Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Jehovah's Witness.

2007-05-30T17:03:18Z

Brainslug: removed namecalling; we shouldn't be in the position of weighing different branches of the One Church

Jehovah's Witnesses are a sect of [[Christianity]] who reject the divinity of [[Jesus Christ]], though they still believe Jesus is the son of [[God]]. The group originated in the 1870s with a movement called the Bible Students, founded by Charles Taze Russell. They are best known in America for their refusal to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and for going door-to-door to spread their message. They also don't celebrate any holidays, believing them to be an affront to God.

John Edwards

2007-05-30T17:00:56Z

Brainslug: rv vandalism

[[Image:SenatorJohnEdwards.jpg|right|thumb|200px]]
''For the 18th century preacher, see [[Jonathan Edwards]]''.

'''John Edwards''', Democratic candidate for Vice President and running mate of [[John Kerry]] for the 2004 presidential elections.

===Early Life and Education===

John Edwards was born in Seneca, SC on June 10, 1953. He grew up in Robbins, NC, and graduated from North Carolina State University in 1974, and received a law degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1977.

In 1977, he married Elizabeth Anania. Their son Wade was born in 1979 and daughter Cate in 1982. Following Wade's death in a car accident in 1996, the couple chose to have more children. Emma Claire was born 1998, and Jack was born in 2000.

===Private Sector===
Edwards served as a personal injury trial lawyer in Tennessee and in North Carolina for 20 years, specializing in negligence and medical malpractice suits. His most notable case was a $25 million suit for a girl who was disemboweled by a swimming pool drain.

===Political Career===
In 1998, Edwards ran as the Democratic candidate for a seat in the U.S. Senate. He beat incumbent Senator Lauch Faircloth to win the seat.

Edwards served in the Senate for one year, declining to stand for re-election so that he could run for the 2004 Democratic party nomination for president. He withdrew from the presidential race on March 2, 2004 after failing to win any state of the 10 contested states in the Super Tuesday elections. Democratic nominee John Kerry named Edwards as his vice-presidential candidate for the Democratic ticket.

The Kerry-Edwards ticket lost to incumbent president George W. Bush and Dick Cheney with 48% of the vote to the Republicans' 51%.

On December 28, 2005, John Edwards officially announced that he would again seek the Democratic nomination for president for the 2008 election.

Edwards is reported to be miffed over having been branded "the Breck Girl" <ref>[http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-edwardsbreckgirl.htm John Edwards the Breck Girl] ''"Sometimes another pretty face is just another pretty face."''</ref> in the 2004 Vice Presidential contest. Columnist Joan Vennochi characterized Edwards problem, "Usually, women are forced to ward off stereotypical thinking that equates beauty with brainlessness. But Edwards is not the first male politician to feel the double-edged sword that comes with being too pretty to be taken seriously." <ref>[http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/vote/5289.php Edwards' obstacle: 'Breck girl' good looks], Joan Vennochi, ''The Boston Globe'', 01.10.2004. </ref>
In the spring of 2007, Edwards reimbursed his campaign $800 for two $400 haircuts.<ref>CBS News, [http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/04/24/publiceye/entry2722181.shtml ''John Edwards And The Case Of The "Breck Girl" Comment''], April 24, 2007.</ref>
===Political views===
During his Senate career and the 2004 presidential campaign, one of Edwards' main themes was "Two Americas," contrasting the poorer working-class Americans with wealthier Americans.

===Criticism===
Edwards came under fire for not firing two of his campaign workers who made bigoted and hateful statements on their blogs. Statements included calling Christian supporters of President Bush his "wingnut Christofascist base", asking what would have happened if the Virgin Mary had taken an emergency contraceptive<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/13/politics/p171426S05.DTL&type=politics</ref>, and asking religious conservatives "What don't you lousy motherf——ers understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds and our families?".<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251620,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251009,00.html</ref> These incidents were largely ignored by the mainstream media.<ref>http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2007/fax20070222.asp</ref> Edwards was criticized for not firing the employees, but they later resigned themselves.

===Post Political Career===
After losing the bid for vice president in the 2004 election, he became the director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at UNC-Chapel Hill.

==Miscellania==
===Books===
''The Four Trials'' (with John Auchard), about his career as a lawyer

===Trivia===
The $25 million settlement was the largest in NC history.

== References ==
<references/>

==Sources==
http://johnedwards.com/
{{DEFAULTSORT: Edwards, John}}

[[Category:Political people]]

John Edwards

2007-05-30T06:40:27Z

Brainslug: /* Political views */ snide comments really out of place in a biography

Massachusetts liberal

2007-05-23T17:39:23Z

Brainslug: caps

A [[liberal]] from [[Massachusetts]], in many ways the most liberal state in the [[United States of America|United States]]. It is the only state where it is a crime, with a mandatory prison sentence of at least one year, for transporting a lawfully owned gun for a lawful purpose in an automobile without a special permit. Out-of-state drivers traveling to hunting or gun competitions in the Northeast have to choose between going hours out of their way to avoid Massachusetts, or spending hours attempting to obtain a permit.{{fact}}

Massachusetts is also the only state that has [[same-sex marriage]]. Two of the most liberal senators in the entire [[U.S. Senate]], [[Ted Kennedy|Teddy Kennedy]] and [[John Kerry]]<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htmM</ref>, represent Massachusetts. Massachusetts has the lowest [[divorce]] rate in the country at 2.4 divorces per 1,000 people per annum, according to the Barna Research Group.

[[John Kerry]] lost by nearly three million votes nationwide in the 2004 election against [[George W. Bush]], yet Kerry won Massachusetts by a margin of about 62-38%. Massachussetts was the only state in which a majority voted for George McGovern instead of Richard Nixon in the 1972 presidential election.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]

Nathan Hale

2007-05-23T17:30:20Z

Brainslug: caps (and do we have sources for all of this?)

Nathan Hale was born on June 6, 1775. Nathan Hale was the son of a prosperous farmer. In 1769, after studying under a village pastor, Hale entered Yale College. In 1775, Hale was commissioned a lieutenant. When Hale offered to go as a spy to the British troops, he disguised himself as a teacher, carrying his Yale diploma. Hale gathered much information and prepared to return to American troops. On the night of September 21, 1776, Hale was captured by the British when attempting to return to American lines. He was carrying all the information he had collected during his stay with the British. When he saw the maps and information on Hale, General Howe ordered for him to be hanged. After saying the famous last words of "I regret that I have but one life to lose for my country," Nathan Hale was hanged. Nathan Hale is famous for those last word, which are thought to have come from Joseph Addison's "Cato," a play which he learned while in college.

Talk:Justinian

2007-05-22T01:24:50Z

Brainslug:

"He constructed the Hagia Sophia, which was one of the most magnificent and beautiful buildings ever, until the Muslims turned it into a mosque." The Hagia Sophia is still a pretty neat building. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 16:10, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:After the forces of tolerance came through and converted it, it lost its flare. change it if you want. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 16:13, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:: Muslims? Forces of tolerance? Huh? I just don't understand the comment at all. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 21:24, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Justinian

2007-05-21T20:10:45Z

Brainslug: New page: "He constructed the Hagia Sophia, which was one of the most magnificent and beautiful buildings ever, until the Muslims turned it into a mosque." The Hagia Sophia is still a pretty neat b...

Justinian

2007-05-21T20:10:17Z

Brainslug: capitalization

[[Image:Justinian.jpg|right|thumb|Emperor Justinian (center)|250px]]

'''Justinian I''' (ca. 482-565) was the greatest empire of the Eastern Roman (or [[Byzantine Empire|Byzantine]]) Empire. He ruled from 527 until his death. Justinian was preceded by [[Justin I]] and succeeded by [[Justin II]]. He was the husband of the famous Empress [[Theodora]].

He is best known for his military succeses, as he regained most of the territory of the old [[Roman Empire]] in [[Africa]] and [[Italy]]. He also is famous for the writing of [[Justinian Code|Justinian's Code]], the law code that is the basis of modern [[law]].

Justinian is a saint of the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]]. He was a [[Christian]] emperor, yet he encouraged the persecution of [[Jews]], even creating a ghetto in [[Constantinople]]. He also backed the [[Eastern Orthodox Church|orthodox]] clergy in denouncing other [[Christians]] as heretics. He constructed the [[Hagia Sophia]], which was one of the most magnificent and beautiful buildings ever, until the [[Muslims]] turned it into a [[mosque]].

A much different view of Justinian and wife is given in [[Procopius|Procopius]]' ''A Secret History'', which portrays him in a very negative light.

== References==
Holmes, George. ''The Oxford Hisory of Medieval Europe''. Oxford: University Press, 1988.

== Links==
[http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/procop-anec.html Text of Procopius' '''Secret History''']

[[category:History]]
[[category:Roman emperors]]

South Africa

2007-05-21T20:06:02Z

Brainslug: /* Crime in South Africa */ sp

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|Republic of South Africa
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:Sf-lgflag.gif|200px]]
Flag of South Africa
|-
|Capital
|[[Pretoria]] (administrative capital); [[Cape Town]] (legislative capital); [[Bloemfontein]] (judicial capital)
|-
|Government
|Republic
|-
|Languages
|IsiZulu 23.8%, IsiXhosa 17.6%, Afrikaans 13.3%, Sepedi 9.4%, English 8.2%, Setswana 8.2%, Sesotho 7.9%, Xitsonga 4.4%, other
|-
|President
|[[Thabo Mbeki]] (since 16 June 1999); note - the president is both the chief of state and head of government
|-
|Executive Deputy President
|[[Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka]] (since 23 June 2005)
|-
|Area
|1,219,912 sq km
|-
|Population (2007 estimate)
|43,997,828
|-
|GDP (2007 estimate)
|$576.4 billion (2006 est.)
|-
|GDP per capita (2007 estimate)
|$13,000 (2006 est.)
|-
|}
'''South Africa''' located on the southern tip of Africa is the wealthiest, and one of the largest countries on the continent.

It has a very advantageous location for trade routes by sea from Western Europe to India and the Far East. As a result, there was far more immigration by Europeans to South Africa than any other region of Africa, and whites of European ancestry (English and Dutch) ruled South Africa until the late twentieth century. Since then, democracy has brought representative government to the African ethnic groups.

==History==

The Dutch (or Boers) were the first to establish a European settlement in southern Africa, at Cape Colony on the very southern tip in 1652. This port supplied ships on the way to the Indiana Ocean. The Dutch emplyed Africans in conditions of indentured servitude, and set up farms for the unemployed Africans to work for the colonists' profit. In the 1800s the British arrived and took over Cape Colony, and disfavored the continuation of the Dutch system. The Dutch then moved inland, further north, in what is called the Great Trek. This created conflict with the native Africans.

In the late 1800s, an African ethnic group known as the Zulus rose to power in southern Africa, led by a military African genius named Shaka. But his successors could not retain power. By 1887 the British, with better military technology, defeated the Zulus.

The Boer War broke out between the British and the Boers in 1899. The dispute was sparked by disagreements over land, access to diamonds and gold discovered in South Africa, and whether immigrants should have political rights. The British won this war, and in 1902 established the Union of South Africa to include all the Boers republics. This country was controlled by the British but enjoyed some self-rule.

South Africa was the most complex, and the most prosperous, of the African colonies. As early as the 1600s the Dutch established Cape Town as a city at the southern tip of Africa. But during the Napoleonic Wars the British captured Cape Town (in 1815) and drove the Dutch (the “Boers”) inland. The Dutch favored continuation of slavery; the British abolished slavery in its empire in 1833.
[[Image:South_africa.gif|right|300px|thumb]]
The Boers fought the native Africans (Bantu tribes such as the Zulus) during the Great Trek of the Boers. The Boers founded two inland republics, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. But the British were more powerful, and controlled wealthy diamond mines. The Brit Cecil Rhodes acquired great wealth through his monopoly of the diamond production in 1889, and he served as prime minister of the British Cape Colony from 1890 to 1896.

A Boer War ensued from 1899 to 1902, and afterwards it was the Boers (the Dutch) who established “apartheid”. Apartheid segregated the majority blacks from the minority whites in South Africa, with the white minority controlling the country.

The British granted South Africa independence in 1910, and it became a member of the British Commonwealth in 1931 with its constitution allowing white rule over the blacks. But the country was prosperous, and all enjoyed a higher standard of living than the remainder of Africa.

The Dutch South Africans (Afrikaner) gained control in 1948 when their National Party rose to power and enforced apartheid throughout South Africa. Homelands (segregated areas) were even established for the rival African tribes, and the whites reserved the best property for themselves. Ever since 1912 the all-black African National Congress (ANC) objected, but it was suppressed. Demonstrations, such as the 1960 Sharpeville Massacre, occasionally broke out but were violently put down. An ANC leader named Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for his role in that demonstration. Riots over school segregation occurred in Soweto in 1976, and in 1977 the government beat an outspoken critic, Steve Biko, to death.

There was increasing pressure worldwide for South Africa to end its racism. Its athletes were banned from the Olympics since the 1960s, and trade restrictions were imposed by other nations. A black South African bishop, Desmond Tutu, called for boycotts of his own nation.

Finally, in 1989, a new South African president named F.W. de Klerk was elected who would change the country. With international approval, de Klerk legalized the ANC, released Nelson Mandela from jail, and obtained repeal of apartheid laws, and agreed to fully democratic elections in 1994. Nelson Mandela then won those elections and the ANC won a majority in the National Assembly, the bigger house in the South African Parliament. A new constitution containing a bill of rights like that in the United States was adopted in 1996, though it also included entitlement and social rights.

South Africa will host the World Cup (soccer) in 2010, the first time it has ever been held in Africa.

== Crime in South Africa ==

One of the largest challenges which South Africa faces is Crime. [[Crime in South Africa]] is a major political and social issue.

Rape is endemic in South Africa. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1909220.stm]

[[South African Farm Murders]] is a highly political issue. According to the Government the murders are "just the result of ordinary crime", but the Agricultural Unions believe it forms part of [[Genocide]] committed against white people (People of European decent)in South Africa.
[http://www.tlu.co.za/International%20Bulletins/2007/IB070315%20%20Forced%20Sales,%20Expropriations%20and%20Farm%20Attacks%20-%20Two%20Sides%20of%20the%20same%20Coin.htm]

== Genocide in South Africa ==

The African National Congress is promoting Genocide against the boer in South Africa. [http://www.stopboergenocide.com/index2.html]. 1860 Farmers were killed in South Africa since 1994. 400,000 Afrikaners are destitute and starving in South Africa.

There is also a believe that there is a conspiricy to kill white people on a massive scale after the death of Nelson Mandela. One of the operations planned entails 70,000 armed black men "being transported to the Johannesburg city center within an hour" in taxicabs to attack whites. The plans are variously dubbed "Operation Vula," "Night of the Long Knives," "Operation White Clean-up," "Operation Iron Eagle" and "Red October campaign." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37010]

The victims of this ongoing onslaught are invariably elderly, law-abiding, god-fearing whites, murdered in cold blood, in ways that beggar belief. For the edification of racism spotters in the West, "Carte Blanche" ought to have pointed out that their assailants are always black.
[http://www.ilanamercer.com/TheGenocideInDemocraticSA.htm]

== FIFA 2010 WORLD CUP ==

South Africa won the bid to host the [[FIFA 2010]] soccer world cup. [http://www.fifa.com/en/worldcup/index/0,3360,WF2010,00.html?comp=WF&year=2010]

== Criticism by the informal media in South Africa ==

It is widely believed that the South African Government controls the South African Media. Dr. Snuki Zikalala, the chief of SABC news and a member of the ruling ANC Government, is controlling the content of the news on the [[SABC]] (South African Broadcasting Corporation). [http://www.news24.com/Rapport/Hoofartikels/0,,752-800_2013532,00.html] Snuki Zakalala implemented an informal policy at the SABC to blacklist several highly credible commentators on the crisis in Zimbabwe, including Archbishop Pius Ncube, Moeletsi Mbeki, Trevor Ncube and Elinor Sisulu. [http://www.sokwanele.com/thisiszimbabwe/archives/466]

The Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) is seriously concerned about the state of media freedom in South Africa [http://www.fxi.org.za/pages/Home%20Page/Breaking%20News/PR_worldpressfreeday.html] According to the formal media in South Africa "Freedom of expression has limits." [http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?area=/insight/insight__columnists/&articleid=264715] The informal media believe this is used as an excuse to censor news which is not politically correct, or which does not serve the ruling political party's (political) agendas. It is also a method of the mainstream media to try and destroy opposition.

Therefore the public does not have access to uncencored news and information. The informal media is filling this gap by allowing individuals to post unedited information. The informal media (blogs) serves as an outlet for all of those individuals that have the need to say what they really think about the situation in South Africa, or on any other topic. [http://crimexposouthafrica.net/crimexp/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1558&Itemid=2]

The official South African media criticised the informal media, and questioned its professionalism, but some bloggers are actually reporters, or they have worked as reporters in the formal media. Some bloggers are highly intelligent, qualified and degreed, they run there our own successful companies and are well informed on the political situation in South Africa. [http://southafricasucks.blogspot.com/2007/05/taking-bull-out-of-bullard.html]

The formal media selects the information it wants to publish. When letters are received from the public, only certain letters are published. Not all letters can be published due to a lack of space in a newspaper, but this is not the case with the informal media. Furthermore the formal media selects which letters it wants to publish, according to the political affiliation or agendas of the newspaper. It may deliberately censor certain individuals or political views, or any other comments on any subject it doesn't support. Distorted points of view can also be provided by selectively deleting sections of any letter or comments made by individuals. It is easy for the informal media to expose politicians who are protected (even supported) by the mainstream media.

The informal media provided the individual with the means to express themselves, and for others to take note.

As an example, the “[[Why South Africa Sucks]]” website is one of the most popular South African Internet Blogs, critical of the [[crime]], [[Corruption]] & [[Genocide]] in South Africa. It was started on 13 Nov 2006. It recorded 222,006 hits since inception. There are 4 persons contributing to Articles on Why South Africa Sucks.[http://www.southafricasucks.blogspot.com/]

Other websites in the informal media is also critical of the government. The mainstream media tries to ignore these websites. They refuse to refer to them.

The website [[African Crisis]] reports on issues critical to South Africa. [http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Home.php]

Other informal websites critical of the situation in South Africa is:
* '''[[Crime Expo South Africa]] . Net''' [http://www.crimexposouthafrica.net/]

* '''[[The Right Perspective]]''' [http://www.therightperspectivepodcastblog.blogspot.com/]

The informal media in South Africa is not only critical about the situation in the country, but it also provides information on a wide range of subjects & different points of view.

== HIV and AIDS in South Africa ==

South Africa is currently experiencing one of the most severe [[AIDS]] epidemics in the world. [http://www.avert.org/aidssouthafrica.htm]

== References ==

<references/>
*'''Taking the Bull out of Bullard''' Informal South African Media Response [http://southafricasucks.blogspot.com/2007/05/taking-bull-out-of-bullard.html]

[[Category:African Countries]]

Chris Matthews

2007-05-20T18:50:42Z

Brainslug: copy-editing and removing description of him as "liberal," which is contradicted by the Bush line later.

'''Christopher John Matthews''' is the host of the talk show Hardball with Chris Matthews. He has worked for four Democratic politicians, and no Republicans. He was a speechwriter for President [[Jimmy Carter]] and wrote Carter's famous ''Malaise'' speech. He voted for [[George W. Bush]] in 2000.

{{DEFAULTSORT: Matthews, Chris}}
[[category:broadcasters]]

Douglas Adams

2007-05-20T18:46:48Z

Brainslug: moved reference, fixed formatting

'''Douglas Adams''' was the author of the bestselling book ''The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy'', based on his scripts for the radio series of the same title.

''The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy'' was followed by ''[[The Restaurant at the End of the Universe]]'', ''[[Life, The Universe, and Everything]]'', ''[[So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish]]'', and ''[[Mostly Harmless]]''. He has also written two books about a figure named Dirk Gently; ''[[Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency]]'' and ''[[Long Dark Tea-time of the Soul]]''.

In 1990, Adams traveled around the world with zoologist Mark Carwardine to write ''[[Last Chance to See]]'', a book about endangered species and the people who work to help them. At the time of his death Adams was working on his eighth novel ''[[The Salmon of Doubt]],'' which in its incomplete published form centers again on Dirk Gently, although Adams had spoken about the possibility of changing it to another Hitchhiker novel. The book also contains several short stories and essays, including discussion of the author's [[atheist|atheism]].

''The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy'' started as a radio show on BBC in 1978 and has later been converted into novels, a TV-show, movies, a record album and a computer game.

Douglas Adams was born in Cambridge, UK, in March 1952 and died of heart attack in May 2001. He was an environmental activist, an avid technologist, and described himself as "a radical [[atheist]]." [[Richard Dawkins]], a close friend and fellow atheist, dedicated his book "[[The God Delusion]]" to his memory.

During his life, he won three Golden Pans and several other awards. <ref>http://www.douglasadams.com/dna/bio.html</ref>

On Adams' death, Dawkins had the following to say about his friend:

<blockquote>
" Science has lost a friend, literature has lost a luminary, the mountain gorilla and the black rhino have lost a gallant defender (he once climbed Kilimanjaro in a rhino suit to raise money to fight the cretinous trade in rhino horn), Apple Computer has lost its most eloquent apologist. And I have lost an irreplaceable intellectual companion and one of the kindest and funniest men I ever met."<ref>http://edge.org/documents/adams_index.html</ref>
</blockquote>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Authors|Adams, Douglas]]

Kent Hovind

2007-05-17T13:19:13Z

Brainslug: fixing link

'''Kent Hovind''' (born 1953) is a prominent [[Young Earth Creationist|young Earth creationist]] and conservative. He founded Creation Science Evangelism Ministry in 1989. <ref>http://www.drdino.com/</ref> He is well known for his standing $250,000 offer to anyone who can prove evolution. <ref>http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67</ref>

Some fellow young Earth creationists have distanced himself from Hovind because he is currently serving a ten-year term in U.S. federal prison for 58 tax offenses, obstructing federal agents and related charges, and because he has suggested a government role in the 9/11 attacks. <ref>http://www.kent-hovind.com/articles/semite.htm</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Creationist|Hovind, Kent]]

Kent Hovind

2007-05-17T13:18:31Z

Brainslug: should really probably be young-Earth, but anyway (caps change)

'''Kent Hovind''' (born 1953) is a prominent [[young Earth creationist]] and conservative. He founded Creation Science Evangelism Ministry in 1989. <ref>http://www.drdino.com/</ref> He is well known for his standing $250,000 offer to anyone who can prove evolution. <ref>http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67</ref>

Some fellow young Earth creationists have distanced himself from Hovind because he is currently serving a ten-year term in U.S. federal prison for 58 tax offenses, obstructing federal agents and related charges, and because he has suggested a government role in the 9/11 attacks. <ref>http://www.kent-hovind.com/articles/semite.htm</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Creationist|Hovind, Kent]]

Jesus Christ

2007-05-16T17:31:21Z

Brainslug: rvv

[[Image:Christ.jpg|thumb|right|700px|The Christ Redeemer Statue in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.]]

'''Jesus Christ''' is the only Son of God who, in the fullness of time, was sent by God the Father to be the expiation for our sins and to ransom us from death.<ref>1 John 4:10; 2 Corinthians 5:19.</ref> By the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and became man in an event known as the Incarnation. Indeed, the calendar itself reflects this truth, with the traditional calculation of Jesus’ birth marking the first century A.D., that is, "''in the year of Our Lord…''".

When he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, inaugurating his ministry. Jesus was the Christ (Greek: Χριστός), or Messiah ([[Hebrew]]: 'משיחא'), prophesied in the Old Testament; he proclaimed, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe in the gospel.”<ref>Mark 1:14-15.</ref> As signs of these truths, Jesus performed various miracles.

Jesus founded the Christian religion, choosing twelve apostles to participate in his mission, and commissioning them to “preach the Kingdom of God and to heal”.<ref>Luke 9:2.</ref>

However, not all who heard the Lord believed in him, and, because he “was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God”, some sought to put him to death.<ref>John 5:18.</ref> Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and crucified. But it was through his redemptive death, as the scriptures had foretold, that Jesus reconciled mankind with God.<ref>Romans 5:10.</ref> And so, on the third day, in a truly historical event, Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him. Indeed, his very name (Hebrew 'יהושע', Joshua) means ‘[[YHWH]] is [[salvation]]’. After appearing to his disciples on various occasions, Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he acts as our mediator, assuring, by his constant intercession, the permanent outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

''For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. '' (John 3:16).

==Jesus' Life==

In the [[Gospels]] of [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] and [[Gospel of Luke|Luke]], Jesus was born in [[Bethlehem]] ([[Judea]]) to [[Virgin Mary|Mary]], who at the time was a virgin, by the [[Holy Spirit]]. The [[Gospel of Luke]] relates that the angel [[Gabriel]] visited Mary in order to announce to her that she had been chosen to bear the Son of God (Luke 1:26–38). An order of [[Augustus|Caesar Augustus]], that a survey of the [[Roman Empire]] should be made caused Mary and [[Joseph (father of Jesus)|Joseph]] to leave Nazareth and go to the home of Joseph's forebears - to the house of [[David|King David]]. After Jesus' birth, they were forced to use a manger for a crib because the town's inn was full. According to Luke 2:8–20, an [[Angel|angel]] spread word of Jesus' birth to several shepherds who came to visit the newborn. Matthew also tells of the "Magi", ([[Zoroastrianism|Zoroastrian]] priests), who brought many gifts to the infant Jesus (among which were [[gold]], [[frankincense]], and [[myrrh]]; this has led to the incorrect assumption that three Magi were present, whereas the actual number is not given) after following a star which they believed was an indication that the [[Messiah]], or King of the Jews, had been born.

Jesus' early home is stated to have been in the town of Nazareth in [[Galilee]], and except for an escape to [[Egypt]] in early childhood, to avoid [[Herod the Great|Herod's]] massacre of the other male infants, all other events in the Gospels take place in ancient Israel. Luke's Finding in the Temple (Luke 2:41–52), where Jesus impressed the priests by discoursing in [[Old Testament|scripture]] with them, is the only detailed event between Jesus' infancy and adult life mentioned in any of the canonical Gospels.

The Gospel of Mark begins with the [[baptism]] of Jesus by [[John the Baptist]], which appears to be the beginning of Jesus' public ministry. Jesus came to the [[Jordan River|River Jordan]], where John was preaching and baptizing people in the crowd. After Jesus had been baptized, and had risen up out of the water, Mark states Jesus 'saw the heavens torn apart and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from [[heaven]], 'You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased' (Mark 1:10–11). Luke adds the chronological anchor that John the Baptist had begun preaching in the fifteenth year of [[Tiberius]] Caesar, approximately in 28 AD (Luke 3:1) and that Jesus was thirty years old when he was baptized (Luke 3:23).

After this baptism, according to Matthew, Jesus was brought into the desert by God where he fasted for forty days nights. During this period, the [[Satan]] appeared before him and tried three times to tempted Jesus into demonstrating his supernatural powers as a proof of his divine status; each temptation was refused by Jesus, with a scriptural quote from the Book of [[Deuteronomy]].

Jesus then began to preach. [[Gospel of John|John]] describes three different [[passover]] feasts that Jesus attended, thus implying that his ministry lasted three years.

The larger part of this was directed towards his closest followers, the [[Apostles]], although all of his followers were considered [[disciples]]. At the highest point of his ministry, Jesus attracted disciples and audiences numbering in the thousands; in particular in the area of Galilee. Many of Jesus' most well-known teachings were given during the [[Sermon on the Mount]], such as the [[Beatitudes]] and the [[Lord's Prayer]]. Jesus often used parables in his rhetorical technique, such as the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]] and the [[Parable of the Sheep and the Goats]]; these teachings encouraged unconditional self-sacrificing [[Shema|love for God]] and [[Agape|for all people]]. During these sermons, he also discussed service and humility, forgiveness of sins, how faith should be applied, the [[Golden Rule]], and the necessity of following the spirit of the law as well as its wording.

Jesus also often conversed with social outcasts, such as the publican ([[Rome|Roman]] tax collectors who were unpopular for their practice of extorting money).

Throughout his ministry, Jesus performed many miracles including healing the sick and possessed, feeding 5000, and even raising from the dead.

As He preached, Jesus ran afoul of the [[Sanhedrin]] the recognized Jewish religious authorities who were allowed to have considerable religious, political and monetary influence under Roman rule. Jesus chastised them, accusing them of making laws for the people to follow that were the laws of men, not God. The Sanhedrin tried to set traps for Jesus by asking Him questions to either discredit Him with the people or get Him in trouble with the Roman authorities, but all of their efforts failed and they gave up. They lacked the means to stop Jesus until [[Judas Iscariot]] came to them and offered to betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. He would tell them where Jesus would be that night so they could seize Him.

Jesus knew that His time was short and that He was about to be betrayed into the hands of sinners. He had His last supper with his disciples and went with them to the Garden of Gethsemane and prayed vehemently knowing what was about to come.

[[Image:Jesus5.jpg‎|right|thumb|300px|Jesus Christ (Conceptualization)]]

Jesus was betrayed by Judas into the hands of the Jewish religious authorities who took Him away and secretly put Him on trial during the night, trying to find justification for their desire to have Him killed. Finally, they convicted Him of blasphemy. As they did not have the authority to put a man to death, they took him to [[Pontius Pilate]], the Roman governor of Palestine, with their charges and demand his execution. Pilate avoided the issue by sending him to [[Herod Antipas|King Herod]] since Jesus was a Galilean, but Herod sent him back to Pilate. Pilate at first tried to release Jesus with a flogging, but ultimately condemned Jesus to [[crucifixion]]. Jesus died after suffering and giving up his spirit. The Bible goes on to record His resurrection on the third day, appearing before his disciples, and his later ascension into heaven as His disciples watched.

==The Historical Jesus==

Modern historians generally place the actual date of Jesus' birth between 7 and 4 B.C. due to problems reconciling the Roman and Jewish calendars with the [[Gregorian Calendar]] which is in use today throughout the industrialized world.

Occasionally non-historians deny the [[Historicity of Jesus|existence of Jesus]], <ref>"Book Article Denies the Existence of a Historical Jesus Figure" [http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/12694/ NewswireToday ] </ref>
<ref>"David H. Lewis [debates] the historicity of Jesus, arguing that New Testament and contemporaneous writings give very little evidence that Jesus actual ever lived." [http://www.abc.net.au/religion/stories/s1517040.htm Escaping the Gravitational Pull of the Gospels] </ref>
but few scholars take this seriously.
[[Tacitus]], the Roman historian, wrote about Jesus in A.D. 115<ref>http://www.digisys.net/users/ddalton/evidence_of_jesus_outside_the_bible.htm</ref>, and [[Josephus]], a Jewish historian who did not believe in Jesus' divinity, wrote about him. <ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html</ref>. Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] wrote an extensive analysis of the historicity of the existence of Jesus in his work ''The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ'' which discusses many historical sources which mention Jesus.

[[Lee Strobel]]'s book ''The Case for Christ'' contains a number of interviews with experts on the historical Jesus and a defense of Jesus's resurrection, and is a good resource on this subject.

== Defense of the resurrection of Jesus ==
The [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]] is critical to the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul wrote, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (I Cor:15:14). Traditionally, Christianity has believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. <ref>http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0056a.txt</ref>

In recent history [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] Gary Habermas is considered the foremost apologist for defending the resurrection of Jesus. <ref>http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/books/lichabrvw.html</ref><ref>http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection1-CTR.pdf </ref><ref>http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection2-CTR.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html</ref> Dr. Habermas had a debate against the philosopher [[Anthony Flew]] regarding the resurrection which was chronicled in the work ''Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate'' and the debate had a panel of debate judges. J. Hampton Keathley, III , Th.M. in his essay ''Evidences for the Resurrection'' wrote: "The decision of the judges were as follows. The panel of [[Philosophy|philosophers]] judging content cast four votes for Habermas who argued for the fact of the resurrection, none for Flew, and one draw. The panel of professional debate judges voted three to two, also in favor of Habermas, this time regarding the method of argumentation technique." <ref>http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=639</ref>

In recent history some notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]], [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]], [[Edwin M. Yamauchi]], [[N.T. Wright]] and [[Michael Horner]]. <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html</ref><ref>http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm</ref><ref>http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html</ref>

Legal scholars such as [[Simon Greenleaf]], [[John Warwick Montgomery]] and many others have asserted that western legal standards argue for the resurrection of Christ. <ref>http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm</ref><ref>http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm</ref><ref>http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_lawreligionculturereview_archive.html</ref><ref>http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/philjohnsonpap.html</ref> Defenders of the resurrection of Christ also cite many distinguished legal authorities regarding the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. <ref>http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/apologetics/AP0302W3.htm</ref>

Another reason to believe the resurrection is the fact that many people who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus voluntarily preached the news of this despite extreme persecution, and died for their efforts. Unlike the early members of most religions, these people had the opportunity to be direct eyewitnesses to what verified the claims of Christianity.

== See also ==

*[[Byzantine Empire]]
*[[Andrew the Apostle]]
*[[Lazarus (brother of Mary)]]
*[[Lazarus (Parable)]]
*[[Judaism]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.ccci.org/wij/ Who is Jesus? Is Jesus Christ God?]
*[http://www.farsinet.com/christmas/nativity_church.html Church of Nativity - Birth Place of Jesus Christ] Bethlehem.
*[http://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=19&sub=302&cat_name=Jesus&subcat_name=Background Jesus Background] Bible History on line.
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm Jesus Christ]Catholic Encyclopedia.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Jesus]]
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Christian History]]
[[Category:Religion]]

J. Dennis Hastert

2007-05-16T17:15:12Z

Brainslug: Hastert's not from Iowa

J. Dennis Hastert, M.C. was the [[Speaker of the House]] (1999-2007), preceding [[Nancy Pelosi]] and succeeding [[Newt Gingrich]], and currently is a Representative from [[Illinois]].
[[Category:US Representative]]
[[Category:Speakers of the House(US)]]

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2007-05-16T17:06:53Z

Brainslug: /* Section on Line-Drawing & Gay Rights */

{{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)

== Edit war ==

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)

==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)

Amniotic egg

2007-05-16T17:01:56Z

Brainslug: caps

An amniotic egg is an egg which has a shell and can hold water. It allows [[reptile]], [[bird]], and some [[mammal]] [[embryo]]s to develop.

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Reproduction]]

National Center for Science Education

2007-05-16T16:51:16Z

Brainslug: caps

The '''National Center for Science Education''' (NCSE) advocates teaching the [[theory of evolution]] is [[U.S.]] [[public school]]s, to the exclusion of [[scientific creationism]]. It consider [[Intelligent Design]] to be a form of [[creationism]]. Their slogan is, "Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools".
[[category:politics]]

Talk:Ann Coulter

2007-05-16T16:15:54Z

Brainslug: /* Strong following? */

==General comments==

I didn't realize that slinging mud at other people was a valid method to defend what a person says. No matter what, someone can mention that Hitler killed millions during the Holocaust, so it shouldn't matter that Ann Coulter is a bigoted transvestite.

Coulter is crazy. Her crazyness has many aspects, one of which is a desperate seeking of attention. Another is a tendency to think of absolutly everything as a religion. Liberalism? Religion. Evolution? Religion. Another is consistantly demonising those she dislikes: Homosexuals become violent pedophile abusers, liberals become christian-hating communists, and so on. - Suricou, rambling.

[http://www.hoolinet.com/straponvets/tabid/278/default.aspx] The truth about Ann Coulter.

Attempting to defend Coulter's statements just exposes the incredible bias and partisanship of this site. She made a ragingly stupid, offensive and derogatory statement. There is not doubt about what she said or what it means.

I don't believe that footnote is all that necessary. Do you seriously think that anyone who's ever spoken English _doesn't_ know what a f****t is? --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it is important, for precisely the reason articulated below by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. Coulter says the word "has nothing to do with gays." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Faggot means a bundle of sticks. I do not understand the liberal media's obsession with casting her as a bigot. She was merely pointing out an etymological anomaly. At worst, it was misinterpreted by people who were looking for something to complain about. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:44, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

: I'm going to look for a real definition that captures its widespread use in the 1970s as a wimp or wuss. In slang in the 1970s it did not typically mean homosexual. The etymology of the word has nothing to do with homosexuality, as it comes from British prep schools a century ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree that it comes from British prep schools a century ago, the three-letter version anyway. More than a century ago, actually, as it appears throughout ''Tom Brown's Schooldays,'' published in 1857 and probably is derived from Hughes' experiences decades before. But I can only suppose that you have been deceived by the euphemistic way in which British prep schools have been described in literature. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The three-letter version is defined by Wentworth and Flexner (1967) Dictionary of American Slang, Supplemented Edition, Crowell:

::::n. 1. A cigarette c1915 .... 2 A homosexual; an effeminate man.... Although [it use for cigarettes] may have reinforced the use of the word, [three-letter version], a boy servant or lackey has been common Eng. schoolboy use since before 1830, and may be the origin....

::::There is probably no way to be certain of the range of services traditionally provided by "boy servants or lackeys" in British prep schools. <s>Even Orwell's "Such, Such Were the Joys" is very elliptical on this point.</s> In "Such, Such Were the Joys" Orwell says "At some preparatory schools homosexuality is not a problem," but is frank about its existence at St. Cyprians. He gives few details, saying that at that time he was in "an almost sexless state" and he does not use the word we're discussing. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], If your source for "This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century" is your own experience, all I can say is, not at the American school '''I''' attended in the 20th century. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I don't know. But the term was never meant to apply exclusively, or even primarily, as a slur against gays. Mayor Sharpe's use demonstrates that. It's more plausible that homosexuals adopted the term "faggot" just as they adopted the term "gay". A famous Alfred Hitchcock movie (1940s?) has a line where the actor describes San Francisco as "gay". That was not a slur, and the adoption of the term by the homosexual movement does not mean that everyone else must immediately abandon its traditional meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Even the etymology cited in the article does not support Ann Coulter's stated definition of 'wuss'. The term has never meant anything like 'wuss'. The definition connected with schools cited in the article says: ''It also may have roots in Brit. public school slang fag "a junior who does certain duties for a senior" (1785), with suggestions of "catamite," from fag (v.). This was also used as a verb.'' [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 10.50 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::Now is not the 1970s, and its meaning is pretty well set at this point. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faggot Etymology] of the term, for anyone who's interested. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:44, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for the citation, which I've concluded. Does Sandbagger think the meaning of the word "niggardly" has now changed also? I've added that incident to this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't think the parallel is good. The meaning of "niggardly" is well-defined. The dictionary does not suggest that it is racial slur, or hint that it should be avoided because of its similarly in sound to a racial slur. The person who used it was almost certainly using it in good faith with its dictionary meaning (there's a possibility he was ''deliberately'' using it ''because'' it was similar in sound to a racial slur but I discount it). Those who objected to it were fools.

:: In the case of Ann Coulter's use of the word she used, the situation is not parallel. It is much hazier. Unlike "niggardly," the standard dictionary definition of the word '''is''' a reference to homosexuality. (I don't think anyone would argue that she was talking about a bundle of twigs). Coulter may have been going by the meaning of the word as she learned it at school. She very likely never looked it up in a dictionary. Her recollection of what the word meant in her school may be accurate—or may have reflected innocence on her part at the time. And in the intervening years she may never have heard the word used to mean "homosexual."

:: Yes, you could say she has "plausible deniability," but it seems a stretch to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::: But Edwards isn't gay. So what do you think Coulter meant by the term, if not the ordinary schoolhouse usage? Do you think it is racist for one African American to use the "N" word to refer to another African American? I really don't see how there can be a gay slur against someone who isn't gay.
::::Although Edwards is not gay, he is known for taking a lot of care with his personal appearance, particularly his hair. This trait is thought by some people to imply effeminacy. I think Coulter was using the word faggot to make that implication and associate Edwards with that trait in the minds of some people. Essentially, she was making a joke, but her claim of schoolhouse usage is thoroughly disingenuous. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11.17 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: By the way, dictionaries are biased just like anything else. "Common Era" is in the dictionary now also, but we expressly reject the dictionary about that. Conservatives resist liberal attempts to change meanings of words to suit the liberal agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think the "niggardly" incident really has any place in this article, especially if the goal is to limit gossip. In my opinion, all that really needs to be said on the "faggot" comment is that Coulter said it, some people got upset, she apologized for it. End of story. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:I removed the claim that no leading conservative group distanced themselves from their statements, because I remember reading a press release from the website of the Christian Defense Alliance doing just that. I consider this group notable because their pro-life activism has been noted on a national stage (particularly their attempts to get Rick Warren to distance themselves from Barack Obama.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought that Conservapedia was going to stay away from this sort of trivia and gossip. Who cares about the Edwards remark? Why is it of any significance? Possibly some people were offended, but those same people are probably more offended by 100 other things that Coulter has said. I say that the whole section should be removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:No, these statements-- and the despicable, violent left-wing overreaction-- make her who she is. It's definitive, so it should stay (but be streamlined). {{unsigned|MikeM}}

It's not just gossip, in my opinion, because this is a major news story that has been covered by the news. I know it's not as significant, but it's like saying that the whole Monica Lewinsky thing was just gossip. I don't want this to dominate the article, but I don't want people thinking we approve of it, because I agree with the Christian Defense Alliance and many other conservatives that Ms. Coulter makes us look bad as conservatives.

This is just my personal opinion, though. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: There is no need to either approve or disapprove. Maybe you could say that she occasionally makes inflammatory remarks. Beyond that, I see no value to showing some opinions on this particular remark. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, I just realized how redundant I was. "News story that was covered by the news"? I'm tired. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

"This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century, and is supported by its etymology as a term applying to someone who does duties for others more senior.[6] Edwards, whose public service consists of merely one term in the U.S. Senate, fits that meaning."

This last unsourced sentence, effectively makes conservapedia AGREE with Edwards being a "faggot". Why not add "in Ann Coulter's opinion" to that? I came to this site with high expectations and here we have the site agreeing with childish name-calling as if it is a known, verifiable fact! [[User:deronde|deronde]] 16:05, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

Why is this page blocked? Doesn't it deserve the contributions of internet users like other articles, or have we decided that an article on Coulter falls below the standard for democratic exertion?--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 21:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: It's pretty sad when a hate monger like Coulter is lionized on a site that is reputedly organized around Christian values and her blatent hate speech is ( apparently seriously ) treated to a convulated etymology that priveledges definitions far removed in place and time over the one that she so obivously meant. Isn't there some sin in this? It just goes to show the hypocracy and fascism that this project embodies. Isn't lying a sin? Isn't corrupt use of power a sin? Oh, I forgot the intelligent design debate. Obviously some 'christians' think lying is ok when it serves a grander purpose like, say confirming their bias or damaging those they perceive as enemies for instance. Have you no shame? The lord's work indeed. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 15:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Godman, Why do you feel the necessity to engage in name calling? Isn't using vicious invective hate speech? What about impugning motives without cause? Doesn't throwing around the term "fascism" recklessly denigrate the meaning and suffering of fascism's real victims? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I think Coulter's actions speak for themselves. As a practicing Christian and a true conservative I feel some compulsion to point out when radical elements co-opt the label conservative and Christian for their own seemingly cynical ends. That saddens me, as it should any Christian and any patriot, and it weakens the impact of God's message and closes hearts of those whom Coulter attacks. I didn't throw out the label fascism lightly. Coulter's position and belief seem founded on its tenents. By your tacit defense of Coulter, I gather the 'god' you worship delights in hate speech and name calling as does the brand of 'conservatism' you embrace. As it is, conservapedia is an embarassment and an abomionation. The name should be changed to radicalapedia or fascipedia. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I really hope you're joking. To suggest that we should disregard MONTHS of precedent on this site and completely warp its original focus to somehow give the impression that one must be a "radical" or "fascist" in order to share their viewpoints is probably one of the most absurd, and, coincidentally, radical and fascistic concepts I have heard in a LONG time. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Ann's next book==
Since the page is blocked, please add the following reference:
Ann's book publisher, The Crown Publishing Group, has no problems with Ann and is planning an October release for her next book, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258370,00.html Coulter's Book Publisher Undeterred by Flap Over Remark About Gays] FoxNews.com</ref> [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Done. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ann Coulter is to politcal discourse what [[Richard Speck]] was to the nursing profession. Thanks to hatemongers like her, Savage, and Limbaugh, we've got a country split between Conservatives who think all Liberals are communist homosexuals who murder children for thrills, and Liberals who think all conservatives are jackbooted [[Neanderthals]] who can't wait to start another [[civil war]]. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 21:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::The liberals are for free speech unless it is a conservative voicing their views not using politically correct speech. The left resorts to name calling labeling conservatives "hatemongers", "homophobes", etc. I've heard the Hollywood left saying hateful speech about President Bush and the left has no problem because it's liberal politically correct. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 16:59, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
<references/>
::I concur. Why do we put up with all these namby pamby goofs that want to keep us from the truth. Bill Clinto is gay, look at Hillary. I would be gay too if I was married to that. We should be able to say whatever we want on this site--it is for us--not them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And one more thing, why don't we call things like they are? I read somewhere that the word "cowboy" was being replaced by "person of the west" in kids' textbooks. Can't we just call them cowboys and indians? And what about Manhole covers? Do we really need to say "person-hole-covers?" I have many black friends and I don't refer to them as "african-american" or whatever--I call them black. They call me white and we get along. Sometimes, jokingly, we call each other 'negro' but so waht? we're friends. If we want to call each other something unpopular, who cares? I applaud that senator from Virginia for calling the kid macaca, or whatever. it was meant to be funny. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Category ==
If this article is unlocked at some point, it should probably be added to [[:Category:Political people]] or [[:Category:Biographies]]. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well that's all a matter on how one views Coulter, isn't it? I think she's in there with Mort Sahl, Rush Limbaugh, (and dare I say it:) Al Franken: People who're commentators on the world as THEY see it NOW. Sure, the underlying messages are serious but she's using the tongue-in-cheek method to be able to explore issues that one cannot approach in a serious fashion because it would look like attacks straight off. I think her a master of the use of hyperbole that gets her opponents ''so'' riled up as to leave their common sense, (and at times common courtesy), in the trunk of the car. And she knows this and ''plays'' it like it's all been scripted out beforehand.
:While I do not know the woman personally, I like her. In some ways she reminds me a bit of the [[User:Aschlafly| Boss']] mother. Strong, articulate, fast on her feet, personable with being overly deferential.
:MOO --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Perhaps some more information about her credentials ==

I'd like to see some more information about Ann Coulter's credentials as a journalist/commentator. Many people are unaware of her years of service as a lawyer in Washington. I'd be happy to make the addition if it was unlocked.

== Biographical data ==

Shouldn't an entry on an individual include at least a little biographical information? Born, educated, work history, family, etc.
This entry is not really about ''Ann Coulter'', it's about what ''she writes'' about. This looks like a section in a lrger entry on Coulter, not a complete entry. Why is it blocked? How can this essential encyclopedia style information be added?

:It is my understanding that Ms. Coulter is unmarried, and carries on sexual relationships outside of marriage. This is very concerning to me, because this behavior is in direct violation of God's Laws. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

shouldn't this information be in the article? I mean we know for a fact where she was educated, where she has worked, and what her residence is. Although on that last point there has been some dispute as her voter fraud run in with the law has shown. Would that be gossip or pertinent biographical data? The article as it stands is just pertaining to the Edwards flap and has little to do with Coulter. Why has this article been locked??

:I'm not sure how this is relevant. I find Ms. Coulter's unmarried status to be troubling, because she is of marriagable age. I would like this Conservative icon to find Love and reconcile her personal life with the Precepts of the Divine. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Total Fag" ==

For context on how Ann was using the word to refer to Edwards, I just think its relevant to point out Ann's appearance on Hardball last July, after saying a day before that Bill Clinton was a latent homosexual.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about your private life. How do you know that Bill Clinton's gay?
COULTER: He may not be gay, but Al Gore, total fag.

So she's clearly aware of at least some connection between toe word Fag and homosexuality. So when she says that the word "has nothing to do with Gays," she's kind of... you know, lying.
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 15:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

OTHER WORD GAMES: If the censors who locked the article see this, in point of fact David Howard resigned after the "N-word" incident; he was not fired. Also, the reaction was not so much from "liberals" as from Marshall Brown, an African-American colleague of his who either misheard it or misunderstood it.

== Coulter -- hardly a role model for Conservatives ==

Coulter is a puzzle -- how did someone who, on innumerable occasions, quite enjoys insulting, attacking, and saying nasty and unkind things about people with whom she disagrees ever become a beacon for people who loudly proclaim they are Christians? Judge not, that ye be not judged -- it seems plain enough that Christ himself decries such behavior, so I am eternally puzzled as to how self-avowed Christians find her actions admirable. On purely logical grounds, her ''ad hominem'' attacks against Edwards and others are laughable (but not in the way she imagines). In any case, what we have here is not an encylopedia entry, it's a puff piece, and one locked away so that none of us who may differ with it can do anything about it. That doesn't sound to me as though it will lead to "a conservative encyclopedia you can trust"! [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 22:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I think Coulter's entire persona is a parody of the typical conservatives idea of 'jerk fodder.' At least I hope it is. If she's a real person... ... wow. Doesn't bear thinking about, really. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: So? The article doesn't say that Coulter is a role model. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::She's trying to get attention. She wants people to read her books and columns and listen to her.

::Her contention is that liberals shut down debate and monopolize the airwaves and print media with their biased POV. After she gets the audience's attention, she points out this liberal bias and gives a consevative retort.

::She uses irony, mockery and sarcasm to '''keep the reader's attention''' as she makes her points.

::IMHO she does this as a deliberate tactic, not because it's her nature. But my tactic vs. nature speculation is, well, just personal speculation. I wish she conducted herself with as much dignity as [[Diane Ravitch]] or [[Lynne Cheney]]. On the other hand, who but me has ever read the latter two's works? Ravitch is virtually unknown outside the academic world, and Cheney is regarded merely as the VP's wife. At least Coulter gets her points across in books that keep making the ''New York Times'' bestseller list. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Coulter tells it like it is!--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yeah, and all those times where she's been roven to be wrong just shows you how biased objective reality can be trying to smear her, right?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 08:46, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Schoolyard taunt?==
The thing that nobody seems to be commenting on is that she believes she's ''defending'' herself by calling the word "a schoolyard taunt."

Are "schoolyard taunts" the proper stuff of discourse between adults on matters of consequence? Does she think it is appropriate for a woman in her forties to be behaving like a schoolchild? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::why don't you call her up and ask her? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:07, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Do you know where I could get appropriate contact information? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: Get over it. Most politicians have occasionally made a childish wisecrack about someone on the other side of a political battle. Find me someone who never uses a taunt, and that would be news. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I didn't say "it doesn't happen." Are ''you'' saying you consider it to be ''appropriate?'' For liberals? For conservatives? For responsible adults? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'd call ''Bush lied, people died'' a taunt. No one seems to care about how many Kurds Saddam gassed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Erm, you ''could'' say that Bush cared for the Kurds, considering he deposed Saddam. Highly unlikely, though. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:42, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==Offensive manner==

We could mention reports of people '''taking offense''' but it's not objective to label her manner as offensive. Here's an example. Suppose I say that atheism is sinful, and John Smith feels offended. Have I given offense? Hard to say.

But if he voices an objection, we can certainly quote him:
*Ed says atheism is a sin. John called Ed's remark "offensive".

That's how I would do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:46, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It would not be offensive to atheists, because sin is the transgression of God's Law, and atheists do not believe in God, so it would be like someone accusing you of transgressing the law of Zeus, or Baal. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Comedic" ==

The opening sentence describes that Ann Coulter is "comedic" yet the article only demonstrates that the despises "liberals" and is indifferent to cultures of other nations. Previously there was the commentary on the not-gay-related-at-all John Edwards "Faggot" remark, and since a room full of conservatives found that laugh-out-loud hilarious for whatever reason, that claim could be made, but since that is no longer present on the article there is no explanation or demonstration of her being funny. Please either remove the word or demonstrate how she's "Comedic", and if you could, explain how calling people Stupid Traitorous Lying Religiously-Godless Fanatical Faggots (who must not be spoken to) is funny? Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and it only seems to me to be insulting.
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 12:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:If it will give you any comfort, Ann Coulter is relegated to the lunatic fringe by the rest of the right-wing commentariat, along with Michael Savage. You would never find her as a guest on the Hugh Hewitt show, for example. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::I dont think being invited as a major speaker at the Conservatice Political Action Conference jives with being "relegated to the fringe," and neither does Mitt Romney endorsing her before she speaks, but maybe thats just me.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 15:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building," ==

I agree that this is sufficiently troubling that a good source is needed. I think it is relevant precisely because it seems to me to go beyond the bounds of anything that can possibly be brushed off as humor. I think an Associated Press story printed in USA Today is a good enough source.

If the issue is whether the New York Observer actually printed this, I'm willing to pay the $2.95 to confirm it, but I don't think this is at issue. If this issue is whether she really said it, presumably if she issued a "clarification" (which IMHO makes it worse) to rightwingnews.com that means she acknowledges saying it. I haven't actually found this in rightwingnews.com, but believe that the AP would be reliable on this. As nearly as I can tell, rightwingnews.com is actually a conservative website (not one on which liberals track right wing excesses or anything like that). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:05, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Found the Right Wing News interview. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Help me write [[Out of context]]. It also might need a title change. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:59, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== interesting artlcle ==

As you can imagine (if you read my user page) I somewhat disagree with Ms. Coulter on one or two issues. What I found amusing about this article was that, after the blushingly adoring intro paragraphs, there are a bunch of quotes. Ironically, they are the ones I am familiar with, from hard core left wing sources. Nice job on the balance! First she is praised, then her nut-job ideas are actually quoted so people can "decide" <s>who</s> what she is. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:32, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:The misquote was obviously intended to make Coulter appear to be joking about genocide when in actual context it is nothing of the sort. She ''in fact'' is paraphrasing liberals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which quote are you referring to? I am talking about ''all of them''. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Are you saying these quotes are made up? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:52, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::No, not at all. I just find it odd that the same quotes that travel in liberal circles to show, um, what we think of Ms. Coulter are the ones being presented here. Meaning, they mostly horrify me, rather than make her seem like a leader or intelligent pundit. Ah, and the previous comments get confusing - I was asking "which quote" is the "misquote". My first comment was about "all of them". [[User:Human|Human]] 13:16, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Why do you find it surprising that liberals would comment on the outrageous things that Ms. Coulter has said? Do you think that her horrifying comments about executing liberals and her disgusting smear against women who lost their husbands to 9/11 are not revealing and should not been repeated when assessing her as a pundit? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:19, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:Do conservatives really consider her a "thinker" or am I reading too much in this? She sounds like a total fruitcake. I mean, if she didn't go to law school, I imagine her pushing a shopping cart and arguing with mailboxes. That's about the level of thought I expect form her. Who cares what she says? She's a total idiot. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:23, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::She's a "total idiot" who is regularly invited to give her opinions at major Conservative gatherings and on nationally broadcast talk shows, and the misinformation she's disseminated about, for instance, Joseph McCarthy, is routinely repeated as fact by naive and ignorant souls who mistake her books for nonfiction. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:27, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:I know, I know. I'm just saying she's basically a troll that gets fed by ultra-conservatives and I wish they'd stop. Kind of like watching an ugly guy ask out a cute girl and the process takes a long time and is ''really'' uncomfortable.... That is what I think every time I see her on TV. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:21, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Why should they "stop feeding her?" She's not only a valuable source of misinformation, she helps to push out the boundaries of debate in this country closer and closer to direct advocacy of violence and political repression against Moslems, liberals, and other people she dislikes. They like that. That's why they "feed" her. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:25, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::makes my heart "bleed" a little more every time I read the first two lines of her column on Thursdays. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:56, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Strong following? ==

While there has been much talk about her as a role model above, I'd like to know if the following is true:

"Coulter has earned a strong following among conservatives".

Every right-wing american I know either considers her a joke, or at least "you have Michael Moore, we have Ann Coulter, they are equally bad" (not that I would ever compare Moore to Coulter). [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 04:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

By taking on a human form it is able to gather minions.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

"We need to execute people like John Walker [Lindh] in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors," Conservative Political Action Conference, January 2002. Coulter later clarified what she meant; "when I said we should "execute" John Walker Lindh, I mis-spoke. What I meant to say was 'We should burn John Walker Lindh alive and televise it on prime-time network TV'. My apologies for any misunderstanding that might have occurred. " [9]

A very Christian idea. I'm sure Jesus approves whole-heartedly. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:05, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:There is capital punishment in the Bible. Do you think the dictum "Judge not, lest ye be judged" was meant to give ''carte blanche'' to evil? Jesus spent most of his time telling people to stop doing bad things. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:08, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::I agree. Jesus regularly advocated burning sinners to death. I'm agreeing with you.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:10, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:: The only places I can think of where Jesus did anything like call for the death penalty is when he's calling out the Pharisees in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 12:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Ann Coulter

2007-05-16T15:59:30Z

Brainslug: stance against liberals is not inherently patriotic. liberals can be patriots even if they disagree with us. "patriotic" fits better in the second clause, probably

[[Image:Coulter2006.jpg|thumb|right|Coulter on the ''Tonight Show with Jay Leno''.]]
'''Ann Hart Coulter''' (b. 1961) is an attorney and legal affairs correspondent who has written five
bestselling [[United States of America|American]] books
that present [[conservative]] views.
Coulter was named one of America's top public intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner. [http://www.godlessthechurchofliberalism.com/]

Coulter has earned a strong following among conservatives for
her stances against [[liberal]]ism, her outspokenness against all those who wish to hurt the [[United States of America|United States]], and her strong defense of family values against [[abortion]] and [[same-sex marriage]].

As a Christian, Coulter attributes to the Judeo-Christian tradition the view that human beings are utterly and distinctly apart from other species.

==Books==

Some of her books include
*''[[High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton]]'' (2002)
*''[[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right]]'' (2003)
*''[[Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism]]'' (2004)
*''[[How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)]]'' (2005)
*''[[Godless:_The_Church_of_Liberalism|Godless: The Church of Liberalism]]'' (2007)

In ''Godless'', Coulter argues that liberals make a religion out of their beliefs which they follow with the same sort of intolerant zeal which they condemn in [[fundamentalist]]s. "Liberalism is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in man's immortal soul [and] that we are moral beings in God's image." (pg. 3)

==Quotes==
* "Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots ... " <Ref>''Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.''</ref>
* "My only regret with [[Timothy McVeigh]] is he did not go to the New York Times Building." She later added "Of course I regret it. I should have added, 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters."<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-09-coulter-roemer_x.htm 9/11 Commissioner Criticizes Coulter's 'Hate-Filled Attack'] Associated Press story in USA Today. "'My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building,' The New York Observer quoted her as saying on Aug. 20, 2002. She clarified those remarks with RightWingNews.com: 'Of course I regret it. I should have added, "after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters."'"</ref><ref>Hawkins, [http://rightwingnews.com/interviews/anncoulter.php An Interview With Ann Coulter], Right Wing News.</ref>

* "Saddam's barbaric rape rooms, chemical attacks and torture — those, liberals could live with. But now they want us to send troops to Darfur, a country from which no one anticipates terrorism anytime in the next millennium. If you're looking for a good definition of "no imminent threat," Darfur is it... These people can't even wrap up genocide. We've been hearing about this slaughter in Darfur forever — and they still haven't finished. The aggressors are moving like termites across that country. It's like genocide by committee. Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA?...Darfur is not the threat... though a hostage-taking, Holocaust-denying lunatic who doesn't own a necktie but is within two years of having a nuclear bomb comes to mind. You can already hear Harry Reid and [[Nancy Pelosi]] saying, "If the Democrats were in charge, the use of military force wouldn't be necessary because we'd constructively engage them and appease their stated desire to kill us." <REF>This appeared on Coulter's web site on April 4th, 2007. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=177</REF>

* "If you want a shorter rebuilding process, then we're going to have to wage less humane wars. The enemy — as well as innocent civilians — must be bombed into quivering terror. Otherwise, we displace aggression but don't destroy it. Americans are weaker for having seen that kind of carnage in World War II. Recall that the Worst Generation was raised by the Greatest Generation. That tells you how awful war is. The Greatest Generation was so exhausted by the war, it didn't have the spine to stand up to pot-smoking, draft-dodging hippies occupying administration buildings." <REF>This appeared on Coulter's web site on April 4th, 2007. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=177</REF>

* "I think [women] should be armed but should not vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your Communists will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." <ref> ''Politically Incorrect'', Feb. 26, 2001 </ref>

* "...a cruise missile is more important than Head Start." <ref>Nov. 2001 speech rebroadcast by C-Span in Jan. 2002</ref>

* On Islamic extremists: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." <ref>''National Review Online'', September 2001</ref>

* "We need to execute people like John Walker [Lindh] in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors," Conservative Political Action Conference, January 2002. Coulter later clarified what she meant; "when I said we should "execute" John Walker Lindh, I mis-spoke. What I meant to say was 'We should burn John Walker Lindh alive and televise it on prime-time network TV'. My apologies for any misunderstanding that might have occurred. " <ref>[http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/coulteriffic.php RWN's Ann Coulter Interview #2] John Hawkins. </ref>

==Notes and references==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi AnnCoulter.com]
*RealClearPolitcs.com [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/poll_most_americans_love_coult.html Poll: Most Americans Love Coulter Columns], accessed 6 May 2007.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Coulter, Ann}}
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Women]]

Talk:Michael Moore

2007-05-16T15:53:59Z

Brainslug:

{{protect|TK}}

== Please note edits! ==

When making an edit, always note what it is exactly you did. Synopsis. Summary. Thank you! --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Would be happy to do that, but the thing is, the page seams to be locked like so many other pages here. Change i would have liked to make was to remove the ideological claim that all his documentaryes where "pseudo-documentaryes". I hope that SYSOP:s would read the articles and remove this kind of clearly opinionated sentences before locking the pages. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Your ideas, Timppeli, is exactly why it is locked, because they are not accurate. Moore does not make conventional documentaries, and as such, it is a misnomer to label them that way. I was the one who locked it. This is not Wikipedia. We do not engage in "double-speak" or label clearly propagandist efforts as documentaries. What Moore does is mix polemics, propaganda and the documentary styles together. While clearly he includes factual data, he also extrapolates, adds conjecture that comes from dubious sources, and mixes it with his own rather extreme leftist POV, all without any disclaimers in the credits.--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Hahaha, Moore isn't an "extreme leftist", I am. He's about in the center between you and I. The middle of the road is the yellow line in the center, not the white one on the right hand side. Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, they're lefties. Moore is a centrist, populist good ole boy who has a camera and a knack for making money. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:24, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::Has there ever been a political documentary which the other side with difrent opinnions havent claimed to be propagandist? There is allready a critisism section on the article, and thats fine, but to outright label the documents pseudo-documentaryes is not neutral in any way. What by the way are my ideas? i happen to disagree Mr Moore on several things allso. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, let us start with the fact he doesn't even label them "political documentaries". And I missed the "rule" that says we are neutral, would you point me to it? What I posted above is fact. Documentarians decry Moore, and don't respect him. But he is good at what he does, and highly successful. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Don't know where to start from... You seriously think that war in Irak, president Bush, gun controll and the the "war on terrorism" arent political issues? Ill just list some sites referring to Moores documentaryes as political documentaryes: [http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/multimedia/tp/aatpdocfilms.htm] [http://www.movie-vault.com/articles/DPVbuRTELEzZFOdb] [http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/147/report_display.asp] [http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/insideindies/infocus/truthorfaction/index.html] I really wonder how anyone could claim that his documentaryes arent political on nature, not atleast without an clear agenda to discredit him. What comes to neutrality of this site, how about some quates from the rules: " Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry." " Everything you post must be true and verifiable." So, i ask you, isn't labeling Michael Moores documentaryes as pseudo-documentaryes an opinnion that is mostly held by people who allso are against his political ideas? And there for against the rules. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 09:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:And now i am speechles. No arguments why your answer is no? I think this is clearly against the rules and no way of making an encyclopedia. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::*You asked, I answered. This isn't Wikipedia, or a debating society. I don't engage editors in endless discussion, as there is no point to it. Try to free your mind from your experience at other wiki's. :-) --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

...I'm sorry, at what point exactly did you not only get to decide that Moore's films aren't documentaries but the right to be smug about it too? I can only find one definition that suggests a documentary is obligated to be unbiased toward one viewpoint, but what all the definitions I've found agree on is that documentary films basically source all the footage contained within them as either coming from previous recordings of the news or Cspan or whatnot, or coming from the directors filming, and all footage is nonfiction. In F911 f'rinstance, Moore shows footage of himself interviewing senators, and other footage he did not film, but all footage was, inarguable, non-fiction, since the events depicted did happen. Moore's commentary supposes links between events that may (very very very likely) not have happened at all, but the premises of his suppositiong come from the documented non-fiction sources. I have to imagine you'd be hard pressed to find a definition of "Documentary" that doesn't have that core of non-fiction (probably the reason why you provide none). For you, therefore, to contradict this definition in order to use terms like pseudo-documentary (so Bush didn't say "Bring em on"?) is, in fact, your insertion of opinion, and for you to dispute the definition of "Documentary" is equally unsourced. You are violating two of this sites "commandments."

As such, however, I realize that you will recieve no reprimand, no mention from a higher up, in fact you're probably already being considered for the Presidential medal of freedom. I don't imagine that my calm and rational explanation of what rules youve broken and how youve done it will even manage to convince you that you're wrong about a blessed thing, and will only serve to get me banned again for pointing out things the site does not want pointed out.

Also, Michael Moore is fat. This is a central complaint lobbed against him by most of his critics. It is unfair of the article not to acknowledge this. Please make mention of how fat Michael Moore is.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 10:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I forgot that part. Corrected: Moore is a centrist, populist, '''''fat''''' good ole boy who has a camera and a knack for making money. Man is he ever fat. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:24, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Hmmmm, maybe your arguments are better suited here: [http://www.afi.com/] I do agree, however, that you have been fairly calm. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:51, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
::What do you mean by that? The AFI considers Moore a documentatian. Thats what his academy award was for, isnt it?

::*Well, they also gave an award to Al Gore. After he was post-facto made a producer of the film, or whatever it was that was going to disqualify his appearing on stage. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:26, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Fine, whatever, but my point is that the films themselves is considered a documentary. Inventing a term like Pseudo-documentary to describe it evokes films like Spinal Tap and Best in Show which are entirely fictive. You can dispute his methods and his logic, and lord knows half the people here already dispute his motives, but every piece of footage in his films is non-fiction. Disproportionally distorted nonfiction, perhaps, but nonfiction the same. Look, come from the other side, what would have to be different about his films for you to concede that they are actually documentaries? It cant be bias, all documentaries have a point to make, social, political or otherwise, and it cant even be distortion since any presentation of facts is going to play up some over others, so what then?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I enjoyed several of his films, FYI. Roger and Me, I actually own. However, legitimate footage, edited and altered to depict events that never happened as he said, when he said they happened, well that is fiction. Your moral compass seems a bit off, and I would have it checked. A lie, by any other name, is still a lie, no? Gently, nicely, ''respectfully'', I tell you that the matter is now considered closed. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:15, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::I tell you that it is not because with your narrowing criteria you've defined away the entirety of documentary filmmaking. You may as well say that March of the Pengiuns "Lies" by pretending that Morgan Freeman's voice is present everywhere in the antarctic. Thats the image it projects after all, if you want to argue that the film is factual. Isn't that a lie? Doesn't that disqualify it as a documentary?
::While I concede that, as you say, Moore does have a problem with depicting events as happening differently than they may have, it is done only for the same reason any documentarian makes any film at all, which is to argue a point. If he's incorrect, even consciously so, that's as it may be, but he is not as a result making a work of fiction, or a pseudo-documentary. Something like "Death of a President" that uses actual footage of GWBush to pretend he was assassinated and filming people's reaction to it, that can be called a pseudo-documentary since its presenting a central point which is entirely fictive, and acknowledged so by the filmmakers. However, though you may disagree with the central thesis of, for instance, F911, that doesnt make the film a work of fiction.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 10:45, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Please Fix==

This "paragraph": "Before producing Moore" Also, why did the line about him being an outspoken critic of Bush get removed? It's actually something he is famous for, even among those who do not know his work. Or, should I say, infamous? Hey, you can even say "reviled" if you want. But I'd say, put it back in. [[User:Human|Human]] 14:13, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Are you kidding? ==

That picture is the dumbest thing I've ever seen, and to portray this as "just another image" is indulging in ridiculous, childish games. Please, if you even have the pretense of being "trustworthy" choose an image that looks like the person and not just catching them in an off-guard moment, or speaking, or eating, or whatever you choose to make people look silly. Otherwise, all you are doing is engaging in propaganda. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I can see your request for Sysop is right on track! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::I uploaded a picture of Michael Moore that could ease the tension on this discussion page. The picture is at image:Michael-Moore.jpg --[[User:Element|Element]] 20:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*Thank you, Element for the kindness and reasoned response/request! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:41, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

==Moore High School Photo==
[[Image:Mmoore.png|right|thumb|Michael Moore's high school yearbook photo.]]

== Why the second photo? ==

The article's kinda short, does it really necessitate a second photo? Also, the caption is subjective, since Ranting is kind of a POV term, and really we don't know when or where the photo was taken either. For all we know he's singing Carry On My Wayward Son. If the photo's going to be kept (in a, preferably, longer article if at all) the caption should either say when/where it was taken, or just say "Michael Moore in an unflattering pose because his mouth is open and that is funny, him being fat and all. Teh Lulz!!!11!"
--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 10:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Scare quotes and use of pseudo-documentary ==
I'm no fan of Michael Moore's, but using the quotes around "documentary" and writing "pseudo-documentary" in the article are needlessly pejorative. A documentary doesn't have to be purely factual, and it doesn't have to be have completely undisputed accuracy. People kibitzed about "Waco: Rules of Engagement" and about the nature facts presented in "March of the Penguins," but those are both obviously documentaries. Since you've already got a section in about factual disputes in his articles, why not clear out the stuff that takes the article from impartial to snide? [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 11:50, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
: Michael Moore presented his "information" as definitive fact. This places him well within the bounds of reasonable scrutiny and criticism. Even minor inconsistencies (including information later validated) that he would not have been privy to are unacceptable. Placing documentary within quotations provides all the information required to illustrate the doubt cast on his claims. Conservapedia proclaims conciseness and this is an apt and just oppurtunity to provide us with some. Having an entire section devoted to "liberoganda" backpedalling and weak attempts to legitimize his controversial films would be a clear instance of bias. It would serve no purpose other than one-sided filler material. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::But then you're pre-emptively judging his next film Sicko without even knowing what it claims by putting the word Documentary in "Sarcastic quotes". Yes, he should be, and is, scrutinized for what he says, but so then is everything. As brainslug says, people will always claim that documentaries present inaccurate facts or interpretations, but whatever the results of such scrutinous challenges, this doesnt make them not documentaries. Its enough to say, as the article does, that people challenge his claims without having to invent a word like "pseudo-documentary" (a term which seems to apply to ficticious movies like Spinal Tap) to describe a movie that the site finds disagreeable.
::--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 11:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:: In addition to what Rex said above, we already have a small paragraph in which he's accused of using deceit and so on. We might as well expand that. More facts are better than fewer facts; speaking in detail about his errors is better than insinuating without detail. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 11:53, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Genome

2007-05-16T15:31:53Z

Brainslug: added YEC view which was missing for some reason

A genome is all the [[hereditary]] information held by an [[organism]], this includes both expressed and non-expressed [[genetic information]]. It is usually stored in [[DNA]] though the [[Retrovirus]] stores it in [[RNA]].

[[Eukaryotic cell|Eukaryote]]s (including humans) actually have two types of genomic material:
# chromosonal material: Information found inside the nucleus of a cell
# mitochondrial material: Information found inside a cytoplasm of a cell, specifically in the [[mitochondria]] (this separate genome is used as evidence for the [[Endosymbiotic hypothesis]]).<ref>http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3580</ref>

The [[Human Genome Project]] mapped the genome of humans (''Homo sapiens'') in a 13-year study, and is considered one of the marvels of modern human [[medicine]] and [[biology]]. All of the information is stored in a database.<ref>http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml</ref> It is expected that the results of the project will allow scientists to predict how genetics influences drug interaction with the body, and lead to target specific drugs.<ref>[http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/285/5/540?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Implications+of+the+Human+Genome+Project+for+Medical+Science&searchid=1119480529280_6292&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=jama]</ref>

Genomes of other species have been recorded as well, such as mice,<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/guide/mouse/</ref> chimpanzees<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/chimpgenome/index.html</ref> and yeast.<ref>http://www.yeastgenome.org/</ref> The mouse genome sequence from the C57BL/6J strain has about 30,000 genes, and 99% of them have direct counterparts in humans.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v420/n6915/full/420509a.html</ref>

The chimpanzee represented the first non-human primate sequenced. The differences in the chimpanzee and human genomes are small, with 99% of the DNA sequence preserved. <ref>http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2005/nhgri-31.htm</ref> The differences can be classified in terms of differences in local single nucleotide substitutions, insertions, deletions and repetitions of sequences. A relatively large number of difference between the chimpanzee and human genomes are not due to substitutions.<ref>http://207.210.67.162/~striz/docs/chimpc.pdf</ref> When this is taken into account, humans and chimpanzees still share 96% of their sequence, and are genetically closer than rats and mice.<ref>http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2005/nhgri-31.htm</ref>

== Creationist View ==
Instead of seeing DNA as evidence for [[evolution]], creation scientists see DNA as confirming evidence of His divine plan. He has encoded into DNA His blueprints for making life. It is thus no surprise that the DNA of similar animals shares many sequences. DNA can be seen as a successful prediction of creation science.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0425dna.asp</ref>
== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Molecular Biology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Eugenics

2007-05-16T15:11:31Z

Brainslug: /* Etymology and History */ Singer's position is not, to my knowledge, pro-eugenics

[[Image:Gtr766.png|right|thumb|300px|Logo of the Second International Congress of Eugenics, 1921.]]
'''Eugenics''' was a movement which tried to eliminate "dangerous human pests" and "the rising tide of imbeciles" through what has been euphemistically called "[[selective breeding]]". What this meant, in actual practice, was [[forced sterilization]] of American immigrants and minorities (particularly in California). [http://www.michaelcrichton.net/fear/index.html]

== Connection with The Theory of Evolution ==

[[The Theory of Evolution]] suggests that humans evolved to their present state like all living organisms. This implies that, should selective pressures change, humans as a species may also change. In the early 20th century, the term ''Social Darwinism'' was in fashion. This idea stated that the fittest people did the best in life, and, tautologically, those who did the best were the fittest. This was often used as a justification for racism and other oppression. Since evolutionary theory does not really apply to individuals, but to populations, this was never a valid application of the theory. However, this idea has continued to be a popular topic.

Charles Darwin declared in Descent of Man:<ref>Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (London: John Murray, 1901), pp. 241-42 (footnote * is a reference to Anthropological Review, April, 1867, p. 236) http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-06.html</ref>

:At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Darwin was not the first to claim racial superiority. But he was the first to suggest that some races of man "will almost certainly exterminate, and replace" other races of man. Although Darwin never advocated this action, and instead decried it, those that took the idea to its extreme developed a new intellectual field called "eugenics" for this mythical biological struggle. Darwin decried the use of eugenics in chapter 5 of the same book, where he wrote:

:The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.<ref>Darwin, the Descent of Man, Ch. 5</ref>

The importance of this quote ''vis a vis'' the other, cited above, is often minimized, but the two cannot be read apart from each other.

The term "Eugenics" was coined by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton.{{fact}}

== Etymology and History ==

The word "eugenics" is based on Greek roots meaning "well born." The Merriam-Webster dictionary provides 1883 as the date of origin for the term, which was coined by Darwin's cousin, Sir Francis Galton. Later Darwin's son, Leonard, served as the president of the First Congress of Eugenics in 1912 in London.

The encyclopedia describes eugenics as now being "in disrepute,"<ref>http://www.fwkc.com/encyclopedia/low/articles/e/e007001431f.html</ref> although Professor [[Peter Singer]] of Princeton University has sought to remove the stigma from it.{{fact}} Richard Dawkins has stated in one letter that it no longer be banned from polite discussion, but did not actually advocate it; in fact he stated in the same letter his distaste for the idea.<ref>http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1031440.0.eugenics_may_not_be_bad.php</ref>

In the early 1900s, many influential officials advocated Darwinism and eugenics. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes became a strong proponent. So did many others in prominent government and academic positions. Members of the British Eugenics Society, including the International Planned Parenthood Federation, are listed [http://www.africa2000.com/ENDX/eug_ij.htm].

== Eugenics in America ==

Between 1907 and 1937, 32 American states passed eugenics laws requiring sterilization of citizens deemed to be misfits, such as the mentally infirm. Oliver Wendell Holmes and all but one conservative Democratic Justice upheld such laws in a Supreme Court decision that included Holmes' offensive statement that "three generations of imbeciles are enough." Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207 (1927).<ref>http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html</ref> In fact, the third generation "imbecile" was very bright, but was declared by a eugenics "expert" as "supposed to be a mental defective," apparently without an examination. The cases were later forcibly overturned under [[substantive due process]] cases holding sterilization to be an abridgment of a fundamental right.<ref>Skinner v. Oklahoma (316 U.S. 535)</ref> This era of case law, overturning eugenics, actually culminated in enlargments of "fundamental rights" into other spheres as well.

Eugenics was taught as part of the evolution curriculum of many science classes in America in the early 1900s. For example, it was featured in the textbook used in the famous Scopes trial in 1925.{{fact}}

"By 1928, the American Genetics Association boasted that there were 376 college courses devoted exclusively to eugenics. High-school biology textbooks followed suit by the mid-1930s, with most containing material favorable to the idea of eugenical control of reproduction. It would thus have been difficult to be an even moderately educated reader in the 1920s or 1930s and not have known, at least in general terms, about the claims of eugenics."<ref>''See'' "Science misapplied: the eugenics age revisited," Technology Review, August-Sep 1996 (Vol. 99, No. 6), at p. 22(10), by Garland E. Allen.</ref>

Holmes once wrote favorably in a letter to a future Supreme Court Justice about "restricting propagation by the undesirables and putting to death infants that didn't pass the examination."<ref>9/3/21 Letter to Felix Frankfurther. For a detailed criticism of Justice Holmes' support of eugenics, see Professor Albert W. Alschuler's Law Without Values: The Life, Work, and Legacy of Justice Holmes (Univ. of Chicago Press 2000).</ref> As noted above, though, United States law has abandoned this perspective long ago.

== Eugenics in Europe ==

German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel promoted evolution by drawing fraudulent pictures of humans embryos, to pretend that their developmental stages imitate an historical evolution of humans from other species.<ref>''See'' [[Haeckel Fraud]]. These fraudulent drawings remain a part of American textbooks and were only exposed a century later as false by the New York Times.</ref>

In 1904, Haeckel reiterated the view of Darwin quoted above: "These lower races … are psychologically nearer to the mammals (apes or dogs) than to civilized Europeans; we must, therefore, assign a totally different value to their lives." <ref>Ernst Haeckel, The Wonders of Life (New York: Harper 1904), 56-57 (emphasis added).</ref>

It wasn't long before intellectuals viewed war as an essential evolutionary process. Vom Heutigen Kriege, a popular book by Geberal Bernhardi, "expounded the thesis that war was a biological necessity and a convenient means of ridding the world of the unfit. These views were not confined to a lunatic fringe, but won wide acceptance especially among journalists, academics and politicians."<ref>A history of Germany 1815-1990, 4th ed., at 205, by W. Carr.</ref> In America, Justice Holmes similarly wrote that "I always say that society is founded on the death of men - if you don't kill the weakest one way you kill them another."<ref>2/26/22 Letter to Sir Frederick Pollock.</ref>

World War I entailed a brutality unknown in the history of mankind. Gregg Easterbrook, a senior editor of the liberal New Republic magazine, observed that "prior to the Scopes trial [in 1925, William Jennings] Bryan had been on a revival tour of Germany and had been horrified by the signs of incipient Nazism. Before this point, Bryan had been a moderate in the evolution debate; for instance, he had lobbied the Florida legislature not to ban the teaching of Darwin, only to specify that evolution must be taught as a theory rather than a fact. But after hearing the National Socialists talk about the elimination of genetic inferiority, [historian Gary] Wills wrote, Bryan came to feel that evolutionary ideas had become dangerous; he began both to oppose and to lampoon them."

The march of evolution/eugenics continued unabated in Germany. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolution concepts of heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927.

In 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. Next was the Nazi sterilization law entitled "Eugenics in the service of public welfare." It required compulsory sterilization for the prevention of progeny with hereditary defects in cases including congenital mental defects, schizophrenia, manic-depressive psychosis and hereditary epilepsy.

The German schools indoctrinated their students. In 1935, a German high-school math textbook included the following problem: "… how much does it cost the state if:

a. 868 [mentally infirm] patients stay longer than 10 years?
b. 260 [mentally infirm] patients stay longer than 20 years?
c. 112 [mentally infirm] patients stay longer than 2 years?"

See Science misapplied, supra.

One German student was Josef Mengele, who studied anthropology and paleontology and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort. He became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the Holocaust and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of eugenics.

The liberal Journal of the American Medical Society provided this summary: "The publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859 led to the rise of the eugenics movement in Europe. Eugenics supporters believed that races could be improved by selective breeding. The Nazi Party adopted this belief and began a campaign against the Jews. Many physicians joined the Nazi Party because they needed jobs." "Medicine against society: lessons from the Third Reich," The Journal of the American Medical Association, Nov. 27, 1996 (Vol. 276, No. 20), at p. 1657(5), by Jeremiah A. Barondess.
Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionist, was more succinct: "The Nazi racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with genocide." http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm

== References ==

<references/>

== External References ==

Stephen Jay Gould, "The Mismeasure of Man", W.W. Norton and Co., 1981, 1996.

[[Category:philosophy]]

==See also==

*[[Genetic engineering]]

Talk:Race

2007-05-15T19:00:02Z

Brainslug:

== Since the Great Flood ==

In my opinion, this part should at least be introduced as "According to Creationists" or "For those who believe in...".[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 16:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::Its a [[Conservapedia:Differences with Wikipedia|conservative fact]], see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Commandments&diff=41919&oldid=40811%20talk:Commandments here]. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:25, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

You mean conservatives ''wish''it were a fact. Which is not the same thing as it being a ''fact''--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 12:39, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: I just got blocked by CPAdmin, I guess for removing it (nobody gave me a reason), but then when Speaker made the same edit, it's remained. I don't really understand this place. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 15:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Neanderthal==
They seem to have forgotten the Neanderthal. As it is currently listed as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis on this website it should be listed as one of the races.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Only if it says so in the Bible. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:48, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Was this lifted from a nineteenth century textbook?==
Good Freaking God. Newsflash: Asians are not "yellow." Native Americans are not "Red." Stupidpedia strikes again!--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 12:31, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:If this article is going to mention what science once thought about races, then at least get it right. The original physical anthropologists that developed the biological race model had only three races: Caucasians, Mongloids, and Negroids.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Whaaa...you mean the scientists, to whom we all genuflect before as barers and guardians of truth and knowledge, have been ''wrong''? Wow. And those scientific facts were once used to promote and justify racism and genocide? My word. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:06, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh my God!!Scientists actually make mistakes like every other person on this planet, and if they are proven wrong they actually change their theories?? Wait...Wait...Oh that's right...science is an open system as opposed to a closed system. Duh...[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:11, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:At least we are out of the dark ages, where persecution and genocide was done in the name of Christianity and the Church. Thank heaven. Now we at least have atheists, rationalists, and science to blame for our progressive thinking which results in mass murder. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:14, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Yah...good thing those white Christian upper-class gentlemen in the 19th century needing some way of justifying racist policies could turn to science to do their dirty work.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, isn't science a Bitc*? I mean, instead of living in your cave, following the sheep around, now you have central heat, air, the internet, the internal combustion engine. Dang, science make these Christians so miserable.--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 13:24, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yep. It was science that gave <s>mankind</s> personkind Zyklon B, and the instructions how to use it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:11, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::What? So science was wrong in the past. Isn't there something in the Bible about the sins of the fathers? How is that relevant to science today? Part of science's ''strength'' is that it changes with new discoveries...-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 14:15, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
And it was non-scientific politicans that decided to use it. Same as the atom bomb, dynamite, and napalm. So would you also blame the company that makes the gun used to kill someone, or the person that pulled the trigger?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Good point.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 14:15, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

My point is that you really sound ignorant villifying science like that. Last time I checked there weren't a whole helluva lot of people with polio or smallpox around anymore. If one day your appendix blows science has made it possible for you to still survive without being bled by leeches. How many peopl are saved by organ transplants every year? Science did that for you. Science in and of itself doesn't kill.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:22, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Right. Science create napalm, VX gas, Sarin gas, etc., and it's "progress"; then when poltical leaders try to stop the spread of '''this brilliant knowledge''', where are they to be found? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmm... Union of Concerned Scienists that are against nuclear weapons, International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and alot of other scientists that are against such things. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Oh really? Where did these groups stand vis a vis allowing Mr. Saddam Hussein to retain classrooms with students obtaining this knowledge, (i.e. Saddams WMD programs). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Racing

2007-05-15T15:58:54Z

Brainslug: odd "see also" removed. why would anyone looking for race type in racing?

'''Racing'''
is any competition, such as a contest of speed where the competitors try to complete a given task in the shortest amount of time. Typically this involves traversing some distance, such as a foot race, road race or even a sled dog race (see [[Iditarod]]).

but it can be any other task, for example the race for the presidency.

The word ''race'' can refer to the flow of air that is driven backwards by a ship or aircraft propeller. This is also known as the slipstream.

Race

2007-05-15T15:57:49Z

Brainslug: Got rid of divisive and incongruous flood talk

'''Race''' is an archaic (i.e., out of date, no longer considered valid) scientific concept which classifies human beings according to broad physical characteristics such as skin color. The five races of mankind were considered to be:
#Black (Negro)
#Brown (as in India)
#Red (Native American)
#Yellow (Oriental)
#White (Caucasian)

The amount of [[melanin]] in one's skin naturally determines how dark it is. Some historical ideals of beauty exalted the lightness or darkness of skin. The 19th century American song, "The Yellow Rose of Texas", referred to the slightly dusky color of a girl's skin.

Human populations have gone through periods of isolation and intermixing which lead to differences between groups. [[Scientists]] believe that these are largely a matter of different statistical frequencies of variations from an agreed-on standard, rather than racial differences as was once thought. Modern [[Homo sapiens|humans]] share approximately 99.9% of their [[DNA]]. Of the .1% that does vary, 85% of the observed variation is unconnected to membership of any particular group of people.

==See also==
*[[Racing]]

Talk:Michael Moore

2007-05-15T15:50:19Z

Brainslug: scare quotes

Talk:Polyhedron

2007-05-15T15:36:31Z

Brainslug: signing

Maybe we'd like something on the duality of the regular polyhedra, and something on why there are only five? I'm not an algebraist by training, but I could probably take a shot at it. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 11:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Polyhedron

2007-05-15T15:36:18Z

Brainslug: New page: Maybe we'd like something on the duality of the regular polyhedra, and something on why there are only five? I'm not an algebraist by training, but I could probably take a shot at it.

Maybe we'd like something on the duality of the regular polyhedra, and something on why there are only five? I'm not an algebraist by training, but I could probably take a shot at it.

Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right

2007-05-15T15:24:00Z

Brainslug: this was entirely a copyright violation, so i replaced it.

'''Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right''', is a book by Bernard Goldberg.
[[category:book]]

Prostitution

2007-05-15T15:21:48Z

Brainslug: rvv

'''Prostitution''' is the exchange of [[sex]]ual favors for [[money]]. The [[Bible]] in general holds prostitution in contempt. Only [[Rahab]] the [[harlot]] is redeemed for receiving two [[espionage|spies]] from [[Joshua]] and allowing them to escape their pursuers.

In certain other [[religion]]s such as [[Hinduism]] and the historical worship of [[Aphrodite]] prostitution formed an integral part of the sacred rites.

In the [[United States]], prostitution is legal in the state of [[Nevada]] but heavily regulated, and outlawed elsewhere. [[Libertarian]]s consider prostitution to be a [[victimless crime]] on the order of using recreational [[drug]]s.

== Prostitution in the Old Testament ==

In the Law of Moses, prostitution is forbidden to the daughters of priests in the Aaronic order and it is forbidden for priests to marry a prostitute ([[Leviticus]] 21:9, 14).

==References==
<references/>

Complex number

2007-05-15T05:49:20Z

Brainslug: no, digit is the wrong link here

A '''complex number''' is a [[number]] composed of two parts - a [[Real number|real]] component and and [[Imaginary number|imaginary]] component, of the form <math>a + bi</math>, where ''a'' and ''b'' are real numbers and ''i'' is the [[square root]] of negative 1.

Whereas the real numbers can be represented as all the possible points on an infinitely extended [[number line]], to represent all the complex numbers requires the use of a two dimensional coordinate system, usually with the real components on the horizontal axis (the ''abscissa'') and the imaginary components on the vertical axis (the ''ordinate'').

The complex numbers form an [[algebraic closure|algebraically closed]] [[field (mathematics)|field]] but do not permit a non-trivial ordering that is preserved under operations.

===In popular culture===
In [[Yvgeny Zamyatin]]'s satirical novel ''[[We (novel)|We]]'', the narrator's psychological distress at contemplating the concept of complex numbers becomes a metaphor for the limitations of totalitarian systems of thought.

[[Category:Mathematics]]
[[category:complex analysis]]

David Hume

2007-05-15T05:36:12Z

Brainslug: fixed cite tag

[[Image:65375.jpg|right|thumb|'''David Hume''']]
David Hume (1711-1776) was a Scottish philosopher and historian who promoted [[materialism]] and [[naturalism]] over [[spirituality]]. He was [[skeptical]] towards [[religion]], and his major philosophical works include ''A Treatise on Human Nature'', ''An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals'', and ''Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion''. He also published the wide-ranging ''History of England'', which covered the history of [[Great Britain]] from the time of [[Julius Caesar]] to 1688. Many of his quotes have survived to this day, including "You can tell what is inside a person's soul by what comes out if it."

Hume has been criticized by many for his atheistic approach, and [[Charles Darwin]] declared Hume to have been his central influence, as did "Darwin's bulldog," [[Thomas Henry Huxley]]. {{fact}}

Hume was one of the first philosophers to rigorously study [[ontological principles]]- vital tools of logical reasoning that are commonly used in maths, systemology, philosophy, and theology. He helped develop many of the common logical devices, most notably, [[Hume's Guillotine]] and [[Hume's Fork]] are named in honor of him.
[[category:philosophers]]
[[Category:Scottish People]]

Environmentalist

2007-05-14T16:39:50Z

Brainslug: /* Worship of Gaia */ removing picture of Al Gore as Dr. Evil. Irrelevant and cruel.

'''Environmentalists''' refers to people who claim to be concerned about protecting the environment and believe that legal limitations should be put on human use of the Earth's natural environment and resources. Many environmental organizations and movements have been used for political purposes with other objectives than direct concern for the environment or environmentalism. <ref>[http://www.attacreport.com/ar_terror/tframe.php?region=namerica&group=gp ATTAC Terror Report]</ref>

==Save the trees==

American Pop Star [[Sheryl Crow]], while touring the [[United States]] to raise consciousness about [[global warming]] and forest conservation made international headlines by calling for regulation of how much toilet paper an individual may use. <ref>''Washington Post'', [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/21/AR2007042101385_pf.html Saving the Earth: The Biodiesel Bus Blog], April 22, 2007. </ref>
<ref>BBC News, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6583067.stm ''Crow calls for limit on loo paper''], 23 April 2007. </ref> Crow told ABC's ''Good Morning America'',

{{Cquote|I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting.}}
''Good Morning America'' in May 2007 interviewed Colin Beaven, <ref>[http://noimpactman.typepad.com/ ''A little on political action, a little on TP''], NO Impact Man, 11 may 2007.</ref> is a liberal New Yorker and environmentalist so concerned he has sworn off the use toilet paper. Beaven has extended his [[crusade]] against despoiling the planet by refusing to buy anything in packaging, will not use any form of transportation including elevators, and insists that all his food be grown within 250 miles. Interviewer [[Diane Sawyer]] responded, "It really makes sense to me." <ref>''Good Morning America,'' Family Goes Extreme Green for a Year, May. 10, 2007.</ref>

==Worship of Gaia==
[[Michael Crichton]] argues that the environmentalist movement has taken on a new age religious philosophy, and that this belief system is considered to be the religion of choice for urban [[Atheism|atheists]] and is one of the most powerful religions in the Western World:
<ref>Michael Crichton, [http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html Environmentalism as Religion]," Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA, September 15, 2003. </ref>

::'The religion of environmentalism is a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional [[Judeo-Christian]] beliefs and myths. There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

::Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative religious beliefs. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith. Facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.'

Former U.S. Vice President [[Al Gore]] sees a "spiritual crisis" in [[global warming]]. <ref>[http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA050607.01B.gore.35aecd4.html Gore sees 'spiritual crisis' in warming], Anton Caputo, ''San Antonio Express News'', 05/05/2007. </ref> British biologist James Lovelock <ref>*James Lovelock, [http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,,1738945,00.html ''Revenge of Gaia''], Publisher: Allen Lane, 02/02/2006. ISBN13: 9780713999143 </ref> first publicly explained the Gaia theory - that the earth as a whole is a living, conscious organism. <ref>[http://www.tcrnews2.com/gennewage.html Eco-spirituality, eco-feminism, global spirituality, ecological theology, creation spirituality, the new cosmology] </ref> Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho) has described this phenomenon as "environmental religion" and says that it has "profound constitutional implications" because of the First Amendment prohibition on government establishment of religion. <ref>Cliff Kincaid, [http://www.usasurvival.org/cultofgaia.html ''Al Gore, the United Nations, and the Cult of Gaia''], (1999). </ref>

==References==
<references/>

Sean Hannity

2007-05-14T16:37:32Z

Brainslug: /* Books */ ending quote

[[Image:SHannity.jpg|right|thumb|230px]]
'''Sean Patrick Hannity''' (born December 30, 1961) is a conservative talk show host. The youngest of four children, Hannity was born in New York City to Irish immigrants. He dropped out of college to embark on radio career, and in 1988 was at a small-town station of WVNN in Huntsville, Alabama. He later broke into a Top 10 market in Atlanta at 640 AM WGST. His national recognition came as an occasional substitute host of the #1 radio show of all-time - The Rush Limbaugh Show. Allegedly on his first guest show, he dropped the golden EIB microphone because of a case of high nerves. This nationwide attention paved his way to national syndication.

==Television==
Sean Hannity was asked to join the newly formed FOX News Channel (FNC) in September 1996<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1242,00.html</ref>.
He accepted the offer and became co-host with Alan Colmes of ''Hannity and Colmes,'' a prime time one-hour debate driven talk show focusing on the controversial issues and newsmakers of the day. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1242,00.html</ref> Today ''Hannity and Colmes'' ranks among the leading cable TV news show (just behind ''Larry King Live'' and the ''O'Reilly Factor''). Critics contend that the conservative Hannity is given more time to talk than the liberal Colmes.

==Controversy==

Hannity angered traditional Catholics with his antagonistic treatment of Father Thomas Euteneuer on March 9th, during which Hannity criticized Fr. Euteneuer for prominent sex scandals in the Catholic Church.<ref>http://thebadguy.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/video-of-the-hannity-euteneuer-squabble</ref> After heated remarks by Hannity during the interview, he finally asked the priest, "Wait, would you deny me Communion?" To which Fr. Euteneuer responded, "I would."<ref>http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/070320</ref>

==Books==

Hannity's books use patriotic rhetoric as a main theme. His first book, in 2002, was entitled ''"Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism"''. The book remained on the New York Times best selling list for 17 weeks.<ref>http://www.harpercollins.com/authors/24930/Sean_Hannity/index.aspx</ref>
In 2004 he wrote ''Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism''. In this book he "reveals how the disgraceful history of appeasement has reached forward from the days of Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter to corrupt the unrepentant leftists of the modern Democratic Party from Howard Dean and John Kerry to Bill and Hillary Clinton."

== References ==

<references/>

==External Links==
[http://www.hannity.com/ Sean Hannity's Official Website]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hannity, Sean}}
[[Category:Broadcasters]]

Talk:Arundhati Roy

2007-05-14T15:50:23Z

Brainslug: New page: ===Tone of this page=== RobS, you indeed do have cites for the facts in the article, but what you don't have are cites for the characterization of her work as "extremist left," that her wo...

===Tone of this page===
RobS, you indeed do have cites for the facts in the article, but what you don't have are cites for the characterization of her work as "extremist left," that her work is "propaganda," and that her essays are "screeds." You don't have cites because these things are opinions and judgment calls. Why not rewrite this to be a little more neutral? You don't have to remove the facts in the article, but a sober tone will help a lot! [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 11:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Arundhati Roy

2007-05-14T04:35:07Z

Brainslug:

Arundhati Roy is a writer, novelist and political activist from [[India]]. She has a Syrian Malabar Nasrani (Nazarean) Christian heritage. She won the [[Booker Prize]] in 1997 for her first novel, ''The God of Small Things.''

She is known for her leftist politics, having written strident criticisms of American and Israeli foreign policy. She has recently expressed enthusiastic support for Islamic terrorist Mohammad Afzal, who was part of a brutal terrorist attack on the Parliament of India, and who presently stands ready to be hanged for his actions. Roy has evoked numerous Indophobic canards in her support for terrorists (India is among the most heavily targeted countries by Islamic terrorist groups), as evidenced by her diatribes in the English newspaper ''The Guardian'' <ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,1972788,00.html India's shame], Arundhati Roy, ''The Guardian'', December 15, 2006. </ref> Her polemics have earned her significant criticisms from conservative groups in India[http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1830995,0008.htm] and in the United States[http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020429&s=buruma042902].

==Support for terrorism==

According to Capt. Mark Doggett of the Australian army out of 7,800 prisoners being held in 2004 approximately 120 foreign [[jihad]]ists were being held who entered to attack Iraqi civilians and coalition allies.

:"We have people in custody who have been involved in killing Americans and others from the coalition forces. I really cannot think of a worse crime than that: murder." Doggett added, "The most common things people are being detained for include attacking coalition forces or the Iraqi people, likewise for financing attacks on forces or the Iraqi people," or being "involved in the planning of attacks." Likewise "the manufacture of improvised explosive devices. That could mean everything from procuring the necessary materials for explosive devices, through to actually manufacturing the devices, to planting them." <ref>*[http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/052404/opi_052454.shtml ''Abu Ghraib inmates aren't 'helpless' - they're lethal''], Deroy Murdock, The Daily Oakland Press, May 24, 2004.</ref>

Roy told a meeting of the American Sociological Association in Berkeley in a 2004 broadcast on ''[[Democracy Now]]'',

:''Each prisoner tortured in Abu Ghraib was our [[comrade]]''.<ref>[http://nobsnews.blogspot.com/2004/08/arundhati-roy-transcript.html Transcript of Arundhati Roy] Speaking to American Sociological Association, from ''Democracy Now''</ref>

She has also said that the Islamic terrorists led by Mohammad Atta who perpetrated the September 11 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York are "heroes".

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Liberal activists]]
[[Category:Anti-war movement]]

Arundhati Roy

2007-05-14T04:34:53Z

Brainslug: toned down some of the POV (although I can't figure out what to do with the support for terrorism section that would beat removing it), and added what she was actually known for

Arundhati Roy is a writer, novelist and political activist from [[India]]. She has a Syrian Malabar Nasrani (Nazarean) Christian heritage. She one the [[Booker Prize]] in 1997 for her first novel, ''The God of Small Things.''

She is known for her leftist politics, having written strident criticisms of American and Israeli foreign policy. She has recently expressed enthusiastic support for Islamic terrorist Mohammad Afzal, who was part of a brutal terrorist attack on the Parliament of India, and who presently stands ready to be hanged for his actions. Roy has evoked numerous Indophobic canards in her support for terrorists (India is among the most heavily targeted countries by Islamic terrorist groups), as evidenced by her diatribes in the English newspaper ''The Guardian'' <ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,1972788,00.html India's shame], Arundhati Roy, ''The Guardian'', December 15, 2006. </ref> Her polemics have earned her significant criticisms from conservative groups in India[http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1830995,0008.htm] and in the United States[http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020429&s=buruma042902].

==Support for terrorism==

According to Capt. Mark Doggett of the Australian army out of 7,800 prisoners being held in 2004 approximately 120 foreign [[jihad]]ists were being held who entered to attack Iraqi civilians and coalition allies.

:"We have people in custody who have been involved in killing Americans and others from the coalition forces. I really cannot think of a worse crime than that: murder." Doggett added, "The most common things people are being detained for include attacking coalition forces or the Iraqi people, likewise for financing attacks on forces or the Iraqi people," or being "involved in the planning of attacks." Likewise "the manufacture of improvised explosive devices. That could mean everything from procuring the necessary materials for explosive devices, through to actually manufacturing the devices, to planting them." <ref>*[http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/052404/opi_052454.shtml ''Abu Ghraib inmates aren't 'helpless' - they're lethal''], Deroy Murdock, The Daily Oakland Press, May 24, 2004.</ref>

Roy told a meeting of the American Sociological Association in Berkeley in a 2004 broadcast on ''[[Democracy Now]]'',

:''Each prisoner tortured in Abu Ghraib was our [[comrade]]''.<ref>[http://nobsnews.blogspot.com/2004/08/arundhati-roy-transcript.html Transcript of Arundhati Roy] Speaking to American Sociological Association, from ''Democracy Now''</ref>

She has also said that the Islamic terrorists led by Mohammad Atta who perpetrated the September 11 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York are "heroes".

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Liberal activists]]
[[Category:Anti-war movement]]

Dawes Plan

2007-05-14T04:15:22Z

Brainslug: rv vandalism

The Dawes Plan was formed in 1924 when an international committee funded by the [[United States of America]] and England tried to save [[Germany]]'s failing economy. The Dawes Plan, named after American financier [[Charles G. Dawes]], recommended that Germany begin paying 1,000,000,000 gold marks in the first year and increasing to 2,500,000,000 by 1928. It also called for a loan of 800,000,000 marks ($200 million) to Germany. The Dawes Plan ignored the original reparations set by the Treaty of Versailles. By 1929 the Dawes Plan was considered a big success and financial controls over Germany were relaxed. Germany factories were producing again at prewar levels and inflation was no longer a big problem.

----

Dawes Plan was an attempt to collect war reparation debts from defeated post-World War I Germany. Charles G. Dawes chaired the committee that headed up this proposal. Five years later the plan failed and the Young Plan replaced it in 1929. Some of the main points of the Dawes Plan were:

1.The Ruhr area was to be evacuated by Allied occupation troops.

2.Reparation payments would begin at 1 billion marks for the first year and should rise over a period of four years to 2.5 billion marks per year.

3.The German Reich bank would be reorganized under Allied supervision.

4.Foreign loans (primarily from the United States) would be made available to Germany.

5.The sources for the reparation money should include transportation, excise, and custom taxes.

Portugal

2007-05-14T04:14:54Z

Brainslug: rv vandalism

[[Image:Po-map.gif|right|thumb|Map of Portugal]]
'''Portugal''' is a nation in the [[Iberian Peninsula]], the most westerly on the European mainland. Its capital is [[Lisbon]].

In the 16th century, it explored and colonised large areas, including [[Brazil]], [[Angola]], [[Mozambique]], parts of [[India]], [[Timor]], [[Cape Verde]], and others.

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:EU Members]]

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-05-14T00:14:02Z

Brainslug: /* I Second This */

{|style="width:100%"
|'''Quick Links'''
[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]] 
[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]] 
[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion]] 
[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]] 
[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]] 
|style="text-align:center"|<big>This is where you can report abuse by Sysops. Please make notes short and concise. 
'''Do not piggyback! One ''new'' header per complaint. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''</big> 
Click '''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&action=edit&section=new here]''' to file a complaint.
|valign="top"|'''Archives'''

'''Sub-pages'''

[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative|User:Conservative]]''

|}

== ColinR ==

Deleted the archive I created last night for Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative

I just restored it. Colin, I beg of you, please don't start deleting history here, okay? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:The archive was never deleted. Anyone who looks at the page history will realize this, all I did was move the archive out of the mainspace into the correct namespace, leaving a temporarily broken link, which the brilliant editor above me equates to it being deleted. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh yeah? What is this? '''00:11, 10 April 2007 ColinR (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative Archive 1" (content was: '#REDIRECT Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Archive 1' (and the only contributor was 'ColinR'))'''--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:THAT WASN'T THE ARCHIVE!!! THAT IS A REDIRECT. LOOK AT THE FREAKIN' CONTENT LISTED!!! [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Read above. Does the system not say it was an archive, Colin? When I cliked the link for the archive I made, it said the page had been deleted. The delete log says you deleted it. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Further, if you did anything to the archive I asked for help on last night, and you were among those who refused, and you came around tonight or earlier today and moved or fixed anything, without telling me, it is just as bad. Yes, you do have to inform, elite one. Still, the links to the archives were still missing on the Conervative/abuse page and the Sysop/Admin page that Philip was into. There were other posts asking what happened to the archives. Further insults will not be tolerated, Colin. You have had your very last warning. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:TK, your comment makes no sense, and you even admitted that I didn't delete the archive links. All I did was move the archives out of the mainspace to their correct spot, something that people have done before (think Sid) and you have no clue what's going on and flip out. I have not insulted you, only asked serious questions, and you respond with false accusations and threats. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:55, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Colin, I admitted no such thing. The system said, when I entered the link to the archive I created, that you had deleted it. If you deleted a re-direct, and replaced it, in another "Lone Ranger" stunt, elite one, without posting about, or telling me, you still forgot to replace the links to it! Other people noticed, and posted about it. ''Like I said, those days are over now, doing whatever you feel like, and you have had your final warning.'' --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The archive link you created was in the mainspace, where it '''didn't''' belong. Thus I moved it out of the mainspace, only to realize I had moved it to the wrong spot, thus I moved it again to the correct spot (where it is now) and deleted the redirects, since one was in the mainspace and the other was a double redirect (and both were not needed). You accuse me of a lone ranger stunt, but your archiving seems to be just as "elitist" as my actions. Quit with the empty threats and baseless accusations. I'm getting tired of your false claims anytime you don't understand something. And I don't have to tell you every time I do something, you're not my keeper, nor is anyone on here. If you have a problem doing whatever they feel like, why not "complain" to almost every editor on this site. I'm through with this crap, if you have something valid and worthwhile to complain about, then we'll talk. Until then, GOOD DAY, SIR. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:04, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Hmmm, I could have swore you said earlier you didn't delete anything, but now it seems you say you did. I am getting confused. And yes, Colin, things are changing, for the better, and you will start to communicate, with me, and the other Sysops. I very politely posted, asking for help with the archive, last night, and you didn't see fit to offer to help, like any of the Sysop's should have, that knew how to do it. That is one of your obligations in taking the job. If you didn't know or think that, you do now. I can't do anything to save you now, Colin. Your attitude marks you as someone not really needed here anymore, more a part of the problem, rather than the solution. It makes me sad, but it is now up to Andy to decide. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and Copyright (Zach Johnson) ==
''This is a copy of the post from Aschlafly's talk page. TK insisted that I post it here, too.''
{{QuoteBox|Since the material was re-worded, perhaps Andy, since he is an Attorney, would be a better judge than Colin, CgDay and you Sid, as to what is wholesale copying, and exactly how much change is needed to avoid infringement suits, eh? Nothing I sourced was from Wikipedia, and I have never seen their material on the subject. --~ TK MyTalk 18:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)}}
As per the above comment, you are strongly invited to take a look at [[Talk:Zach Johnson]]. Short summary: Copyrighted material has been copy-pasted (from a news article and quite likely from Wikipedia) with minor rewordings in some sentences. The material had been added by TK, who is now in a revert war to keep the copyrighted material until somebody creates a better version. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and sarcasm ==
While this is not abuse per say, it is a question of what is the appropriate conduct for a sysop? I continue to be concerned about [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ATheory_of_evolution&diff=95497&oldid=95484 this edit] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473 this edit] which shows a disrespect for other editors on this site. Is this the type of example that is people are suggesting that be followed? (Yes, I know this is a slippery slope) Please picture a website were everyone behaved like TK has in this situation - not the conservative bias, but the disrespect. Is this the type of site that you (the admins) want to present? I am concerned that the admins are turning a blind eye to the sysops and allowing them free reign - they can do no wrong. This in turn makes it a very hostile and uncomfortable place for anyone who is not a sysop. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I feel uncomfortable here all the time, pretty much the same as at Wikipedia. The only difference is that it's much worse there.

:I disagree with the policy here which permits random newbies to start editing right away. I really hate all the backbiting, backstabbing, character assassination; carping, caviling, sneaky undermining, etc.!

:If it were up to me, I'd block much more aggressively than I have been.

:Maybe I'll just start doing that . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think you ought to, Ed. I don't want you to feel uncomfortable here, as you are one of our best editors. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes Mtur! ''Not at all like your Sterling good behavior.'' We are appointed to keep the place on-policy, and on-track as friendly to the Conservative and Christian POV, as well as guard against Vandals. Either overt, ''or covert''. Get used to it. You, and others constantly disrespect people whose POV you disagree with. You are just sly and subtle doing it. You don't want to accept this is never going to be run like Wikipedia. Perhaps your energies could be used constructively, rather than just carping about what you don't like, and parroting the party line of those who you agree with? I am indeed sorry if you cannot accept some measure of levity, used to defuse a possibly explosive situation. It must get lonely in the Ivory Tower (that was more humor). Ed Poor, you should chat up the Webmaster, ask him about the situation in IRC with some of these people, it will be instructional, I am sure. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: TK, could you please point to any edits where I have been disrespectful to anyone? I have been 'online' for nearly two decades now (my first experiences were with a 300 baud modem and acoustic coupler to an 8 port BBS chat line) and I am well aware that when there are no body language or voice inflection cues, it is very easy for someone to misinterpret the emotion of the person on the other end of the text connection. Smilies or a j/k can help give a hint about what the person is writing. However, just with real life, if everything is said with such a wink, people begin to not take anything that person says seriously. I remain curious as to how any of these edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=84553&oldid=84515] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=86432&oldid=86373] were designed to be a measure of levity that would reduce the heightened emotions? Or where they written with the intent to enrage emotions? I cannot tell, and it remains up to the individual to determine if they are to see the best in someone or the worst in someone. I do not believe I am capable of writing anything that would have any emotional encumbrance that you would regard as not being insulting (I am not not trying to be insulting in this passage, just trying to state my perceptions) and thus attempt to remove any emotion from what is written. I may have a point of view and an opinion, but getting red in the face and pounding away at the keyboard is something I learned not to do on Usenet a decade and a half ago.
:: I am curious as to how you see this being run, if not like Wikipedia. What are the social norms? What are the rules? There are certainly more rules than have been set down in [[rules]]. When I am comfortable in understanding these rules and I have made the judgment as to if this is a place that I ''want'' to contribute to, then I shall. Until then, I find the community that is in the process of forming these rules to be incredibly interesting. Furthermore, I feel that it is more useful to help the community codify those rules as a place where any user can understand what is going to happen if he or she does something than it would be to go forth and write documents. As it is, there is still a bit of hostility to many of the writers of new material here. If you search [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Mtur&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 my contributions], you will see that I have contributed some to new material - there are a few articles that I've commented with as "rewrite." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*So, your time online mirrors my own, Mtur. I assume we are more or less contemporaries. The joke about Martha Stewart was indeed designed to defuse, however I can see someone who is defensive or indignant in their opinion thinking the comment was aimed at them, and that I certainly didn't want to happen. Maybe you don't watch much TV or know of her. However, you being online as long as you have, certainly know of this old dodge of blind-siding people as you did above, to support the views of those you agree with by making a public post, instead of privately contacting me and asking what I meant first. I have seen much of your work that is to be admired, your manipulative tactics, posted above, are not a part of that admiration. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: As I have stated [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk%3ATeamwork&diff=90300&oldid=90283 elsewhere], I prefer all communication to be public (perhaps I should put that on my user page too). As such, it remains difficult for me or anyone else to attribute something other than what I have said to me. It also constantly reminds me that I am in a public place and to be on my behavior - there will always be someone looking to trap me in words if I misspeak. I ask of you, have I shown you less respect or treated you with less dignity than you have shown me in the past? Alternatively, if I was to make the same comments you have made in the past, would I be banned? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I don't ban people except for vandalism and the like. I have blocked users, shortly, when I know they are creating havoc, or doing things to marginalize Conservapedia. I certainly have posted several times, quite publicly, in opposition to some Sysop's actions, etc. This you well know. Spirited discourse is how I was raised. I was schooled by Jesuits. So, no, you wouldn't be banned for talk, of course not. I know of only one Sysop who has banned for talking. As I said, I publicly disagreed. But your argument about keeping everything publc puzzles me, from a logic point of view. Anyone can make up anything, and say it came from me or you, if they have a mind to. So to use that as an excuse to actually lessen dialog, seems odd to me. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The above statement by TK is quite misleading ... While it was quickly reversed when the error was pointed out, TK blocked me without even checking to see if I was the offending user. I think sysops should have the basic skills and knowledge to do a little fact/history checking before running to the block button. I'm sure I'm not the first one TK has blocked by accident, then tried to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Hojimachong&diff=137248&oldid=137232 cover it up] instead of adding an apology comment. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:51, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

*Jrssr, you have now earned another, not mistaken, block. ''Your statement above is totally false'', showing an edit of mine, where I decided to be more temperate, and not bring up the fact you could have been blocked by Hoji for name-calling, and that any Sysop still could, and implying it had something to do with your mistaken blockage of how long? You are disingenuous, and that will not be tolerated. Blocks do no "damage" whatsoever. You are building red herring non-issues to be inflammatory. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking of NousEpirrhytos ==

I would like a comment on this situation, Nous was apparently banned for "attacks on the Bible" by Karajou, which apparently relates to [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Bible#Name this conversation] in which Nous expresses scholarly disagreement with the concept of Biblical literalism.

Even more disturbingly, users questioning Karajou's actions on his talk page have been informed by User:TK that regular users have no business questioning administrative actions. When asked if ''"Andy's promised freedom of speech excludes questioning or criticizing the Bible"'', user:TK responded ''"Yes indeed, that is exactly what I meant"''. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*When quoting someone, Nematocyte, could you please not edit their quotes? Some might think you did it deliberately, to stir the pot, and we wouldn't want that, eh? And if you are going to complain about more than one Sysop, please make more than one header, one for each complaint. Thank you. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Do you disagree with the content of my condenced quote? Do you not intend to imply those things? In any case, I am not making a complaint against you, as you have not performed an administrative action in this case, only commented. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Ahhh....just another snipe. I see. Very good. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Do you disagree with my summation? Do you disagree that administrative comments on the case are relevant? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::For the love of mud, TK, answer the user's questions rather than bickering. Nematocyte is being '''incredibly''' reasonable here. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed, I would rather see answers than this pointless "sniping." [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Well, [[User_talk:Karajou#Blocking|this is what we got so far]]. Answers would indeed be nice. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Some of the Sysops seem fairly trigger-happy right now. Petrus and NousEpirrhytos were completely undeserving of banning. This along with the un/blocking of AmesG and PalMD give me pause for thought as to what is happening on this site at the moment. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 12:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, if you read some of TK's latest comments, that's exactly what it's supposed to do. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::According to some of TK's recent comments, one could conclude that this page should be speedily deleted - who are we to question or even criticize sysop decisions? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see what banning Petrus and NousEpirrhytos was meant to accomplish. It seems to me these bans were pointed at silencing their ''opinion'', rather than promoting '''good faith'''. Is this what I am supposed to take from this? And in the case of PalMD, running off someone with knowledge of the field because he disagrees with your ''opinion'', seems like a fairly poor way to run a site. What are we supposed to think of a site that does this? I know we all hate Wikipedia, but is it a liberal value to allow dissent? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:While we're quoting, here is Karajou's reaction. It can be found on [[User talk:Karajou#Blocking|his User Talk page]] and on [[Talk:Bible]]:
{{QuoteBox|In Genesis 3:1, the serpent questions what God said concerning the tree of life. "Com'on, Eve...did God really say you can't eat from that tree?" One can transliterate this verse any way they want, but the meaning remains the same: Satan did not attack God personally, but he attacked His word, questioning what He said, and trying to make Eve question it too, which she ultimately did. The above individuals who have come here to Conservapedia specifically to edit the [[Bible]] article have attempted the same thing. Rather than prove God doesn't exist, they went after His word, repeatedly questioning it, questioning the evidence supporting it, belittling any answer which came their way...and at one point I was accused of the bias. This is going to stop. Either accept the Bible as it is, or leave. I only banned one individual when it started getting sour. This is Conservapedia...it is not "Liberalpedia".}}
:Just copy-pasting it here since it's quite relevant in my eyes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:49, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Note: The other person addressed in this is [[User:Petrus]], who also participated in the [[Talk:Bible]] discussion (and who got [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Petrus perma-banned] by TK recently for a similar-sounding reason). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Is there somewhere else we can post this where it will get a response from somebody, or am I just being impatient? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry, this is pretty much the final destination of all sysop complaints. The previous station had been Andy's talk page (but the big box at the top now says to duke it out here and not there), and the only other option would be the Student Panel. And don't hold your breath. I don't honestly expect something to happen (though I still hope so) - look at the other complaints here (and on Conservative's extra-page). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Faith is important to most Americans. Any attempt to undermine faith will be frowned upon here, particularly if directed '''towards''' any particular user. I have tolerated much sarcasm, misdirection, fooling around, and so forth without really being forceful - and been told repeatedly by senior staff that my lenience is not acceptable. I would like to make it possible for liberals or dissenters to participate, because I hate to see anyone marginalized. Believe me, I know how it feels.

::But how many of you whom I have defended have ever expressed a single word of gratitude for all the hospitality you have received here? Go read the story of Jesus and the 10 lepers before you say another word about "abuse". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Two users were banned infinitely for the Bible talk (Did you read it?). THREE users were banned for questioning Karajou's behavior. I was among them, and ironically enough, I got banned right after my cry for help to you. <s>Thanks for your great support here, Ed. And thanks for letting us "liberals" and "dissenters" participate.</s> Oh wait. My bad, no sarcasm on Conservapedia. So yeah. Three people get banned for trying to defend two people who got banned (and are still perma-banned). It's a good thing that I don't really care how often I get banned - otherwise I'd really look the other way the next time I see abuse. And yes, I'm slightly bitter. Please don't ban me for it, I'll possibly get better if I can go a few hours or even days without getting banned. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:13, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh we are aware of just how <s>hostile</s> hospitable we have received here. Maybe its being forgotten in all of this but the editors of this site are giving something extremely valuable with our contributions. Without the editors there is NOTHING here, this place needs us far more than we need it. What do we really gain by contributing here? A place to voice our ideas? Not really, wikipedia would be the place to go for that. No, most of us originally came here as contributors. This love it or leave it attitude isn't going to fly. If all of us leave conservapedia we are not harmed in anyway, but if all of us leave conservapedia it is fatal. So who needs who? Who should be thanking who? [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 15:56, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Let us not forget in all of this that a user was banned for idealogical reasons by self-conscious sysop. NousEpirrhytos should be unbanned now, or we need to toss out the conservapedia commandments and just leave it as "All editors are equal but some are more equal than others" and bask in the warming glow of censorship, authoritarianism, capriciousness, and hypocrisy. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'll also add Petrus' ban for review. It appears that he was also banned for this, although by another sysop (TK). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==I will just assume bad faith==
on the above issue. since there is no effort to respond, from Andy, Ed or TK. good to know. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:'''Myk just got banned for one month for questioning Karajou (see his talk page and Bible talk).'''
:Writing quick, I might be next. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, me too, probably. I just posted on Andy's page. Apparently we can't ask questions either. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Kinda sad that you can effectively be blocked for asking "Why?" after a sysop did something... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow. Just...wow. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

(reading up) No effort to respond? Do you have any idea how many pages are on my watchlist? Try leaving a note on my [[user talk page]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Ed, I don't think Flippin really meant you, at least I wouldn't include you on the list, you've responded more than any other on that list<s> (by responding, I mean actually responding and not just whining like a little kid)</s>. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==This will probably earn me a ban==
but why was Sid banned by Karajou? Could someone just explain how his actions harmed conservapedia? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Dissent is against conservative values. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 13:30, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
::Dissent's not so bad; stupidity might be frowned upon. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:20, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::...please tell me that you didn't just call me stupid and that I simply misunderstood your words in the context... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I appologize if/when I (may) offended (with all pertinent disclaimers). I thought the subject had been banned, so trashing him was ok. I dissent from my previous statement. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
: re. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]]'s comment: Seconded. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 13:36, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ed Poor and Reginold==
'''Please keep posts in chron order!'''

Ed Poor banned [[User:Reginod|Reginold]] because he didn't apologize for <s>that offended Ed Poor</s> putting words in Ed Poor's mouth, twice (as stated on the block log), even though a well stated apology is on [[User talk:Reginod‎|his talk page]]. Perhaps I will follow; I can't tell. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

*Avoid insults/snipes, stick to the facts, don't become idealogically biased against Conservative and Christian principles and avoid never-ending arguments and reverts, and I don't think you will have a worry. If you don't, you will be counting the days down. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, what I said was ''put words in my mouth twice - did not apologize''. That is not the same as "comments that offended me". Your comment here is tantamount to an accusation. Please clarify your remarks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:35, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::He did apologize, though, didn't he? [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 18:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Sorry that I misrepresented your block log comments; I was focused more on the apology that is quite extensive on his talk page. As for TK's comment below, I see I have been placed on the [[Conservapedia:Abuse]] immediately after posting this message, which is an interesting commentary on [[justice]] on Conservapedia. (I also hope that you all blank your User pages in deference to the Virginia Tech victims as I have.) [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

*I would be a mistake to connect dots, Sterile. I have been down the hall, in meetings, since I posted, so I am not aware of you being "watched". Those kinds of comments, made by a Sysop, you would be posting about, calling them unfair, eh? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not going to comment. The environment here is too hostile, and again I fear I will be interpreted. Instead, I think this afternoon when I get a chance, I'll write an article for [[justice]] and get off the 90/10 list, and be proactive instead of defensive. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 08:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ed Poor ==
This is what Ed Poor wrote in a debate page "We should just blast you all into smithereens, you humorless bastards! BOO-WAH-HAH-HAH!!!! --Ed Poor 14:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)" Doesn't this warrant a ban? Or can I say bastard without getting into trouble? --[[User:FredK|FredK]] 14:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::That was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Should_some_of_the_Sysops_on_here_Lighten_Up%3F&diff=140624&oldid=140266 here]. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:59, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
: If I interpret 'BOO-WAH-HAH-HAH!!!!' correctly, as evil laughter, then it would seem to mitigate. Anyway, [[User:RSchlafly]] swore [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ASigmund_Freud&diff=133574&oldid=133325 here] to no repercussions, so it would seem that it is condoned. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

*I fail to see swearing at the link provided, Wikinterpreter. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Uh, here, TK:

'But Freud's work was crap,'

--Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

:I intend to follow this up by referring to a female wolf as a bitch. Next month, I'll refer to a male chicken as a cock. Lighten up, eh? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:55, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*I someone here thinks using the word "crap" is swearing, I submit you are far too sheltered and unworldly to venture out onto the Internet. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:31, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: So what's the point in Commandment Number 3, then? Where do we draw the line? Because if not, then it's a load of ... oh, well I won't stoop to that level. Is this a confirmation that the use of the words 'crap' and 'bastard' is sanctioned by two admins? --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

== Aschlafly ==
Aschlafly was acting like a bully. He's apparently the owner of this site, so he'll get away with it, but he [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Notice_of_likely_blocking pushed around] me & [[user_talk:1048247| 1048247]] pretty ruthlessly & without cause. When confronted about it, he told me to leave his talk page, and discuss any problems on the article talk page itself, which [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Alexander_Hamilton he has not done], instead [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alexander_Hamilton&action=history reverting] without explanation on the talk page. I think this is inappropriate behavior for an admin. As I said, nothing will get done about it, but I think he needs to know that it creates a bad work environment. Of course, I can't tell him that on his page without getting blocked, so this will have to do. I'm new to the site, but already I can tell that. Doesn't that tell ''you'' something?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 13:15, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I've been here for a couple of months and have nothing but good things to say about Andy. I have created new articles, edited some, suggested news articles for the Breaking News section, etc. In other words, I've made several positive contributions to this site without engaging in the endless debates and discussions on contentious talk pages. I've also been watching Andy's talk page, and I've seen the vandalism on this site as well as the constant badgering that he has to deal with on a daily basis. BillBuck, I have seen your side of this issue, and I disagree. I believe Andy is very tolerant of other editors and I fully support his actions. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 13:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
That sounds like he's tolerant of people he agrees with. The test of tolerance & kindness isn't how you behave towards your friends. It's how you treat others with whom you differ in significant ways. One of the many remarkable things about Christ was that he treated all men equally; if He had only shown favor & friendship towards His disciples, it wouldn't have been that impressive. Although I'm glad it's been a positive experience for you.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 13:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::I got blocked for writing this, but I stick by it. I don't think complaining about admin abuse is the same as "starting a fight." The fight was started when Aschlafly insulted me.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 20:37, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*You were not blocked by Andy Schlafly, but by Karajou. You personal page is nothing but a biased attack, not some intellectual criticism of Schlafly. Your intentions and outlook are clear. You were responsible for being blocked, no one else, and for no other reason than your picking a fight. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:55, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Look, when you start blocking people for disagreeing with you, how are you better than the Taliban?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 20:57, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*Obviously online wiki's are not the place for you ''if'' you cannot discern the difference between disagreements, intellectual debate, and going out of your way to provoke. I have no dog in this hunt, other than reading your comments, and Karajou's and the others. I have never shied away from criticizing Andy, or anyone, when I thought it due, but you can (and will) do so without keeping at it to provoke acrimony. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

You've not shown your ability to perform the same kind of distinction you ask of me.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 21:24, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
*Well, fortunately for me, then, you are not here to judge the actions of Sysops, and there isn't any rule, guideline or Commandment saying you should or could. Stop jerking around, and either be here to help, or I will remove you. You are ignorant of the facts in the extreme, and judgemental to the point of it being laughable. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Separate Complaints About the Poster==
:"Kind of a bully", huh? Where did I here that before....hmmm...was it Chip Berlet, [http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2005/07/the_things_peop.html] author of [http://www.organizenow.net/cco/right/propanalysis.txt Introduction to Propaganda Analysis] who "recommends the terms 'bullying' and its variants". Wanna see a few thousand diffs to make the point? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

What?! I don't see the relevance.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 14:45, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:We've heard it all. And the cookie cutter textbook buzzwords and phrases just don't get attention anymore. It's kinda like Pavlov's dogs or the boy who cried wolf, after hearing the same stuff over and over again, eventually you just don't hear it.

:Let me give a real simple example. This page is for sysop abuse. Your opening sentence is uncivil and a personal attack. Why should I read '''''any''''' further? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:01, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I've changed the tone so that the personal attack is gone. I'm sure you'll be interested in reading the rest, now. I think it's sad, though, that you'd ignore criticisms after a while: just like the boy that cried wolf, you might miss it when it's the real thing. Also, since this is the first I've heard of it, it's news to me.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 15:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*So, when "caught" you now show your revisionist stripes, change the tone, and want to continue your ad hominem attack? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Moving on...

Is anyone going to address the substantive complaint? So far only RobS and TK have, and just to suggest a nicer approach (which I took to heart) or mock me (which I won't). Won't someone address the substance?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 18:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*By "substance" you wish to have addressed your totally subjective, personal opinion, that Andrew Schlafly is a "bully"? That is my understanding. Is it correct? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Moving on...

I mean that he doesn't care what other people have to say. And blocks them when they disagree with him. I mean, you've been here longer than me, so prove me wrong, but first impressions are really hard to shake, you know?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 19:26, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: I appreciate the support here. It's obvious to me that Bill is yet another liberal who may delight in pretending otherwise. Bill, I'm going to check your edits now but if you're violating the 90/10 [[rule]] and don't correct that violation soon, then you will be blocked as others have been.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: Follow-up: after a quick look at Bill's edits, I estimate only about 10% could possibly be substantive. Next I'll check those substantive edits (a grand total of 5) and see what they were.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:36, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:*You forgot to add "Moving on..." Andy. That apparently is another Liberal device to avoid directly answering. :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:22, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*He's blocked for three days for picking a fight. He could have handled it a lot better than he did. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:35, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:*Aren't there still boards out there that welcome the constant fighting and never-sending debate? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:**Look at his edits to William Rehnquist and Anton Scalia. Not bad. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=William_Rehnquist&diff=prev&oldid=142314] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=prev&oldid=142318] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm sure those fighting boards are at Wikipedia. When it comes to people here wanting to start a fight, it has to be put down immediately and not escalate. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:56, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*Unlike you or I, Karajou, Andy is used to teaching young students, and that is why he appears (to me at least) to be if anything, overly tolerant of "spirited" discussion of a kind that always seems to turn into personal insults against him, or worse, insults to his family. I guess some here would faint dead-away to learn some of us wouldn't tolerate more than one paragraph of personal insults, compared to the pages Andy tolerates. I do always get a chuckle when sections like this, once the perpetrator is called out, and no longer is free-posting complaint after complaint, they flee. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Okey, I'm bit lost now... This is Administrative Abuse page isn't it? And when people post here it's usually because they had an fight with an sysop. If posting here only gets the complainer to be banned for causing more fighting then what is the use to have these pages? I don't know if the former complainer for example had specially good reason to complain, but he did it quite civil and would have hoped that using these pages for what they are meant to wouldn't have just caused more trouble for him. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:TK's got a good point; many of these are young people are anxious to learn the rhetorical arts, and we can show them how to be effective. It doesn't matter what your ideology is. A look at his contribs is impressive. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:15, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*I am lost too. Is it at all possible you are so specious that you cannot tell the difference between someone complaining, and offering totally subjective, context-specific "evidence" to advance what is purely personal opinion, and something that is substantive, and possibly something that is truly questionable? This whole topic is mostly filled with personal opinions, highly subjective complaints, mainly of personal style, rather than specific, verifiable accusations of "wrong doing". It should more accurately be titled "X did something I am mad at, and I want attention!". Perhaps I need to make "rules" for this page, more narrowly defining what is and is not something that rises to the the proper definition of "abuse", since so very few seem to know what the word actually means. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:18, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I think thats an good idea TK, as i must admit that i thought i did, but seams some people have very different opinion on this subject. Mayby some clarification would be good for everyones sake. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::Ok, I don't like fights; that point is clear. I also don't like people escalating those fights, and I have put a stop to the fights, usually by blocking. I honestly don't like doing that. But a fight must be put down before it gets out of hand; it cannot continue from the main page and escalate here, and that comes from having seen it and stopping it in police work. The individual causing such a fight needs to follow the rules for this site as well as the sysops (myself too) need to follow some good rules on stopping the fight. If TK can make those specific rules, I will follow them. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*Karajou, I certainly hope you were not thinking anything I posted was directed at you, because it most certainly was not. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::No, I didn't take it that way. My thinking was that what you said was meant to improve our own performance overall. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Karajou, I hope you realise that a fight involves at least two people and you have blocked just one. This page is for people who wish to make a complaint about something, and wish it to be looked at fairly by a third party(ies). Blocking one side of an argument doesn't immediately solve the argument (if anything it is much much worse leading to alienation and frustration). Regardless of who the complaint was directed at the argument should have been looked at objectively not just torn apart by any member of the "I love Schlafly" squad. Looking at what happened, it seems that the complaint was totally disregarded with preference to a set of ad hominem attacks on both the argument and the complainant. Surely you must see this defeats the whole point of this page? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 14:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Swearing==

There are levels of "swear" words. I got "bastard" from a divinity student who later became academic dean of a small theological seminary. He translated the Latin ''Nihil illegitimati carborundum'' as "don't let the bastards wear you down."

Clearly, much of the "abuse" complaints here are actually protests against policy itself - not reports of policy violations by staff. It's part of the general adolescent angst endemic amoung Liberals. All authority is evil and suspect and deserves to be torn down.

The hypocrisy of this is the utter disregard of the evils of slavery in the Sudan, the double standard of enjoying electricity and fresh food in the West (while Africans should go without), and the neglect (amounting to censorship) of the totalitarian abuses of socialists.

What the heck is that all about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:48, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:They hate the word "conservative" in Conservapedia; they think that this is a free and open wiki; they think that no one is in charge; they think that this should be a free-for-all in which whatever it is they believe in should be shoved down our throats, and if we prevent that, why they cite free speech violations. These people have to be told otherwise, one way or the other. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Ed, might be better on a debate page, but I'd love to address some of these topics. First of all, I do not feel a special existential angst similar to that in my youth, but I have seen many abuses of authority over the years. This has led me to believe that not all conservatives are bad people, but that people in power can, if unchecked, use it poorly (no pun intended ;-) ). If you look at the case of Fargo, ND, they raised their speeding fines by about 100% a few years back. That's all well and good in theory, except it violates the state law, and now they are going to have to pay the overage (based on five years of tickets) back. The authority issue comes in because they did so knowingly---they would not let defendants see a judge, they increased the overall number of tickets by almost half again and they have now spent (no kidding) thousands of state taxpayer dollars trying to keep my sister-in-law from getting back $86 in wrongful fines. Have you ever heard of a traffic ticket that has yielded over 300 man-hours of legal work by a state?

::Abuses like these are why I became a liberal. I have seen many such instances and realized that too much authority in one person's hands makes for a dangerous situation. I regard the evils of slavery as a real threat to our security--more so than Iraq.

::Not all authority need to be torn down, but it ''deserves'' questioning and a watchful eye. I don't hate George Bush anymore than I hate Mother Teresa (I didn't hate her either), but asking tough questions is my duty as a citizen.

::Finally, I think you have a point when you say many of the questions here are about policy. I won't spend all day on bias, but it is very difficult to measure bias. Writing it into an article--possible, but how do please the more conservative among you as well as the more moderate? Once that dis-equity is designed, can it really be self-sustaining? I am here to see if any of you can actually do what you intend, or if eventually, you will create something nearly identical to wikipedia without blocking, protecting and guarding everything. Good comment Ed, but I hope you appreciate my position. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:31, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

*I hate to be the one to break it to you, Flippin, but the actions you cite in Fargo, are certainly not those of Conservatives. And if they self-designated themselves as such, they are wrong. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Ed, I don’t think this is a particularly liberal way of thinking (look at how conservatives treat liberal authority figures on this site)—I think it is human to want to see those you disagree with have less power (how many Conservatives do you think would support warrantless wiretapping in 2009 if a Democrat is in the White House (especially if Hilary is there), and how many Liberals who opposed it when Bush did it will change their minds?). So, yes I have no doubt that there are some liberals on this site who would like to see the current people in charge have less power. I freely admit I’d like the religious conservatives to have less power here and those with more libertarian leanings to have more (I want people who agree with me to have more power).
:But I also think that part of the problem is that the rules are unclear. I might have thought that the words in question above amounted to foul language and some sysops may have enforced the rule that way (say I used those words to describe my opinions of YEC how long do you honestly think t would take before that earned me a ban?). There are clear double standards on what is acceptable here, at least in terms of how some of the rules are enforced, and that bothers people especially those who get the bad side of that deal.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:05, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:*I agree, Reginod. Religion and political issues bring out the worst in people. Those of us who have had a "professional" involvement positively cringe at the thought of getting involved with "the public" about political things, as most are at best disingenuous and at worst totally unscrupulous, in discussing all things political. Not to mention most citizens, either here or the UK, are woefully ignorant of the whole process. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:18, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Reginod, the example you cite is an extrememly poor one; warrantless wiretaps have been '''legel''' since 1938. Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt authorized by Executive Order wiretaps on American citizens, and he approved '''foreign''' Intelligence doing it. Why isn't this commonly known? Why liberal media bias, of course. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:47, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I disagree. FISA requires a warrant for wiretaps and outlines exactly under what circumstances a warentless wiretap is allowed. FISA post-dates 1938 and so any conflict between it and a 1938 executive order would come out in favor of FISA, more importantly FISA is a law, not an executive order, and laws have more legal weight than executive orders. But, I think that strays from the main point I was trying to make.
:::I gather that you support President Bush’s use of warrantless wiretaps in the War on Terror? If Hillary Clinton (or Obama, or Edwards, or any other Democrat) were elected President in 2008, would you support her use of the same program? Would you want a President Hillary Clinton to have the power to wiretap any phone that she or her administration deemed potentially relevant in the War on Terror? My suspicion is that the answer there is no (if it isn’t I think you will find yourself in the minority among Conservatives). My point was that Conservatives tend to support Bush’s use of the program because his views and theirs line up—they like a person with their views in power, and trust him to use it well—whereas Liberals tend not to support Bush’s use of the program because they have different views from him—they don’t like a person with views that different from their own, using that much power. Likewise most Conservatives would not support a Liberal President using the exact same program, whereas most Liberals would find themselves supporting a Liberal President using that same program. Humans, Liberal or Conservative don’t like people who have views different from their own welding power (that was my point).
:::I personally don’t want anyone using such a program, since I tend to be distrustful of the police power of the state in general (but that’s not especially relevant, I just figured it was only fair to be frank about where I was coming from).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:08, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::FISA only applies to US counterintelligence operations, it does not cover cooperative sharing agreements between NATO allies. When NSA suspects an American, through a cooperative sharing agreement, NSA can request British MI-5 to perform the wiretap, hence it is not a US federal government agency performing the tap. Once MI-5 retrtieves the material, through an international intelligence sharing agreement they share the intelligence product with NSA. A similiar program exists in Great Britain with a reciprocal arangement. You will recall, it was very recently reported CIA tapped Prince Di's; stop and think momentarily, what use would CIA have in tapping Princess Di? None, whatsoever, except British intelligence couldnt do it themselves, and it certainly would be a scandal if revealed. It was a reciprocal cooperative sharing agreement. Forget FISA. It does not apply in the issue of so-called "domestic spying". FDR made legal prior to WWII, and has been legel ever since. All the other stories about FISA are simply disinformation to hide the true basis of the how the program operates, and how its done legally.

::::As an aside, an item of Impeachment against Richard Nixon claimed he authorized domestic wiretaps on US citizens; if this is an impeachable offense for failing to protect American citizens rights, imagine what FDR did, in peacetime, authorize domestic wiretaps '''''against US citizens by a foreign government'''''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I don’t know the full details of the program getting all the media coverage—I was under the impression that it didn’t involve the kind of information sharing that you describe (I am under the impression that you are quite right, if it was the sort of behavior you describe it would be legal). But, as I said, I think that is a side point.
:::::For the record, let me be clear I don’t want any President (or any President’s administration) having the power to tap phonelines without some form of oversight from the judicial branch (I’d prefer something stronger than FISA, personally) -- Bush, Nixon, FRD, Clinton, you name them I don’t want any of them having that kind of power (the police power of the executive is incredibly prone to abuse and I want it at all times to be checked by at least one, and preferably two, of the other branches of our government).
:::::Let me get back to my point—would you want, should she become President, Hilary Clinton’s administration to have the power to wiretap phones of Americans without any judicial oversight? I assume the answer is no, because I assume most people don’t want those ideologically different from themselves to have that much power.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:59, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::The point is, it has been legal for nearly 70 years now, and it would probably take revamping the NATO Charter to make it illegal. FISA had weaknesses, (1) it assumed all countertintelligence was directed at foreign governments; (2) while it made provisions for Americans acting as agents of foreign governements, it made no provision for counterintelligence agaisnt non-national entities like drug cartels or terrorist organizations; (3) its provisions for industrial espionage committed by non-governmental multinational corporations were ambiguous. In short, the whole Patriot Act & FISA Acts have nothing to do with the established procedures for domestic spying, and have been distorted by members of Congress and media allies for partisan politcal purposes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I will happily continue this discussion elsewhere, but not here (see below). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Go to the discusssin page here; perhaps we can begin [[FISA]] out of this discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::First of all it isn't president bush deciding who to wiretap, and who not to wiretap. Secondly, I would support the same program with a democrat as president. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 13:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Let me clarify I was using “President Bush” as a “controller-for-controlled” metonymy[http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/lexicon/MetonymiesInEnglish/WhatIsAControllerForControlled.htm] —if that was a source of confusion I apologize.
:::::I think you are in the minority (conservative or liberal) in supporting such a program under both Republican and Democratic presidencies, but I applaud your logical consistency. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::"the actions you cite in Fargo, are certainly not those of Conservatives" How you could no thank boggles the mind. Maybe self-deceit is not just a "liberal trait." Sometimes I think you just make broad pronouncements to sound important. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:09, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

*That is just the point, Flippin. We Conservatives find that all people are important, unlike Liberals. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 12:27, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Wouldn't it be nice if we started from the assumption that all people are good-natured and mean well, rather than starting from our preconceived notions of what we expect people to act like. After all, there is a political spectrum, there are people who don't consider themselves as "strongly liberal" or "strongly conservative," and who remove themselves from the political system because of the bickering between the extremes on both sides. Furthermore there are anti-abortion anti-gun law folks out there. Not every person neatly fits into one category or another. That we start out with an assumption that person will act or believe because of a label is truly sad (shame on all of us), and worse, if we start with a label on ourselves and create our belief system with no internal introspection, that is far more sad. God or nature wouldn't haven't given us brains if we weren't to use them. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 15:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with all of this; when someone crosses the line into activism coordinated and aligned with the extremes we may be able to make a judgement then. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:34, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

*Agreed. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

----
'''Getting off topic'''
We're going to have to end this debate here, and choose another page (a talk page at that) for this discussion. This page is supposed to be for abuse of admin/sysop authority, and should remain as such...so, if everyone pleases...(it was a good debate, by the way!) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:06, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:This was a good debate, and one of the reasons that we '''have''' discussion pages. Debate helps sharpen our awareness of the distinction between positions, and even sometimes what the similarities are. That will help us write better articles on the topics touched on, in the debates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:23, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== False accusation by TK ==

At 9:04 am sysop TK left a rather bizarre maasage on my talk page

:''Tea....

:''Do you enjoy it? I like Oolong best of all! Now explain yourself. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:04, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Rather puzzled by this, I responded in kind.

::''Yes, tea is nice. I drink it because I find it quite relaxing. I recommend Mate, although it requires the proper equipment to enjoy fully. Thanks for your interest. Nematocyte 04:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)''

However, shortly afterward I was blocked for "sock puppets", with the following message.

:''Well confession is good for the soul, don't you know? Sorry, but it was the wrong answer, and you and your sock are going on vacation. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:09, 9 May 2007 (EDT)''

Around the same time a user with zero contributes appears to have been blocked for infinity for "being a sock of nematocyte". I've never heard of this user, and I certainly am not using it as a sock. I work from a series of publically accessable machines, which could potentially explain TK's mistake. However, that doesn't excuse that no attempt was made to check the truth of the matter, or the general lack of civility used by TK. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:39, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*Are you complaining about a lack of civility to you, Nematocyte? Or to some potentially unknown user who you are "protecting" and fighting for? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:19, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::Like I said, I've never heard of the user and have had no contact with them. It makes no personal difference to me what happens to them. But it would seem the correct thing for you to do would be to apologise to the both of us for your mistake. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 04:38, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well it wasn't a mistake, that is the problem. Suffice to say you are still here, and your statement, based upon nothing factual whatsoever, that no attempt was made to check it out, is false. It is our perogative and charge to protect this site. If mistakes are made, so be it. But it is wrong for anyone to assume we don't check, and aren't doing the best job we can. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::My statement is based on my first hand knowledge of what is going on at my side. Namely, that contrary to your claims, I do not have a sock puppet and never have. As far as I'm aware that's 100% factual. May I ask what "evidence" there was to the contrary, and what measures ''were'' made to check it wasn't a mistake, and the reasoning being your rather cryptic questioning on my talk page? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 04:54, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*My post was to let you know, if you did indeed make the puppet, that we knew about it. That's all. When a user fails to repond in a timely manner, and doesnt even bother to email, that doesn't tend to make us think they are on the up and up. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:05, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::I had gone home for the day, nothing more sinister than that. If it was a matter of timing, what was the "wrong answer" comment about? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:09, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*No denial and a talking about tea. Nothing more sinister than that. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:12, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::It was hard for me to deny something that I knew nothing about. Remember, all you left on my talk page was a bizarre question about tea, not an accussation. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Also, my question about what "evidence" there was, and what measures were taken to ensure the veracity of the accussation remain unanswered. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:08, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

TK, you owe Conservapedia users a full explanation of what happened. Nematocyte's accusations are heavy. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 06:32, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ed Poor sysop needs a refresher in net ettiquette ==

I have been on this site for nearly 3 days. I have submitted one article and was in the process of submitting a second article when it was deleted by Ed Poor with no notification. This site's email notification is broken so I can't get an email confirmation sent to me no matter what email address I use so I could not contact him directly. Now I find that my IP is blocked because Ed Poor is upset that I asked for an explanation under his talk comments.

What kind of site is this? Well, as a new user I'm not impressed. I am VERY conservative and a loyal person to the consevative ideology I thought this site was actually a place where openess and conservatism would be respected but I guess I was wrong... [[User: PatrioticAmericanCitizen|PatrioticAmericanCitizen]]

Okay - let me try a different approch - how do you inquire about a sysop that shall remain nameless to ask about an IP block when you can't mention a sysop by name because they think it is a "personal remark"?

Your rule says - "You must be civil. No bullying.
Your user page/discussion pages, are indeed your castle, from which you can agree, disagree and discuss issues as you will. However you cannot use them to bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions. There is a difference between intellectual discourse, and attacking someone for what they believe. Wikipedia condones bullying and mob rule, we don’t."

You say no bullying but isn't using an IP block bullying in it's own right? It's an honest question that deserves an honest answer....

{{unsigned|PatrioticAmericanCitizen}}

I have no idea who you are asking that question of, Patriot, but IMO, no, it isn't. It is standard practice at most all websites. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I was asking it of Ed Poor without mentioning his name because on two occasions when I tried to obtain an explanation from him about his behaivior, I got an IP block as a result. I understand the "standard practice" reason for IP blocks in general - but deleting or modifying articles (real articles not liberal vandalism type articles) without any discussion whatsoever with the person who created them on any website is wrong. As a new user to the site, I was extremely upset at being treated in this manner. Especially after working very hard to write an article that is keeping within what I felt was the spirit of the type of articles that conservapedia.com would want on their site....I really really really really want to help this site develop if I can - I can't stand the leftward slant on wikipedia. If that particular sysop would have just said something to me before he went and did what he did - this could have been avoided. That's all I'm saying. There, I feel better now :) Now back to our regularly scheduled program....

[[User: PatrioticAmericanCitizen|PatrioticAmericanCitizen]]

==I Second This==
For the past couple of days I have spent many hours researching and writing articles about British Comedy of the 50s 60s and 70s. I wrote articles on Carry On Films, and Tony Hancock, one of the all time British Comedy Greats. In doing that, I created articles about Sid James and Kenneth Williams who were in the original Hancock's half hour series along with Hattie Jacques. I spent a long time writing synopses of Hancock episodes, and finding clips. Some of these entries were about 2000 words in length.

I went on to write bios of some of the other Carry on stars including Barbara Windsor and Charles Hawtrey. Ed Poor saw my entry on Hawtrey, which touched on the fact that he was very camp and a noted homosexual, a fact well known and totally uncontraversial. He saw this and not only deleted that article without any discussion whasoever, but then went on to delte the whole body of work, on the grounds that "we dont want a whole load of articles glorifying the homosexual lifestyle". If he had read any of the articles he would have realised that (a) Only Williams and Hawtrey were homosexuals (Williams always claimed he was celibate AND tortured himself for being gay - hardly glorifying it), and (b) Neither Tony Hancock nor Sid James were homosexual, and the other two were women, and (c) The Tony Hancock article was unchanged from when it had been copyedited by Philip Rayment

Interestingly, Ed Poor also removed an article on Hattie Jacques which I had not written, but merely linked to one of my articles from it.

All of this I believe is Abuse. Abuse of Power, and abuse of contributors who contribute their work in good faith. There is a system for Articles for Deletion OR even articles for speedy deletion which Ed Poor seems to be totally disregarding and thus behaving in a completely high-handed and unreasonable and totally arbitrary manner.

The work that I contributed has now disappeared and I do not have any copy of it. I feel totally aggrieved and if one of my work colleagues had behaved in this manner I would be taking out a grievance procedure against him. I would vote that he be suspended from SySop-ship until he learns some modicum of self-control and reasonableness

--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 06:28, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*All contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here. Next time, keep a backup copy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: The more important question, I think, is this: do sysops have any sort of responsibility to use an AFD process? I don't mean that we need to have Wikipedia-style bureaucracy here, but I can imagine feeling miffed if you removed a bunch of things I wrote in good faith without at least giving me a chance to defend them. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 20:14, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Digit

2007-05-11T18:58:37Z

Brainslug: New page: The description of "digit" in this article might apply better to "numeral." Digits are linked to the base-10 representation and so on. ~~~~

The description of "digit" in this article might apply better to "numeral." Digits are linked to the base-10 representation and so on. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 14:58, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Geode

2007-05-10T16:43:58Z

Brainslug: added YEC view

[[Image:geode.gif|right]]A '''geode''' [[Mineral Aggregates|mineral aggregate]] is a rounded, hollow [[nodule]], lined with [[crystals]], usually [[quartz]] or [[calcite]]. [[Amethyst]] is an example of a [[mineral]] exhibiting a geode form.<ref>Chesterman, Charles W. ''The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Rocks and Minerals'', Alfred A. Knopf: New York (1987) p. 40</ref>

===Young Earth Creationist View===
The secular explanation of geodes is that calcite concretions formed around decaying organic material, and that over thousands of years, these concentrations were replaced by quartz. Since there has not been enough time since the creation of the Earth for this to happen, creation scientists theorize that geodes were created in their present form.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Geology]]

Washington Times

2007-05-10T16:16:55Z

Brainslug: limiting POV

The '''''Washington Times''''' is a [[conservative]] [[newspaper]] in [[Washington, D.C.]] which strives to counterbalance the perceived [[liberal]] slant of the ''[[Washington Post]]''. The paper founded by Reverend [[Sun Myung Moon]], head of the [[Unification]] [[Church]] (known as the "[[Moonies]].")

[[Max Blumenthal]] wrote, "The Times has served as a major key on the [[conservative movement]]'s Mighty Wurlitzer." <ref>http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/washington_times</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Newspapers]]

Lost Colony

2007-05-10T16:06:37Z

Brainslug: spelling, puntuation

The '''Lost Colony''', or [[Roanoke Colony]], was the first [[British]] [[colony]] established in [[America]] on [[Roanoke Island]], [[North Carolina]] in the late sixteenth century. [[Sir Walter Raleigh]] was given a charter to establish this colony by [[Queen Elizabeth]].

In 1587, a group of colonists returned to [[England]] to acquire more supplies. Upon their return to the colony in 1590, they found it abandoned, with no trace of the colonists. The only clue was the word "[[Croatoan]]" carved into a tree, which happened to be the name of local tribe. There is speculation that they were either killed off by this tribe, or assimilated into their villages for survival purposes. To this day no one knows their fate, hence the name the Lost Colony.

==References==
http://www.libraryreference.org/roanoke.html

http://www.nationalcenter.org/ColonyofRoanoke.html
[[Category:History]]

Kurt Gödel

2007-05-10T16:03:31Z

Brainslug: fixed last sentence

[[Image:Goel.jpg|thumb|right|Kurt Godel at Institute for Advanced Study]]
'''Kurt Gödel''' (1906-1978) was an Austrian mathematician who did pioneering work in logic and the foundations of mathematics. His Incompleteness Theorem demonstrated some limitations of the program that would have placed all of mathematics on an axiomatic basis.

Gödel published his remarkable proof in 1931. He showed that in any consistent axiomatic mathematical system there are always propositions that cannot be proved or disproved using the axioms of the system. He additionally showed that it is impossible to prove the consistency of the axioms from those same axioms. This was the famous incompleteness theorem: any axiomatic system powerful enough to describe arithmetic on natural numbers cannot be both consistent and complete. Moreover, the consistency of the axioms cannot be proven within the system.

Godel's work abruptly ended a half-century of attempts, beginning with the work of Frege and culminating in Principia Mathematica and Hilbert's formalism, to find a set of axioms sufficient to prove the consistency of all mathematics. The [[Gödel's incompleteness theorems|incompleteness theorems]] also imply that not all mathematical questions are computable.

This demonstrated the folly of the work of several leaders in the field. [[Bertrand Russell]] had already published, in Principia Mathematica (1910-13), a massive attempt to axiomatize mathematics. Gödel's proof also showed that the formalist approach of [[David Hilbert]] was bound to fail to prove consistency.

Gödel's proof was a landmark for mathematics, and demonstrated that it can never be a finished project as many mathematicians had believed.

[[Category:Mathematicians|Gödel, Kurt]]

Berkeley Standard Distribution

2007-05-08T18:36:32Z

Brainslug: we at Berkeley prefer to spell the state "California."

Berkeley Standard Distribution (BSD) is a free operating system from the University of California at Berkeley.

Haskell

2007-05-08T18:33:56Z

Brainslug: fixed link

'''Haskell''' is an a [[functional programming language]] with its roots in the [[lambda calculus]]. Free implementations are available for a variety of operating systems.

===External Links===
* [http://www.haskell.org|The HaskellWiki]

Haskell

2007-05-08T18:33:29Z

Brainslug: made the article into a defensible stub rather than an indefensible rant.

Postgresql

2007-05-08T18:28:07Z

Brainslug: wikified, trimmed pov

'''PostgreSQL''' is an [[open source]] [[relational database]] system.

===External Links===
* [http://www.postgresql.org/|The official PostgreSQL site]