the pouty consevatives that run this country; if people dismiss their ridiculous anti-scientific, intolerant garbage, they whine about their critics being anti-Christian and go cry to the religious right. Can any one of you name even one example of Wikipedia being biased? (note that being secular and listening to opinions outside America is not bias!)

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''. Note: this unsigned opinion was provided by someone with common sense.

Obviously. This is an idea whose time has come. I, for one, am sick and tired of the liberal bias in the media and online in Wikipedia. This project is still young and the criticism and mockery of it by leftists in the blogosphere is getting old. I pledge as a new editor to do what I can to help make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia it is destined to become.

NOTE: The SHOUTER above me has commented in the wrong section so the opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. -- [[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

"We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out."
Fair and balanced? You've just indirecly admitted that you're saying two wrongs make a right. You cannot create a neutral opinion by balancing one biased opinion with another. HarryPalms, you are a shining example of how this site is far more guilty of the crimes you attribute to Wikipedia.
Also, if you read many (if not all) of the articles on Conservapedia, their first remarks are in some way tied to Christianity. That is probably the greatest possible bias you could create. It doesn't help that most Conservapedia articles on things such as Evolution and the Big Bang focus mostly on destroying belief in accepted theories, instead of creating new ones. Hmm... destroying, but creating nothing. That sounds more like Satan than any Antichrist conspiracy theory I've heard so far. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 16:54, 14 April 2007 (EDT)User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]

Conservapedia is fair; I have not read many articles, but I like what I have read. Wikipedia, on the other hand, makes you depressed whenever you read anything about Christians. Also, could you people sign your name? It is hard to see where one person's post begins and another ends. Thanks! [[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 20:14, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

==No==

The section named Economic Issues in the article on George W. Bush uses the example of Bush's economic success by stating, "For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well." So saying that a companies record profits brought in part due to record gas prices means that our economy is doing better? What about the fact that the Federal Reserve keeps raising interest rates to battle inflation and that people who purchased houses during the housing boom can't afford to keep their homes because of the rising interest rates? Or the fact that studies have shown that the gap between the upperclass and the lower class is growing while the middle class is being erroded away because of outsourcing? Or the fact that people in the U.S. continue to bury themselves in credit card debt and the lack of progress to ensure the future of Social Security. Also, there is growing concern over the over extension of credit that has been handed out, which is beginning to be considered comparable to what happened right before the stock market crash in 1929. Our economy is not doing any better and the United States keeps sticking thumbs in the holes of the dam instead of patching it up, if something isn't done soon, our country could suffer another economic crisis.

Also, in the article on the Patriot Act, it states that, "Despite the cries of liberal activist groups, such as the ACLU, there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act" What about all of the people being detained in Gitmo without the option of any sort of legal representation? Doesn't our constitution offer the right to a fair and speedy trial? Yet we have people being held in a military base in Cuba being robbed of those very rights because they aren't able to reach American soil to defend themselves in court. The Patriot Act is too powerful; what is going to stop a high ranking government official from abusing the Patriot Act in the future and throwing anyone they deem a "terrorist" or a "threat" into a military prison indefinately, just like Stalin did during the Great Purge?

There are many other articles that I've gone through that lean very heavily to the right, at some points going beyond conservative into ultra-conservative, and Bush Brand Conservative. And also, when did all conservatives become Christians? For a true balanced opinion there needs to be more imput from other conservatives from other religions and veiwpoints. Also, this site is heavily lacking compared to Wiki, for articles where Wiki has sufficient information this website has a 1 or 2 sentence summary. But thanks anyway for the entertaining reading this morning, I'll probably never return here unless I'm bored.

McCarthyism.........are you frightened yet?

{{unsigned|JesuswasaliberalJew}}

----

This is obviously a rebound to the free media of Wikipedia, and Conservatives are pissed off at Wiki because of it's librial articles.

For Example...

Here is a quote from the Conservapedia. "Sexual relations between the same sex is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. It is forbidden directly four times in the Bible." and "Studies have long indicated that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems (suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse)."

Here is the Wikipedia description...

"Homosexuality can refer to both sexual behavior and sexual attraction between people of the same gender or to a sexual orientation."

If conservapedia wants to be known has a fair and balenced Encyclopedia then make sure your not showing bias to one side of the spectrum.

P.S The look of the site is very very very similar to Wikipedia

Fair and balanced? Don't make me laugh!

Consider this entry under '[[Islam]]':

"[[Islam]] is the second largest religion in the world, with over 1.4 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to high birth rates in Muslim countries. Both Christian and Muslim sources agree that conversions to Christianity outnumber those to Islam"

The linked sources purporting to justfy that assertion are:

• on the Christian side, a website called 'World Christian Encyclopedia' — on a page fairly and objectively headed 'Muslim myths'

• on the Muslim side, an isolated Al Jezeera interview with one Sheikh Ahmad Al Katani, often jubilantly cited by Christian evangelists, which centres on Al Katani's statement that six milllion muslims convert to Christianity every year. This statement refers specifically to the situation in Africa and is given in the context of the speaker lamenting '''enforced Christianisation''' over a long period. As Al Katani says, "we are faced with the issue of taking advantage of circumstances, taking advantage of humanitarian needs, taking advantage of the lack of education for example, that these people (missionaries) use to take Muslims out of their religion".

This is followed by a section headed 'Ex-Muslims', which is nothing more than a plug for a linked anti-Islamic weblog.

Don't get me wrong. I'm going to enjoy Conservapedia. I have it bookmarked under 'Comedy'.

[[User:Bosatsu|Bosatsu]] 10:55, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

-------

I am a little concerned with the fact that conservapedia users, such as they may be, don't realize that if they feel something is biased in wikipedia that they too can change it. I find it a bit totalitarian that a number of entries on conservapedia are taken off and blocked, i.e. anything dealing with a sexual nature. While I agree that there are very biased articles in wikipedia, the beauty of the system is such that anyone can change an article. However, conservapedia deletes anything questionable.

Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid: can you give any examples of controversial articles that are locked??!! --[[User:Jlovesu|Jlovesu]] 12:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Theory of evolution]], [[Macroevolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Young Earth Creationism]]...are we seeing a pattern here, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:(Arr, edit-sniped by Tsumetai! But I'll post it anyway since it also shows some diffs that removed attempts at balance) Sure thing: [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Faith]], and that's without even checking the current Protection Log. The respective reverts that happened during the locking process: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=16289&oldid=16283 Theory of Evolution], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics&diff=17856&oldid=17260 Second Law of Thermodynamics], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=16062&oldid=15845 Faith]. Theory of Evolution effectively became [[User:Conservative|Conservative's]] article and quickly evolved (Ha!) into a lengthy rant against evolution and the scientific community. The Second Law of Thermodynamics currently states that it ''disproves evolution'', and the Faith article was linked to from the front page with the words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Newsline&diff=12709&oldid=11938 "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?"]. All articles are currently locked.
:::::- Oooh ooh... also [[Fox News]]
::It's worth noting that when this issue is raised with the admins, we're usually told that we can bring up any problems with the articles on their talk pages. Take a look at, say, the 2nd law talk page to see just how well that works. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As long as articles like the [[homosexual agenda]] page, and the [[Theory of Evolution]] page, and the [[abortion]] page exist, it will not be fair & balanced. As long as I'm prevented from correcting blatant factual or legal errors, allowing the admins to represent as "facts" erroneous statements as to evolution, etc., it will not be fair & balanced.

As for locked controversial articles, see any of the ones I noted above.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can you explain how a theory is a "fact"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Same way anything else is. Massive amounts of supporting evidence. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So then if a theory has facts to support it, it no longer is a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, theories remain theories regardless of how strongly supported they are. 'Theory' and 'fact' are not mutually exclusive categories. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course Conservapedia is biased, and it always will be. It's a conservative Christian encyclopedia, so many will see it as a silly joke, while others (the 45% who believe the universe is 14,000 years old) will take it seriously, a la FOX News. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This may come as a shock to many who peruse Conservapedia, but America is NOT the entire world. Most of the world doesn't even care what America thinks, and sees it largely as a joke. So citing the number of people in America who support literal biblical conservatism is silly, because even if it were all 300 million souls, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 17:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]]

Not a damn chance. This is the biggest joke I've seen in years.

Are you joking? The name itself betrays the fact that the site was deliberately set up to be biased. Pretending otherwise requires a tremendous effort of hypocrisy. [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 08:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

--
Its written by people of one political veiw and of one religion with very few sources, how can it possibly be unbiased. You only have to look at some of the articals to realise that, for example thier artical on the unicorn:

"Secular opinion is that they are mythical"

By secular you mean not christian i might point out, many other religions do not support the existance of unicorns.

The image shown in that article i believe you will find most experts (aka Paleobiologists, not biblical experts) would call a "triceratops," which fossil evidence has prooved pre-dates any known human existance, or infact any large primate existance.

your section under evolution "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms," dismisses some genetic possabilities that may explain the lack of transitional forms (for example polyploidy.) Also in the whole evolution article i could not see any quote which was pro evolution, weird since in my experiance most biologists DO believe in evolution.

Also "However, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age."

Show me one peice of evidence or even moderate SCIENTIFIC (that doesnt include the bible) argument for the universe being this young that isnt an absolute joke!! Also i may point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe and the earth to be of the same age.

Also in the "abortion" topic here i find a large section talking about large increases in risk of a woman getting breast cancer.

"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies"
boasting 1 reference

wikipedia:
"The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."
3 references from a respected journal.

Think point made?

Conservapedia isnt just unfair, unbalanced, biased, it is a complete joke!

Wikipedia on the other hand is often sourced and written by a large number of people of different opinions! (by the way the people: something not agreeing with you 100% does not count as biased)

Not only is conservapedia biased it lacks information. your article on genetics literally reads "The science that studies how characteristics get passed from parent to offspring." Personly i find most of your articles close to useless, especially on science.

Those are a few examples of articles here i believe to be very biased, im confident there are more. However some articles on here i was suprised to find were not as biased as the above, for example the Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views, in the big bang article.

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 19:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, it can't be Fair and Balanced [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_Balanced (R)]unless it's affiliated with News Corp. [[User:WikiG33K|WikiG33K]] 19:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This may not be the perfect forum for this, but I am not sure how to start a new thread..

Conservapedia claims that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the public at large. This is based on the % of self identifying Wikipedia contributors who claim to be liberal vs. the number in society in general.

There are two problems with this... This first is mathematical. If Wikipedia is Liberal 3:1 vs. Conservative that means 75% liberal vs. 25% conservative. If the public at large is 2:1 conservative (1:2) liberal, then 33% of the population is liberal and 67% is conservative. The difference between 75% liberal and 33% liberal is not factor of six, in fact it's less than 3...

Second problem, identifying the personal beliefs of a person does not measure the amount of bias they introduce. If a hard core prius driving Susan Sarandon fan writes a Wikipedia entry on The Napa Valley and describes the location, geography, climate, and history accurately, where is the bias? Everyone has a personal political stance left, right or somewhere in between. That is a far cry from suggesting that everything they believe is tainted by that belief.

Otherwise the largely conservative crowd online here would be forced to display conservative bias, based on THEIR beliefs...

Citizzzen 03.15.07

I have thought about the math here, and I am wrong. I have not multiplied fractions in years. However, if America is 2:1 Conservtive and Wikipedia is 1:3 then 1/3 times x = 2. The answer would be 6 as originally stated. I concede the math point. I was wrong. Citizzzen 03.17.07

Of course it's biased. Even the name suggests a right-winged bias! [[The Theory of Evolution]] page shows NOTHING supporting the theory, wheras Wikipedia shows BOTH sides of the arguments and uses citations and proof. Using the above figures, If 67% of the population is Conservative, and 33% is Liberal, then surely the laws of statistics state that more Conservatives would use Wikipedia... Or perhaps it's just that the Liberal demographic is more aligned with the intellectual, freethinking people who tend to use the web.

conservapedia is about as fair and balanced as Bill O'Rielly is, and if wikipedia is " liberal", liberal must mean based in reality.

Conservapedia states its bias right in its own name. forcing all articles to be 'clean' and conservative makes you bias, duh. Not everything in the world is 'clean' as you want it to be, and trying to hide it is sad and wrong.

Biased. Wikipedia is not anti-American. Wikipedia is not anti-Christian. Conservapedia: The name says it all. Go to talkorigins.org, and go to the creationist claims. The Bible is faith, evolution is a fact. I found there that a new species has evolved in our time: some mosquito.
:Gees that was easy; you wanna buy some land in Florida? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:58, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I'm a Homeschooler (Well, I was, I'm in college now) and a Christian, and I see this as biased. I mean, I see both as biased in they're own way (Conservapedia and Wikipedia). If there is a theory of evolution on here, the creationism should be also viewed as theory or such. "Religious doctrine" as on wikipedia. And again, with what a few people have said, you need BOTH sides of an argument. If you made this due to the left-wing bias (I refrain from saying Anti-American, Anti-Christian because it's down right silly), then don't show right-wing bias, give us neutrality.

Truth is the only thing that matters. I read all the dissenting arguements; Wikipedia is not this or not that. Wikipedia has a diversity of contributors. If Wikipedia is liberal it must be based on reality. Give me a break. Thats is all b.s. fluff, if the article misrepresents the truth, what do you actually learn? I see Conservapedia as striving for truth in everything. The same can't be said of Wikipedia that places their agenda first.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, do you understand the difference between a "fact" and an "opinion?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Enlighten us all oh great master. Like I said before, what is fair? It would not be fair if I told you a lie. What is balanced? Two sides presented, the side that is right and the side that is wrong. Opinion, is PF Fox thinking he is right because he believes it to be, everybody else wrong or just dissenters from his so called facts (op).--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Throw away your opinions for 30 seconds, and go read the "news" on the front page. How does it color liberalism? Pssht. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]
[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:26, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Not grey, whereby everybody is right and nobody is wrong.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

"Enlighten us all oh great master?" How old are you, jpatt?

"Fair," jpatt is being factual even when the facts are inconvenient for you. "Opinion," is "a view or judgement formed in the mind about a particular matter." Some people base their opinions on fact. Some people base their opinions on ideology. How about you? I am confident enough in the validity of my own opinioins to be both frank and accurate when discussing history or quoting people with whom I disagree. How about you?

I've been reading and watching the news for forty years. I'm experienced enough to have known liberals who fought bravely in World War II, in the Korean War, and in the Vietnam War. I'm old enough to remember that it was liberals who put their lives on the line marching for Black Civil Rights. Some liberals paid the ultimate price for it. Ever heard of them? Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman? Viola Liuzzo? Jean Donovan and Dorothy Kazel? Are those names familiar to you, or did they not come up while you were being homeschooled? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: Nobody is questioning the elder generations of liberals committment and sacrifice to America. Even today, democrats and republicans fight side by side. What this generation does it what troubles many. Unwilling to listen and reason is gone in America. It is now become "I am smarter than you because I believe a certain way".--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, this current generation of liberals includes those who marched during the Civil Rights era and who fought in Vietnam. It even includes a few who fought in the second World War. And so far, you've shown little inclination to either listen or reason. Do you really consider calling people "scum" an example of rational debate? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Fair and balanced? Good God No. First, this website proudly proclaims it is not balanced. Second, there is little regard for truth. One can post or edit an article, for example to make it more historically accurate, and be accused of attempting to plant a "liberal falsehood." The history lecture section is a mess and really needs to redone, but of course, it is locked. It looks like it was taken out of a grade school history book, circa 1935.
But I do think conservapedia reflects the changing nature of information and technology in our society. Rather than being better informed and educated, internet and media outlets now tend to reinforce what one ''thinks'' is true. So we now have a society that will become gradually dumber and less informed. Conservapedia may survive, but it will never be anything more than a resource for homeschoolers. Already, we see a corps of sysops who quickly (despite their protests to the contrary) ban people without cause and are unwilling to listen to reason, or evidance. It seems that Conservapedia is on its way to becoming an echo chamber, where only "correct" ideas are heard and only "correct" thinking is permitted. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 16:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

So wise 1048247, you can't even use a name, just a number. "there is little regard for the truth". Sounds like mearly your opinion, not based on any facts. If very little regard for the truth here then the internet publication Wikipedia is a complete fraud, unworthy of any educational value. So, you claim no truth exists on Conservapedia? Funny, how you decide to frequent it then. Why do you support the website you seek to condemn. Hypocrisy?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Invective is not argument, Jpatt. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

It's logically impossible to be 'fair and balanced' when the stated aim is to create a "non-liberal Encyclopedia". It's like saying you want to create Science that's not based on Science or some other such tautology. [[User:50something|50something]]

Jpatt, Ideology trumps truth on conservapedia. Please reread my post. I said there is "little regard for the truth," not "there is not truth on conservapedia." I wrote something regarding historical fact and had portions of it immediatly reverted by a sysop who declared it "a liberal flasehood." The sysop relied on his own uninformed beleifs and was too lazy to look sources. As for frequenting the site: I am appaled that this is the sort of history education that students recieve. I will correct some articles, because I want too. As far as wikis go, no one should use either wikipedia or conservapedia as a research source. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 09:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I think its full of cra...we all know that last word.
If liberalism means not discriminate nor play with our childrens mind I think its the best thing that has ever happend to the world. Children will read this page and grow up with this conservative un-evolve mind.
The rest of a the world has evolve to not discriminate homosexual, black or even female people. This conservative, church followers republican americas have seem to stay in the 18th century.
What is wrong with you people? Homosexuality is not an ilness! The bible doesn't state that homosexual people must die! That's bullshi.... If you teach this things to your children, the times of war will never end. We are not in 1720, we are in the 21th century! We have passed the time of discrimination for god sakes.
Religion is an important thing to everyone. Faith is. The church its just an institution that wants power and money. You, conservative republican americans, go against everything god taught us!
You hide behind lame excuses about how we (liberals) go against the bible. If you think a little you will see thats actually you. You are the ones who support Bush. You are the ones who support war, discrimination, violence, not us. We are clearly against all that.

: Very good point, we are all in the 21st century now. We have become the smartest generation. Time to abandon all reason and follow what human kind says is best for us. Church is the bride of Christ. It is not about power and money. As for supporting war, the Pope came out against the war. But that doesn't fit into your biased argument. The definition of reality, God is reality. You claim otherwise, you are out of touch with reality. By the way, homosexuality was claimed by the medical profession as an illness until the secular humanists got it removed.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:18, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality was also treated as a crime, homosexuals were thrown in prison and, since they were deemed "mentally ill" frequently forcibly institutionalized in insane asylums. Plainly, you'd like a return to those "good old days." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:50, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::*''We have become the smartest generation.''{{fact}} [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

How can God be the basis for reality when no one can say with certinity that God exists?--[[User:Freehan|Freehan]] 13:46, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:When [[Earth]] (for example) gives such prominence to not just a creationist view, but a ''factional view within creationism'', that can't be balanced. And fair? I'm seeing quite a few complaints about unfair sysoping, but I haven't been here long enough to get a reasonable picture. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 18:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Sigh...To say this site is "fair and balanced" is to lie outright. I mean, look at any page dealing with homosexuality. They're starting to look like they were written by [[Fred Phelps]]! Especially the [[homosexual agenda]] page—Why does that piece of religiously biased junk even exist? I really think that the aforementioned page should be either unlocked or deleted, preferably the latter.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 21:29, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is not balanced, nor is it fair to call it an encyclopedia. It has an American/conservative/Christian bais to the articles and topics that are politically volitile in American culture right now. Abortion, evolution, the federal government, religion, and other articles dealing with hot button American and world social issues have a distinguishable slant in the favor of opinions that champion conservative American Christian ideals over other opinions such as those of secular humanists, liberal American Christians, American Muslims, feminists, and others. The bottom line is if an institution is going to call itself an encyclopedia, it should at least conform to the generally accepted format for an ecyclopedia and include all or most of the relevant accumulated knowledge on a subject or discipline, not just the relevent accumulated knowledge that portrays the subject in a particularly favorable or unfavorable light in regards to the socio-political debates surrounding the subject of interst. Conservapedia is not an encyclopedia, but rather an institution that subtlely promotes religious and political views of conservative Christian Americans through the primary role of offering information in an psuedo-encyclopedic manner. -[[User:Charles |Avidreaderofhistory]]([[User talk:Charles |contact me]]) 11:15, 22 June 2007

Only one word needed: [[Kangaroo]]. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:50, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Is that a serious question? ==
The answer is quite obviously an emphatic "No." It has the name of a political ideology ''in the name!'' That fact alone precludes any chance of current or eventual balance or reliability.

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2007-07-15T02:20:25Z

Autofire372: Undo revision 233279 by Special:Contributions/Murderrose (User talk:Murderrose)

{{debate}}

Since Conservapedia has been called unbalanced, I thought it would be good to start a discussion on this topic here in order to get a more varied opinion.{{Unsigned|Foo}}
:Well, that sounds fair.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It seems to be horribly biased toward protest-antism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 10:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==No==

The section named Economic Issues in the article on George W. Bush uses the example of Bush's economic success by stating, "For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well." So saying that a companies record profits brought in part due to record gas prices means that our economy is doing better? What about the fact that the Federal Reserve keeps raising interest rates to battle inflation and that people who purchased houses during the housing boom can't afford to keep their homes because of the rising interest rates? Or the fact that studies have shown that the gap between the upperclass and the lower class is growing while the middle class is being erroded away because of outsourcing? Or the fact that people in the U.S. continue to bury themselves in credit card debt and the lack of progress to ensure the future of Social Security. Also, there is growing concern over the over extension of credit that has been handed out, which is beginning to be considered comparable to what happened right before the stock market crash in 1929. Our economy is not doing any better and the United States keeps sticking thumbs in the holes of the dam instead of patching it up, if something isn't done soon, our country could suffer another economic crisis.

Also, in the article on the Patriot Act, it states that, "Despite the cries of liberal activist groups, such as the ACLU, there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act" What about all of the people being detained in Gitmo without the option of any sort of legal representation? Doesn't our constitution offer the right to a fair and speedy trial? Yet we have people being held in a military base in Cuba being robbed of those very rights because they aren't able to reach American soil to defend themselves in court. The Patriot Act is too powerful; what is going to stop a high ranking government official from abusing the Patriot Act in the future and throwing anyone they deem a "terrorist" or a "threat" into a military prison indefinately, just like Stalin did during the Great Purge?

There are many other articles that I've gone through that lean very heavily to the right, at some points going beyond conservative into ultra-conservative, and Bush Brand Conservative. And also, when did all conservatives become Christians? For a true balanced opinion there needs to be more imput from other conservatives from other religions and veiwpoints. Also, this site is heavily lacking compared to Wiki, for articles where Wiki has sufficient information this website has a 1 or 2 sentence summary. But thanks anyway for the entertaining reading this morning, I'll probably never return here unless I'm bored.

McCarthyism.........are you frightened yet?

{{unsigned|JesuswasaliberalJew}}

----

This is obviously a rebound to the free media of Wikipedia, and Conservatives are pissed off at Wiki because of it's librial articles.

For Example...

Here is a quote from the Conservapedia. "Sexual relations between the same sex is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. It is forbidden directly four times in the Bible." and "Studies have long indicated that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems (suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse)."

Here is the Wikipedia description...

"Homosexuality can refer to both sexual behavior and sexual attraction between people of the same gender or to a sexual orientation."

If conservapedia wants to be known has a fair and balenced Encyclopedia then make sure your not showing bias to one side of the spectrum.

P.S The look of the site is very very very similar to Wikipedia

Fair and balanced? Don't make me laugh!

Consider this entry under '[[Islam]]':

"[[Islam]] is the second largest religion in the world, with over 1.4 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to high birth rates in Muslim countries. Both Christian and Muslim sources agree that conversions to Christianity outnumber those to Islam"

The linked sources purporting to justfy that assertion are:

• on the Christian side, a website called 'World Christian Encyclopedia' — on a page fairly and objectively headed 'Muslim myths'

• on the Muslim side, an isolated Al Jezeera interview with one Sheikh Ahmad Al Katani, often jubilantly cited by Christian evangelists, which centres on Al Katani's statement that six milllion muslims convert to Christianity every year. This statement refers specifically to the situation in Africa and is given in the context of the speaker lamenting '''enforced Christianisation''' over a long period. As Al Katani says, "we are faced with the issue of taking advantage of circumstances, taking advantage of humanitarian needs, taking advantage of the lack of education for example, that these people (missionaries) use to take Muslims out of their religion".

This is followed by a section headed 'Ex-Muslims', which is nothing more than a plug for a linked anti-Islamic weblog.

Don't get me wrong. I'm going to enjoy Conservapedia. I have it bookmarked under 'Comedy'.

[[User:Bosatsu|Bosatsu]] 10:55, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

-------

I am a little concerned with the fact that conservapedia users, such as they may be, don't realize that if they feel something is biased in wikipedia that they too can change it. I find it a bit totalitarian that a number of entries on conservapedia are taken off and blocked, i.e. anything dealing with a sexual nature. While I agree that there are very biased articles in wikipedia, the beauty of the system is such that anyone can change an article. However, conservapedia deletes anything questionable.

Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid: can you give any examples of controversial articles that are locked??!! --[[User:Jlovesu|Jlovesu]] 12:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Theory of evolution]], [[Macroevolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Young Earth Creationism]]...are we seeing a pattern here, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:(Arr, edit-sniped by Tsumetai! But I'll post it anyway since it also shows some diffs that removed attempts at balance) Sure thing: [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Faith]], and that's without even checking the current Protection Log. The respective reverts that happened during the locking process: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=16289&oldid=16283 Theory of Evolution], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics&diff=17856&oldid=17260 Second Law of Thermodynamics], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=16062&oldid=15845 Faith]. Theory of Evolution effectively became [[User:Conservative|Conservative's]] article and quickly evolved (Ha!) into a lengthy rant against evolution and the scientific community. The Second Law of Thermodynamics currently states that it ''disproves evolution'', and the Faith article was linked to from the front page with the words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Newsline&diff=12709&oldid=11938 "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?"]. All articles are currently locked.
:::::- Oooh ooh... also [[Fox News]]
::It's worth noting that when this issue is raised with the admins, we're usually told that we can bring up any problems with the articles on their talk pages. Take a look at, say, the 2nd law talk page to see just how well that works. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As long as articles like the [[homosexual agenda]] page, and the [[Theory of Evolution]] page, and the [[abortion]] page exist, it will not be fair & balanced. As long as I'm prevented from correcting blatant factual or legal errors, allowing the admins to represent as "facts" erroneous statements as to evolution, etc., it will not be fair & balanced.

As for locked controversial articles, see any of the ones I noted above.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can you explain how a theory is a "fact"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Same way anything else is. Massive amounts of supporting evidence. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So then if a theory has facts to support it, it no longer is a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, theories remain theories regardless of how strongly supported they are. 'Theory' and 'fact' are not mutually exclusive categories. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course Conservapedia is biased, and it always will be. It's a conservative Christian encyclopedia, so many will see it as a silly joke, while others (the 45% who believe the universe is 14,000 years old) will take it seriously, a la FOX News. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This may come as a shock to many who peruse Conservapedia, but America is NOT the entire world. Most of the world doesn't even care what America thinks, and sees it largely as a joke. So citing the number of people in America who support literal biblical conservatism is silly, because even if it were all 300 million souls, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 17:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]]

Not a damn chance. This is the biggest joke I've seen in years.

Are you joking? The name itself betrays the fact that the site was deliberately set up to be biased. Pretending otherwise requires a tremendous effort of hypocrisy. [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 08:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

--
Its written by people of one political veiw and of one religion with very few sources, how can it possibly be unbiased. You only have to look at some of the articals to realise that, for example thier artical on the unicorn:

"Secular opinion is that they are mythical"

By secular you mean not christian i might point out, many other religions do not support the existance of unicorns.

The image shown in that article i believe you will find most experts (aka Paleobiologists, not biblical experts) would call a "triceratops," which fossil evidence has prooved pre-dates any known human existance, or infact any large primate existance.

your section under evolution "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms," dismisses some genetic possabilities that may explain the lack of transitional forms (for example polyploidy.) Also in the whole evolution article i could not see any quote which was pro evolution, weird since in my experiance most biologists DO believe in evolution.

Also "However, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age."

Show me one peice of evidence or even moderate SCIENTIFIC (that doesnt include the bible) argument for the universe being this young that isnt an absolute joke!! Also i may point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe and the earth to be of the same age.

Also in the "abortion" topic here i find a large section talking about large increases in risk of a woman getting breast cancer.

"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies"
boasting 1 reference

wikipedia:
"The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."
3 references from a respected journal.

Think point made?

Conservapedia isnt just unfair, unbalanced, biased, it is a complete joke!

Wikipedia on the other hand is often sourced and written by a large number of people of different opinions! (by the way the people: something not agreeing with you 100% does not count as biased)

Not only is conservapedia biased it lacks information. your article on genetics literally reads "The science that studies how characteristics get passed from parent to offspring." Personly i find most of your articles close to useless, especially on science.

Those are a few examples of articles here i believe to be very biased, im confident there are more. However some articles on here i was suprised to find were not as biased as the above, for example the Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views, in the big bang article.

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 19:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, it can't be Fair and Balanced [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_Balanced (R)]unless it's affiliated with News Corp. [[User:WikiG33K|WikiG33K]] 19:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This may not be the perfect forum for this, but I am not sure how to start a new thread..

Conservapedia claims that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the public at large. This is based on the % of self identifying Wikipedia contributors who claim to be liberal vs. the number in society in general.

There are two problems with this... This first is mathematical. If Wikipedia is Liberal 3:1 vs. Conservative that means 75% liberal vs. 25% conservative. If the public at large is 2:1 conservative (1:2) liberal, then 33% of the population is liberal and 67% is conservative. The difference between 75% liberal and 33% liberal is not factor of six, in fact it's less than 3...

Second problem, identifying the personal beliefs of a person does not measure the amount of bias they introduce. If a hard core prius driving Susan Sarandon fan writes a Wikipedia entry on The Napa Valley and describes the location, geography, climate, and history accurately, where is the bias? Everyone has a personal political stance left, right or somewhere in between. That is a far cry from suggesting that everything they believe is tainted by that belief.

Otherwise the largely conservative crowd online here would be forced to display conservative bias, based on THEIR beliefs...

Citizzzen 03.15.07

I have thought about the math here, and I am wrong. I have not multiplied fractions in years. However, if America is 2:1 Conservtive and Wikipedia is 1:3 then 1/3 times x = 2. The answer would be 6 as originally stated. I concede the math point. I was wrong. Citizzzen 03.17.07

Of course it's biased. Even the name suggests a right-winged bias! [[The Theory of Evolution]] page shows NOTHING supporting the theory, wheras Wikipedia shows BOTH sides of the arguments and uses citations and proof. Using the above figures, If 67% of the population is Conservative, and 33% is Liberal, then surely the laws of statistics state that more Conservatives would use Wikipedia... Or perhaps it's just that the Liberal demographic is more aligned with the intellectual, freethinking people who tend to use the web.

conservapedia is about as fair and balanced as Bill O'Rielly is, and if wikipedia is " liberal", liberal must mean based in reality.

Conservapedia states its bias right in its own name. forcing all articles to be 'clean' and conservative makes you bias, duh. Not everything in the world is 'clean' as you want it to be, and trying to hide it is sad and wrong.

Biased. Wikipedia is not anti-American. Wikipedia is not anti-Christian. Conservapedia: The name says it all. Go to talkorigins.org, and go to the creationist claims. The Bible is faith, evolution is a fact. I found there that a new species has evolved in our time: some mosquito.
:Gees that was easy; you wanna buy some land in Florida? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:58, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I'm a Homeschooler (Well, I was, I'm in college now) and a Christian, and I see this as biased. I mean, I see both as biased in they're own way (Conservapedia and Wikipedia). If there is a theory of evolution on here, the creationism should be also viewed as theory or such. "Religious doctrine" as on wikipedia. And again, with what a few people have said, you need BOTH sides of an argument. If you made this due to the left-wing bias (I refrain from saying Anti-American, Anti-Christian because it's down right silly), then don't show right-wing bias, give us neutrality.

Truth is the only thing that matters. I read all the dissenting arguements; Wikipedia is not this or not that. Wikipedia has a diversity of contributors. If Wikipedia is liberal it must be based on reality. Give me a break. Thats is all b.s. fluff, if the article misrepresents the truth, what do you actually learn? I see Conservapedia as striving for truth in everything. The same can't be said of Wikipedia that places their agenda first.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, do you understand the difference between a "fact" and an "opinion?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Enlighten us all oh great master. Like I said before, what is fair? It would not be fair if I told you a lie. What is balanced? Two sides presented, the side that is right and the side that is wrong. Opinion, is PF Fox thinking he is right because he believes it to be, everybody else wrong or just dissenters from his so called facts (op).--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Throw away your opinions for 30 seconds, and go read the "news" on the front page. How does it color liberalism? Pssht. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]
[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:26, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Not grey, whereby everybody is right and nobody is wrong.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

"Enlighten us all oh great master?" How old are you, jpatt?

"Fair," jpatt is being factual even when the facts are inconvenient for you. "Opinion," is "a view or judgement formed in the mind about a particular matter." Some people base their opinions on fact. Some people base their opinions on ideology. How about you? I am confident enough in the validity of my own opinioins to be both frank and accurate when discussing history or quoting people with whom I disagree. How about you?

I've been reading and watching the news for forty years. I'm experienced enough to have known liberals who fought bravely in World War II, in the Korean War, and in the Vietnam War. I'm old enough to remember that it was liberals who put their lives on the line marching for Black Civil Rights. Some liberals paid the ultimate price for it. Ever heard of them? Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman? Viola Liuzzo? Jean Donovan and Dorothy Kazel? Are those names familiar to you, or did they not come up while you were being homeschooled? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: Nobody is questioning the elder generations of liberals committment and sacrifice to America. Even today, democrats and republicans fight side by side. What this generation does it what troubles many. Unwilling to listen and reason is gone in America. It is now become "I am smarter than you because I believe a certain way".--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, this current generation of liberals includes those who marched during the Civil Rights era and who fought in Vietnam. It even includes a few who fought in the second World War. And so far, you've shown little inclination to either listen or reason. Do you really consider calling people "scum" an example of rational debate? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Fair and balanced? Good God No. First, this website proudly proclaims it is not balanced. Second, there is little regard for truth. One can post or edit an article, for example to make it more historically accurate, and be accused of attempting to plant a "liberal falsehood." The history lecture section is a mess and really needs to redone, but of course, it is locked. It looks like it was taken out of a grade school history book, circa 1935.
But I do think conservapedia reflects the changing nature of information and technology in our society. Rather than being better informed and educated, internet and media outlets now tend to reinforce what one ''thinks'' is true. So we now have a society that will become gradually dumber and less informed. Conservapedia may survive, but it will never be anything more than a resource for homeschoolers. Already, we see a corps of sysops who quickly (despite their protests to the contrary) ban people without cause and are unwilling to listen to reason, or evidance. It seems that Conservapedia is on its way to becoming an echo chamber, where only "correct" ideas are heard and only "correct" thinking is permitted. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 16:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

So wise 1048247, you can't even use a name, just a number. "there is little regard for the truth". Sounds like mearly your opinion, not based on any facts. If very little regard for the truth here then the internet publication Wikipedia is a complete fraud, unworthy of any educational value. So, you claim no truth exists on Conservapedia? Funny, how you decide to frequent it then. Why do you support the website you seek to condemn. Hypocrisy?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Invective is not argument, Jpatt. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

It's logically impossible to be 'fair and balanced' when the stated aim is to create a "non-liberal Encyclopedia". It's like saying you want to create Science that's not based on Science or some other such tautology. [[User:50something|50something]]

Jpatt, Ideology trumps truth on conservapedia. Please reread my post. I said there is "little regard for the truth," not "there is not truth on conservapedia." I wrote something regarding historical fact and had portions of it immediatly reverted by a sysop who declared it "a liberal flasehood." The sysop relied on his own uninformed beleifs and was too lazy to look sources. As for frequenting the site: I am appaled that this is the sort of history education that students recieve. I will correct some articles, because I want too. As far as wikis go, no one should use either wikipedia or conservapedia as a research source. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 09:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I think its full of cra...we all know that last word.
If liberalism means not discriminate nor play with our childrens mind I think its the best thing that has ever happend to the world. Children will read this page and grow up with this conservative un-evolve mind.
The rest of a the world has evolve to not discriminate homosexual, black or even female people. This conservative, church followers republican americas have seem to stay in the 18th century.
What is wrong with you people? Homosexuality is not an ilness! The bible doesn't state that homosexual people must die! That's bullshi.... If you teach this things to your children, the times of war will never end. We are not in 1720, we are in the 21th century! We have passed the time of discrimination for god sakes.
Religion is an important thing to everyone. Faith is. The church its just an institution that wants power and money. You, conservative republican americans, go against everything god taught us!
You hide behind lame excuses about how we (liberals) go against the bible. If you think a little you will see thats actually you. You are the ones who support Bush. You are the ones who support war, discrimination, violence, not us. We are clearly against all that.

: Very good point, we are all in the 21st century now. We have become the smartest generation. Time to abandon all reason and follow what human kind says is best for us. Church is the bride of Christ. It is not about power and money. As for supporting war, the Pope came out against the war. But that doesn't fit into your biased argument. The definition of reality, God is reality. You claim otherwise, you are out of touch with reality. By the way, homosexuality was claimed by the medical profession as an illness until the secular humanists got it removed.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:18, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality was also treated as a crime, homosexuals were thrown in prison and, since they were deemed "mentally ill" frequently forcibly institutionalized in insane asylums. Plainly, you'd like a return to those "good old days." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:50, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::*''We have become the smartest generation.''{{fact}} [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

How can God be the basis for reality when no one can say with certinity that God exists?--[[User:Freehan|Freehan]] 13:46, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:When [[Earth]] (for example) gives such prominence to not just a creationist view, but a ''factional view within creationism'', that can't be balanced. And fair? I'm seeing quite a few complaints about unfair sysoping, but I haven't been here long enough to get a reasonable picture. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 18:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Sigh...To say this site is "fair and balanced" is to lie outright. I mean, look at any page dealing with homosexuality. They're starting to look like they were written by [[Fred Phelps]]! Especially the [[homosexual agenda]] page—Why does that piece of religiously biased junk even exist? I really think that the aforementioned page should be either unlocked or deleted, preferably the latter.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 21:29, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is not balanced, nor is it fair to call it an encyclopedia. It has an American/conservative/Christian bais to the articles and topics that are politically volitile in American culture right now. Abortion, evolution, the federal government, religion, and other articles dealing with hot button American and world social issues have a distinguishable slant in the favor of opinions that champion conservative American Christian ideals over other opinions such as those of secular humanists, liberal American Christians, American Muslims, feminists, and others. The bottom line is if an institution is going to call itself an encyclopedia, it should at least conform to the generally accepted format for an ecyclopedia and include all or most of the relevant accumulated knowledge on a subject or discipline, not just the relevent accumulated knowledge that portrays the subject in a particularly favorable or unfavorable light in regards to the socio-political debates surrounding the subject of interst. Conservapedia is not an encyclopedia, but rather an institution that subtlely promotes religious and political views of conservative Christian Americans through the primary role of offering information in an psuedo-encyclopedic manner. -[[User:Charles |Avidreaderofhistory]]([[User talk:Charles |contact me]]) 11:15, 22 June 2007

Only one word needed: [[Kangaroo]]. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:50, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Is that a serious question? ==
The answer is quite obviously an emphatic "No." It has the name of a political ideology ''in the name!'' That fact alone precludes any chance of current or eventual balance or reliability.

Carcinoma

2007-07-14T20:56:36Z

Autofire372: Adding category

'''Carcinoma''' is any of the various types of [[cancerous tumor]]s that form in the [[epithelial tissue]], the tissue forming the outer layer of the body surface and lining the digestive tract and other hollow structures. Examples of this kind of cancer include, breast, lung, and prostate cancer.

[[category:disease]]

Alarmist

2007-07-14T20:43:39Z

Autofire372: Spelling, and not all liberals are alarmists

An '''Alarmist''', according to the dictionary is "A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe."

In modern usage, such people usually fall under the following categories:

*Bloggers
*Global Warming enthusaists
*Certain Left-Wing websites

[[Category:Politics]]

RuneScape

2007-07-14T14:46:12Z

Autofire372:

[[Image:Runescapemining.jpg|right|thumb|Screenshot of RuneScape.]]
'''RuneScape''' is a popular MMORPG videogame.<ref>[http://www.runescape.com/ RuneScape official site]</ref> It was developed and supported by Jagex, Inc., and based in [[London]], [[England]]. RuneScape is offered in a free version or a subscription version. Paying the $5 per month subscription gives players access to a vast array of new items, quests, and areas to explore. Roughly 10 % of the game can be played for free and all of it for the fee.

The game is popular for a number of reasons, not least of which is that players can chat with each other in a way viewed by everyone in the immediate game area, or privately to selected friends. Control of one's character in the game is mostly done by mouse, including character movement in the game world, purchasing items, selling, picking up or dropping items and changing a character's attire. The graphics interface is intuitive to most players.

Character development is another strong element of the game. A character begins with low skill levels and raises a skill by performing it. Several skills with weapons, armor and magic are used in combat and are raised by performing them. Fighting is probably the basis of the game, but a character need not fight at all. Monsters (dragons, demons, skeletons, etc.) are found in various game locations and respawn a few seconds after they are killed. Player characters can fight each other in designated game's areas. A further strong point the game has is the players ability to create and personalise their own accounts, as is portrayed by Vignesh119's profoundly creative chicken suit and well-known hair.

A player's character can developed by performing various quests in the game. And the game is added to by Jagex pretty often, graphics are improved, new dungeons appear from time to time. Tips about playing Runescape can be found at [http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page this RuneScape wiki].

==High scores==

'''Zezima''' is the highest ranking player within the highscore system of the [[MMORPG]], RuneScape.<ref>hiscore.runescape.com/lang/en/aff/runescape/hiscorepersonal.ws?user1=zezima</ref>. He joined the game between late June and early July the year 2001 [[A.D.]]<ref>tip.it/runescape/index.php?times=39 </ref>. Zezima has participated in an interview on two or more websites, including ''tip.it''<ref>tip.it/runescape/index.php?times=39</ref> and ''Rsforums''<ref>z6.invisionfree.com/RunescapeForums/index.php?showtopic=12548&st=0</ref>. He and his friend created a website for one purpose to bring some light to myths about his character and real-life status. He attained his popularity in being both the first player to attain 99 in every stat in the game, and maintaining the highest rank in the highscore system for a respectable amount of time. His name is also featured on a t-shirt bearing the words, "I Pked Zezima."<ref>http://www.cafepress.com/youvegotlol/1548639</ref> He is also noted in over a 1,000 videos on the popular free video sharing website [[YouTube]]. Due to this broad reputation, many rumors circulate around both the game itself and other websites. The same person behind Zezima also used to play a game known as Triple Triad x, in which he was able to maintain a rank within the top four players.<ref>tip.it/runescape/index.php?times=39</ref>
==Addictive Nature==
Runescape has come under criticism over its addictive nature with players sometimes using the game for days on end. {{fact}}

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Video games]]

Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?

2007-07-13T03:07:36Z

Autofire372: Undo revision 229390 by Special:Contributions/Clarner (User talk:Clarner)

I want to support other organizations that want to end abortion. I am a Republican and do not support Democrats. Do we, as conservatives, support this group Democratsforlife.com? I noticed their aggressive promotion during the last election cycle.I feel that it is a front to get votes and doen't really care to promote life. Just having the words Democrats and life doesn't make much sense. Protecting life goes well beyond partisan politics. I have real doubts to their true intentions. They were not against Democrat candidates that promote the murder of boys and girls in the womb. So if we conservatives do not support their organization, we should continue to expose their hypocrisy and continue to vilify them, correct? Prove me wrong.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

To me, protecting innocent lives is far more important than partisan politics. I think it is disingeneous to accuse people of not caring about lives just because they have liberal economics views. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Old Testament

2007-07-12T04:34:58Z

Autofire372: Undo revision 228013 by Special:Contributions/BounceWiggleBounce (User talk:BounceWiggleBounce) copied from wp

{{Christianity}}
The '''Old Testament''' is a collection of different biblical books comprising the Jewish religious scriptures. In [[Judaism]] it is called the Tanakh. [[Christians]] embrace the Old Testament as part of their holy scriptures, which, together with the [[New Testament]] make up the [[Bible]]. Christians have a different viewpoint than Jews in that they see the Old Testament giving prophetic references to the coming of [[Jesus Christ]]. Versions from ancient times exist in both Hebrew and [[Greek]] including the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]] giving a very ancient snapshot dating back to the time of Jesus.

The Old Testament documents the creation of the world by God, and the tribulations and errors of human beings, in particular His chosen people the [[Israelites]]. Following the history of the Jews from their earliest patriarchs to their enslavement, freedom, becoming a nation, period of the judges, ruled by kings, splitting into two nations, and eventual conquest. It continues until about 400 B.C. when God's chosen people have once again been allowed to return to the [[Holy Land]] and have come back to the worship of the Lord God. From the writing of the earliest five books, which is traditionally ascribed to [[Moses]], to the last, is believed to be a period of about 1,000 years. The New Testament doesn't pick up until 400 years later with the story of Jesus.

The Canon of the Old Testament was fixed by Judaism in the 1st century A.D. and is the same Old Testament found in Protestant Bibles (except for ordering and naming conventions.) Other branches of Christianity include the [[Apocrypha]]. Most Old Testaments go back to the earliest Hebrew translations, but the Greek Orthodox church uses the earliest Greek versions.

== See also ==

* [[Septuagint]]
* [[Pentateuch]]

[[Category:Judaism]]
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Book of Worship]]

Protestantism

2007-07-12T04:34:15Z

Autofire372: Undo revision 228016 by Special:Contributions/BounceWiggleBounce (User talk:BounceWiggleBounce) copied from wp

{{Christianity}}

'''Protestant''' is one of the three major divisions in [[Christendom]] that traces their heritage back to the [[Western Church]]. Other divisions include [[Catholicism]] and the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]].

The founding of Protestantism has its origins in the [[European]] [[Reformation]]. 
Most notably :
:[[Martin Luther]]'s nailing of [[The 95 Theses]] to the church doors in [[Wittenberg]] on October 31, 1517
:In [[England]], by decree of King [[Henry VIII]] in 1533.
:[[John Knox]], inspired by [[John Calvin]], liberated [[Scotland]] from the yoke of [[Roman Catholic Church|Rome]] in 1560.

Protestants are the largest [[Christian]] division in the [[United States of America]].

In the United States, denominations in the Protestant division include:
*[[Anglican]]
*[[Lutheran]]
*[[Presbyterian]]
*[[Reformed]]
*[[Anabaptist]]
*[[Baptist]]
*[[Episcopal Church in the United States of America]]
*[[Mennonite]]
*[[Amish]]
*[[Methodist]]
*[[Brethren]]
*[[Pentecostal]]
*[[Society of Friends]] ("Quakers")
*[[Holiness]]
*[[Restoration Movement]]
*[[Adventist]]

==Web links==

[http://www.ianpaisley.org/main.asp The European Institute of Protestant Studies]
[[Category:Christianity]]

Genetics

2007-07-12T04:26:22Z

Autofire372: Undo revision 227997 by Special:Contributions/BounceWiggleBounce (User talk:BounceWiggleBounce)

==Terms used in genetics==

*[[DNA]] - very long organic molecule, with two strands linked with spokes
*[[RNA]]
*[[chromosome]]
*[[allele]]
*[[gene]]

Christianized

2007-07-12T04:16:40Z

Autofire372: Redirecting to Christianity

#redirect [[Christianity]]

Karl Rove

2007-07-11T23:55:11Z

Autofire372: Undo revision 227543 by Special:Contributions/Iluvbush6 (User talk:Iluvbush6)

[[Image:Karl Rove.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Karl Rove''' (born December 25, 1950) is the [[Deputy Chief of Staff]] in the [[Bush administration]]. Rove's longtime partnership with [[George W. Bush]] dates back to Bush's terms as [[governor]] of [[Texas]]. Rove ran both of Bush's campaigns for governor and for president.

Rove's track to the top began early, when he dropped out of the University of [[Utah]] to work in the [[College Republican National Committee]]. He is a potential witness in connection with the firing of some US Attorneys.

Often called "the brains behind Bush", Rove is credited as the chief architect of the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns.

{{DEFAULTSORT: Rove, Karl}}
[[category:Political people]]

Horse

2007-07-11T23:47:34Z

Autofire372:

{{Taxonomy|image = Blackstallion.jpg|kingdom = Animalia|phylum = Chordata|subphylum = Vertebrata|class = Mammalia|order = Perissodactyla|suborder = Hippomorpha |family = Equidae|genus = Equus|species = E. caballus (Domestic Horse) E. ferus caballus (Wild Horse)}}
'''Horses''' are large mammals known for their beauty and usefulness to humans. They provide a source of rapid transportation for hunting and travel and can pull wagons and carts. Before the invention of the tractor, horses were invaluable to farmers who used them to plough fields and haul heavy loads.

Long a source of wonder and mystery, these intelligent animals have been bred since antiquity. Their use for transportation was curtailed in the early 1900s as [[automobile]]s (then called "horseless carriages") replaced them.

==Evolutionary view of origins==

Evolutionary biologists believe that the modern horse has slowly evolved into its present form over the course of about 60 million years. From Eohippus (60 million years ago) to our "modern-day horse," Equus (1 million years ago). This claim is based on various pieces of evidence for the gradual "change" of the leg bones from the toes of Eohippus to the hoofs of Equus. The skull also shows an evolutionary trend from fossil to fossil.

==Young Earth Creationist view of origins==

[[Young Earth Creationism|Creationary]] biologists believe that the horse baramin is one of the kinds taken by [[Noah]] aboard the Ark. Therefore all horse-like animals (including zebras and donkeys) are descended from the fourteen horses taken on board by Noah.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/595/ How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?], Creation 19(2):16–19, March 1997.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Hoofed mammals]]
[[Category:Livestock]]
[[Category:Equestrianism]]

New Jersey

2007-07-11T23:17:38Z

Autofire372: Spelling error fix'd

[[Image:New_Jersey_State_Flag.gif|thumb|right|The state flag of New Jersey.]]

New Jersey is one of the thirteen original colonies that formed the United States. It was the third state to enter into the union.

It is nicknamed "the Garden State." It has 127 miles of coastline, including resort areas such as Atlantic City, Asbury Park, and Cape May. Its capital city is [[Trenton]].

It is home to two famous old universities: [[Princeton University|Princeton]] and [[Rutgers University|Rutgers]]. They are both ''colonial colleges,'' the nine colleges chartered in the colonies before the American Revolution. Princeton traditionally claims 1740 as its year of founding, making it the fourth oldest university in the United States; Rutgers, founded in 1766, is the eighth oldest. Princeton is a member of the ''Ivy League.''

==Conservapedia==
Conservapedia was founded in New Jersey on Novemebr 22, 2006. Started by a class of 56 homeschooled children, ranging from 11 years old to 18, as a project for homework.
[[Category:US state]]
[[Category:New Jersey]]

Alarmist

2007-07-11T22:12:18Z

Autofire372: Spelling error

An '''Alarmist''', according to the dictionary is "A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe."

In modern useage, such people usually fall under the following categories:

*Bloggers
*Global Warming enthusaists
*Left-Wing websites

[[Category:Politics]]

Rupert Murdoch

2007-07-10T23:31:22Z

Autofire372: Undo revision 225597 by Special:Contributions/Baby905 (User talk:Baby905)

[[Image:Murdoch-770566.jpg|right|thumb|280px]]
'''Keith Rupert Murdoch''' (b. 1931) is an [[Australia|Australian]]-born [[United States|American]] media magnate. He is the owner of the media conglomerate [[News Corporation]]. Some of the most well known of the News Corporation's holdings include the Fox Broadcasting Company, the [[FOX News]] Channel, [[MySpace]], [[TV Guide]], the ''New York Post'', HarperCollins, DirectTV, BSkyB, the ''Weekly Standard'', 20th Century Fox film studios, ''The London Times'', the ''London Sun'', ''The Chicago Sun-Times'', ''The Boston Herald'' and UK's ''BSkyB'' satellite broadcasting system. He became a naturalized American citizen in 1985.<ref>[http://www.nndb.com/people/420/000023351/ ''NNDB'' - Rupert Murdoch]</ref> Rupert Murdoch is one of the richest people in the world according to Forbes magazine, with an estimated net worth of $7.7 billion.<ref>[http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Keith-Rupert-Murdoch_639W.html ''Forbes'' - The 400 Richest Americans: #32 Rupert Murdoch]</ref>

Harold Evans, a former editor of ''The London Times'' said Mr. Murdoch once pointed to the byline of a correspondent and asserted, “That man’s a [[commie]]<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/business/media/25murdoch.html?pagewanted=5&ei=5090&en=52d9d4e3c66c5876&ex=1340424000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss ''Murdoch, Ruler of a Vast Empire, Reaches Out for Even More'', Jo Becker, Richard Siklos, Jane Perlez, Raymond Bonner, Griff Palmer, ''The New York Times'', June 25, 2007.]</ref>.”

In 2007, Murdoch announced that he is offering $5 billion to buy Dow Jones, parent company of ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]''.<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/04/business/04murdoch.php ''International Herald Tribune'' Murdoch on owning the Wall Street Journal]</ref>

==Political Contributions==
Since 1997, [[Republicans]] have received a slight majority - 56% of the $4.76 million in campaign donations from the Murdoch family and the News Corporation’s political action committees and employees. In recent years, Rupert Murdoch has formed strong relationship with Bill and [[Hillary Clinton]]. In 2005, he invited [[Bono]] and [[Bill Clinton]] for company conference on environment, Islam in the West, and future of the world.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Murdoch, Rupert}}
[[category:Business People]]

Horse

2007-07-09T22:11:18Z

Autofire372: This better?

{{Taxonomy|image = Blackstallion.jpg|kingdom = Animalia|phylum = Chordata|subphylum = Vertebrata|class = Mammalia|order = Perissodactyla|suborder = Hippomorpha |family = Equidae|genus = Equus|species = E. caballus (Domestic Horse) E. ferus caballus (Wild Horse)}}
'''Horses''' are large mammals known for their beauty and usefulness to humans. They provide a source of rapid transportation for hunting and travel and can pull wagons and carts. Before the invention of the tractor, horses were invaluable to farmers who used them to plough fields and haul heavy loads.

Long a source of wonder and mystery, these intelligent animals have been bred since antiquity. Their use for transportation was curtailed in the early 1900s as [[automobile]]s (then called "horseless carriages") replaced them.

==Evolutionary view of origins==

Evolutionary biologists believe that the modern horse has slowly evolved into its present form over the course of about 60 million years. From Eohippus (60 million years ago) to our "modern-day horse," Equus (1 million years ago). This claim is based on various pieces of evidence for the gradual "change" of the leg bones from the toes of Eohippus to the hoofs of Equus. The skull also shows an evolutionary trend from fossil to fossil.

==Young Earth Creationist view of origins==

[[Young Earth Creationist]] biologists believe that the horse baramin is one of the kinds taken by [[Noah]] aboard the Ark. Therefore all horse-like animals (including zebras and donkeys) are descended from the fourteen horses taken on board by Noah.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/595/ How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?], Creation 19(2):16–19, March 1997.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Hoofed mammals]]
[[Category:Livestock]]
[[Category:Equestrianism]]

Horse

2007-07-08T19:31:12Z

Autofire372: "Evolutionist" is meant to be derogatory

{{Taxonomy|image = Blackstallion.jpg|kingdom = Animalia|phylum = Chordata|subphylum = Vertebrata|class = Mammalia|order = Perissodactyla|suborder = Hippomorpha |family = Equidae|genus = Equus|species = E. caballus (Domestic Horse) E. ferus caballus (Wild Horse)}}
'''Horses''' are large mammals known for their beauty and usefulness to humans. They provide a source of rapid transportation for hunting and travel and can pull wagons and carts. Before the invention of the tractor, horses were invaluable to farmers who used them to plough fields and haul heavy loads.

Long a source of wonder and mystery, these intelligent animals have been bred since antiquity. Their use for transportation was curtailed in the early 1900s as [[automobile]]s (then called "horseless carriages") replaced them.

==Evolutionary view of origins==

Evolutionary biologists believe that the modern horse has slowly evolved into its present form over the course of about 60 million years. From Eohippus (60 million years ago) to our "modern-day horse," Equus (1 million years ago). This claim is based on various pieces of evidence for the gradual "change" of the leg bones from the toes of Eohippus to the hoofs of Equus. The skull also shows an evolutionary trend from fossil to fossil.

==Young Earth Creationist view of origins==

[[Young Earth Creationist]]s believe that the horse baramin is one of the kinds taken by [[Noah]] aboard the Ark. Therefore all horse-like animals (including zebras and donkeys) are descended from the fourteen horses taken on board by Noah.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/595/ How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?], Creation 19(2):16–19, March 1997.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Hoofed mammals]]
[[Category:Livestock]]
[[Category:Equestrianism]]

Talk:Settled science

2007-07-08T19:23:42Z

Autofire372:

[[User:Ed_Poor|€d]] why wa$te a good opportunity to i££u$trate the $en$e of [[free trade]]? The ¢urrent arti¢£e cou£d be u$ed to ju$sify [[Essay:_Liberal_Falsehoods|£ibera£ Fa£$ehood$]] that ¢onfu$e [[absolute advantage| ab$o£ute advantage]] with [[comparative advantage|¢omparative advantage]] i.e. [[offshoring|off$horing]] and the importation of unde$ired ''produ¢t$''. Even [[Liberal|£ibera£]] [[Protectionism|prote¢tioni$t]] e¢onomi¢$ are pedd£ed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Tfa&direction=prev&oldid=217623 here]. i$ thi$ <big>¢</big>ommypedia? [[User:BritishConservative|BritishConservative]] 20:35, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

I believe this is meant to illustrate the silliness of "settled science".--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 20:38, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
:You know, if you'd quit using currency symbols in place of letters, it would make your statement much easier to understand.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 20:44, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

::I assume that if liberals reply with jokes, etc., it means they ''acknowledge'' that they cannot dispute the facts or principles involved. Why else would they try to make a distraction? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:00, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Uh, Ed, while I do consider myself liberal in many areas, I can still see that the person who originally said the quote is quite obviously a severely closed-minded nut.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 22:54, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Can I assume real conservatives are not welcome here and their contributions will be [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Settled_science&diff=221475&oldid=221463 deleted] by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s socialist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police thought police]. [[User:BritishConservative|BritishConservative]] 13:56, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Yanno what? You're being a troll, BritishConservative. --[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 15:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Settled science

2007-07-08T02:54:38Z

Autofire372: