Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Democratic Party

2007-03-24T06:11:47Z

Cracker: /* Use of AD */

== Criticism ==

When President Bush talked about amending the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage, he was opposed by both Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans against it tended to oppose the move based on states' rights. Also, the comment that Democrats "don't care about American families" is opinion, not fact. It should be removed. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:05, 9 March 2007 (EST)

This article has the biggest POV I have ever seen, and it offers no adequate description of the Democratic party. Rather, it is a catalog of what conservatives believe that Democrats believe, and it is filled with slanted descriptions ("The Homosexual Agenda") that do not advance the purpose of the article. Perhaps this article should be renamed "List of conservative misinterpretations of the Democratic party." That would immediately solve the problems mentioned above.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

And yet the [[Republican Party]] page has no such sections on Criticism. At least this site could have the courage to be somewhat fair in their heavily biased presentation of "facts". What a joke. I mean really, is this site trying to look idiotic??

== Some of these? ==

"The Democratic Party, as a political unit, supports abortion, gun control, and organized labor, and the funding of '''some of these''' by taxes."

Seriously. "Some of these?" It's a list of three whole items. Gun control is legislation, unions are a bargaining community of workers, and abortion is a medical procedure. Of these, one needs funding, one can receive incentives, and one either is passed, or is not. If we're going to say "the Democratic party supports taxpayer-funded abortion", well, frankly, we'd be seriously stretching the facts, but we should at least have the courage to be concise and say that. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

Ummm, why did the post with a link to his poll numbers get taken down. That seems like it goes against your commandments.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 17:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== ic ==

The name of the party is the Democratic Party. If you would like to use a disparaging name for the party, at least choose one that is an adjective. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Pro-Terrorism ==

So, let me get this straight. Being opposed to invading another country means that you support terrorism? That's logically unsound. [[User:Stargrave|Stargrave]] 15:13, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

You're right. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

(A)There are terrorists in Iraq. (B) If you don't fight terrorists you are with them (George W. Bush 2003). C) Dem's voted against fighting terrorists...therefore they are with them!
How's that for logic yankee!

Logical fallacy in the extreme. (A) Was not, as far as I recall, conclusively proven at the time of the vote you cite. Please cite proof that it was, or retract. (B) Is a mans opinion. No less, no more. (B) is the logical fallacy known as a Falsified Dilemma, and your reliance upon it is the fallacy known as Appeal to Authority. Look them up. The given points also conflate the notion of going to war in Iraq with war against terrorists, which is yet another logical fallacy. The whole thing is also an Appeal to Emotion.

Oh, and I'm english. That's an ad hominem attack right there. The opposite of appeal to authority. Basically, you've taken two faulty assumptions, a list of people you disagree with, and used that to make a statement of fact (C). Now, I could care less about your personal opinion of me, and of your (or my) opinion of the party we're discussing, but in something that's supposedly encylopedic, using such logical constructs. I respectfully request you restrain your enthusiasm, and keep to facts, not opinions. [[User:Stargrave|Stargrave]] 11:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Use of AD ==

The article uses AD for no apparent reason; for any given year, AD is automatically assumed unless BC or BCE is used. It also misuses it; it's AD 2007 and not the other way around. I've noticed other articles with a similar usage.

==Liberal Economics==
Liberal economics is not a '''political''' term.
Being an economic liberal means, among other things, little government intrusion into the markets or into the affairs of business. Liberal economics favors balanced budgets over either surpluses '''or''' deficits. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:11, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Pat Robertson

2007-03-24T05:45:42Z

Cracker: spelling

'''Pat Robertson''' is an American evangelist, spiritual leader and political leader, also owner and presenter of the TV show ''The 700 Club''. He is known for many highly controversial statements, frequently made on this program.

==Controversial Quotes==

You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them.
-- ''Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 14, 1991''

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.
-- ''Pat Robertson, fund-raising letter, 1992''

God's pattern is for men to be the leaders, both in the church and in the family... "Women should listen and learn quietly and submissively. I do not let women teach men or have authority over them."
-- ''Pat Robertson, reciting a passage from I Timothy in his book, Bring It On, quoted from Nicholas D Kristof, "Peter, Paul, Mary ... and God" (The New York Times: February 28, 2004)''

I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period.
-- ''Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 8, 1992''

Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals -- the two things seem to go together.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 21, 1993.

I think we ought to close Halloween down. Do you want your children to dress up as witches? The Druids used to dress up like this when they were doing human sacrifice... [Your children] are acting out Satanic rituals and participating in it, and don't even realize it.
-- ''Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, October 29, 1982''

I think "one man, one vote," just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights.
-- ''Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, March 18, 1992''

Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history.
-- ''Pat Robertson, interview with Molly Ivins, 1993.''

"I am bound by the laws of the United States and all 50 states...I am not bound by any case or any court to which I myself am not a party...I don't think the Congress of the United States is subservient to the courts...They can ignore a Supreme Court ruling if they so choose." -- ''Pat Robertson, Washington Post, June 27,1986)''

"How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?" -- ''Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p.227''

[[Category:Biographies]]

Eighteenth Amendment

2007-03-24T05:30:03Z

Cracker: formatting

1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

----

This was proposed in late 1917 and ratified in January 1919, a mere 394 days after it was proposed. But later this was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment in 1933, being the only amendment to have been repealed.

It was a [[Christian]] movement led by women behind this [[prohibition]] of alcohol ("Prohibition" or "temperance") and the ratification of this amendment. By 1855, 13 of the 31 states already had prohibition. Women declared war ("Women's War") on alcohol once many saloons arose after the Civil War, with much public drunkenness, prostitution and gambling. The Anti-Saloon League (ASL) was established in 1893. It endorsed candidates having a pro-temperance position. In the election of 1916, ASL-endorsed candidates won many congressional elections, and that Congress passed the amendment with majorities far in excess of the required 2/3rds, and sent the amendment to the states.

After Prohibition came into effect, organized crime rose in order to supply the demand for liquor, and the demand remained the same, if it did not increase. Murders went on the rise, until prohibition ended.<ref>http://www.drugwarfacts.org/crime.htm</ref>

Though this amendment was later repealed, many religious groups and some American counties and towns continue to ban alcohol. The fastest growing and second-largest religion in the world, [[Islam]], bans alcohol and not even Muslim cab-drivers accept passengers who are carrying alcohol. Alcoholism contributes to over a hundred thousand deaths in the United States each year, from drunk driving to illness to violent crimes.

<references/>
[[Category: Constitution]]

Ronald Wilson Reagan

2007-03-24T05:15:12Z

Cracker: Undo revision 62129 by Special:Contributions/Ralph Pendleberry (User talk:Ralph Pendleberry)

[[Image:Gorbachev reagan bush.gif|right|250px|thumb]]
'''Ronald Wilson Reagan '''(February 6, 1911- June 5, 2004), considered by many to be one of the greatest American Presidents, was the fortieth [[President of the United States of America]] from 1981 to 1989, following [[Democrat]] [[Jimmy Carter]] and preceding [[Republican]] [[George H. W. Bush]]. Ronald Reagan is credited with leading America peacefully through the Cold War, lowering taxes, promoting a free economy, and causing the end of [[communism]] in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. He was known affectionately to Americans as "The Gipper," harking back to a film where he was cast as All-American George Gip.)[http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp]

In one of his most famous challenges to Soviet communism in Europe, Reagan gave a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin in which he said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Reagan's economic policies became known as "Reaganomics" based the idea tax cuts will spur savings and investment. Reagan was strongly opposed to the concept of big government, advocating a reduction in the size and budget of the federal government. During his terms in office, he faced a divided Congress split between Republican and Democratic control for six of his eight years as President. Reagan was known for forging alliances with the Democratic Speaker of the House, [[Tip O'Neill]], among others, to effectively pass legislation.
==Early Life==
Reagan was born and raised in Illinois and attended Eureka College, where he quickly developed a reputation as a "jack of all trades", excelling in the areas of athletics and theater. In his first year at Eureka, where Reagan earned a degree in economics, the president of the college tried to cut back the faculty. Reagan immediately helped organize a student strike. Reagan enlisted in the military during World War II, but his eyesight was not good enough for combat duty. He used his acting skills to make military training films and promote the sale of "War Bonds. <ref>http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/reagan.obit/index.html</ref>.

Reagan became a radio sports announcer, and then a famous actor, leading the Screen Actors Guild. Ironically, Reagan was thus the only president to ever lead a [[labor union]], traditionally considered bastions of liberalism. Reagan himself was a registered Democrat well into the 1950's, but as head of the Screen Actors Guild he fought against communist infiltration. Peggy Noonan, wrote: ''Even in his zeal to purge the communist influence from Hollywood, he fought those who engaged in witch hunts and defended those who had been falsely accused of involvement.'' Reagan met his second wife, actress Nancy Davis, when she ended up on the "Black List" and came to him for help. [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2001/11/17/noonan_when_character_was_king]

==Governor of California==
In 1966, he was elected the 33rd Governor of California. In 1970, he was re-elected. But in 1974, he chose not to seek a third term. Achievements during his terms included:

*Fighting the People's Park protests, and restoring order to California's chaotic University campuses.

*Led a massive revision of California's massive public assistance programs, actually increasing benefits to the needy.

*Working well with the Democrats to forge consensus on a variety of issues.

*Opposing the Dos Rios Dam

==Presidency==
In 1968, Reagan was a late candidate for president in the Republican primaries. However, [[Richard Nixon]] easily won that nomination. In 1976, Reagan challenged Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination, before withdrawing his name from consideration. Reagan knew if he continued, he would take the nomination away from Ford, and forever be branded as a Party spoiler. This he did not want, so he signaled his wish to be removed from consideration, and gave a very effective speech at the convention in support of Ford. Then, in 1980, he beat [[George H. W. Bush]] in the Republican primaries, and went on to oppose [[Jimmy Carter]] (incumbent) in the general election with G.H.W. Bush as his running mate. A poor economy and the incumbent's failing to deal with several international crises aided Reagan. As he put it, "I'm told I can't use the word depression. Well, I'll tell you the definition. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job; depression is when you lose your job. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." In the general election, he received 50.75% of the popular vote and 90.9% of the electoral.

Once in office, Reagan showed he was playing hardball. When the Federal [[Air Traffic Controllers]] struck illegally, Reagan gave them 48 hours before he fired all who hadn't gone back to work (11,359).

In 1984, Reagan won 49 out of 50 states' electoral votes, and the largest public vote in almost 100 years, 58.77%. During his second term, he helped end the [[Cold War]], with the help of [[Mikhail Gorbachev]], and [[Pope John Paul II]] by recognizing the weakness of the Soviet economy, and simply spending them out of existence.

==Presidential Legacy==

Reagan's 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative became popularly known as "Star Wars," the name given to it by critics because they thought it was pure fantasy like the popular George Lucas films. This plan was never actually fully instituted. Although billions of dollars have been spent on development, no space-based missile defense was tested successfully until 2006. While supporters of Reagan claim SDI gave the United States a large amount of leverage in its standoff with the [[Soviet Union]], many political scientists and historians note that Star Wars played a secondary role in the calculus of Soviet policy-making, where internal structural problems were paramount, but it should be noted that the threat the Soviet Union felt from the initiative was instrumental in making them step-up negotiations, according to many involved with diplomacy at the time. [[Henry Kissinger]] wrote: ''I know it's an axiomatic view of the Left around the world that missile defense is sinful, and that it's desirable to keep each nation as vulnerable as possible. But that's a debatable premise. The U.S. must defend itself against whoever has missiles that would threaten the United States. And you don't have to be able to name an enemy.'' [http://www.doublestandards.org/dreifus1.html]

Upon his death, Margaret Thatcher commented: ''As Prime Minister, I worked closely with Ronald Reagan for eight of the most important years of all our lives. We talked regularly both before and after his presidency. And I have had time and cause to reflect on what made him a great president. Ronald Reagan knew his own mind. He had firm principles - and, I believe, right ones. He expounded them clearly, he acted upon them decisively. When the world threw problems at the White House, he was not baffled, or disorientated, or overwhelmed. He knew almost instinctively what to do. When his aides were preparing option papers for his decision, they were able to cut out entire rafts of proposals that they knew 'the Old Man' would never wear. When his allies came under Soviet or domestic pressure, they could look confidently to Washington for firm leadership. And when his enemies tested American resolve, they soon discovered that his resolve was firm and unyielding. Yet his ideas, though clear, were never simplistic. He saw the many sides of truth. Yes, he warned that the Soviet Union had an insatiable drive for military power and territorial expansion; but he also sensed it was being eaten away by systemic failures impossible to reform. Yes, he did not shrink from denouncing Moscow's 'evil empire'. But he realised that a man of goodwill might nonetheless emerge from within its dark corridors. So the President resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own failures. And when a man of goodwill did emerge from the ruins, President Reagan stepped forward to shake his hand and to offer sincere cooperation. Nothing was more typical of Ronald Reagan than that large-hearted magnanimity - and nothing was more American.'' [http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/thatcher.asp]

===Economy===

Fueled by an over spending Congress that steadfastly refused Reagan's budget proposals, the national debt increased 160% during his two terms in office. The economic growth that resulted from tax cuts made deficits as a percentage of GDP lower than what they had been in during the previous decade of stagflation.

===Foreign policy===

In 1985, after Reagan won reelection to his second term, the focus turned from reviving the domestic economy to several foreign policy matters which had been lingering throughout the decade. One such matter involved Iran, a long time ally of the Western Allies since 1941 that had experienced an Islamic Revolution in 1979 after President Carter announced [[Human Rights]] had superseded [[Containment]] as the primary focus of American foreign policy. Since 1980 Iran had been enmeshed in a brutal trench war with neighboring Iraq which was emerging as a potent military threat in the region to other allies. Members of the National Security Council staff, along with CIA Director [[William Casey]], persuaded Reagan much could be gained and several problems could be addressed simultaneously with an overture to Iran to restore relations.

The objective of the plan was fourfold (1) take steps to restore good relations with the [[Islamic Republic of Iran]] which was becoming increasingly hostile to the West; (2) take measures to convince Iran that Israel could become a friend and ally; (3) insurance against Iraq becoming too strong which and become a threat to [[Kuwait]] or [[Saudi Arabia]]; (4) provide funding for other operations to continue the policy of containment in the Western Hemisphere, most notably [[Nicaragua]], and the violence the Soviet/Cuban/Nicaragua connection was creating in [[El Salvador]] and [[Honduras]].

There were humanitarian aspects to the proposal as well; (1) the Iran-Iraq War had stalemated for nearly six years and Reagan was advised that he was in the unique position as President to help facilitate bringing a senseless war with much suffering to an end; (2) the suffering of the people of the Central American Republics at the hands of Soviet inspired subversion which had in the decade of the 80s established a beachhead in North America; (3) Iran perhaps could be persuaded to use its good offices and influence hostage takers in Lebanon who had held several Western prisoners, many of the Christian Missionaries, for several years.

Reports had filtered back to Reagan that children as young as nine years old had been used by Iran to clear minefields. <ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), ''Iraqi Retreats, 1982-84''], Globalsecruity.org, retrieved 20 March 2007.</ref> In weighing Iraq's delicate Sunni/Shia balance and the growing threat of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, the NSC staff and Casey recognized the dangers of an Iraqi collapse as well as the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing its ruthless and inhumane tactics. <ref>[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq53.pdf NSDD 139, 5 April 1984].</ref>

The Boleyn Amendment, a Vietnam era-style Congressional impingement on the legitimate foreign policy prerogatives of the Executive via the power of the purse, was used to deny Reagan's recommitment to the [[Truman Doctrine]] which had been adhered to by every President, Democratic and Republican alike since Truman, with the exception of [[President Carter]] who's [[human rights]] policy had brought one of the active belligerents, the [[Ayatollah Khomeini]], to power. In three of the active Soviet fronts, [[Afghanistan]], [[Nicaragua]], and [[El Salvador]], some Congressional Democratic leaders were openly sympathetic to Soviet foreign policy.<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/591eifow.asp ''One Weekend in April, A Long Time Ago . . . What John Kerry thought about the Sandinista in Nicaragua''], Hugh Hewitt, The Weekly Standard, 09/09/2004.</ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20060331222819/www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/7/234527.shtml ''Kerry: 'I'm Proud I Stood Against Reagan''] Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff, 7 June 2004.</ref> So the decision was made to fund [[Containment]] of Soviet objectives on an active front in North America with sales of TOW missiles to Iran. Israel provided the TOWs because the Boleyn Amendment forbad direct US funding and it was a welcome opportunity for Israel to build bridges to a much needed friend in the Middle East.

===Cold War victory===
Reagan is credited for ending the Cold War in victory for the United States. Historian Tony Judt in ''Postwar'' credits Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, while the political scientist Jan Kubik presents a viewpoint that credits [[Pope John Paul II]][http://praguepost.com/articles/2007/02/28/letters-to-the-editor.php]. Other historians contend structural weaknesses within the Communist bloc meant Reagan's actions were inconsequential to the end of communism. This is the view adopted by Russians themselves, and many political historians, citing [''perestroika''] and [''glasnost''] as beginning an inevitable slow fading of central power, and a collapse by irreconcilable differences between the central Soviet [[Politburo]] and the constituent republics, especially the [[Ukraine]].<ref>David Remnick, "Lenin's Tomb</ref> In the end, the consensus seems to point to all of the above, that hastened the demise of the Soviet Union; Internal factors, religious pressure brought by the Pope, Gorbachev's "Perestrokia" and the united front of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, leading NATO and the West to imbed a missile defense system in Western Europe.

Columnist Cal Thomas wrote about it like this: ''He proved he was right about the big things. Faced with editorial denunciations at home and massive demonstrations in Europe against his plan to put missiles there to offset a Soviet threat, Reagan went ahead and did it anyway. The Soviets could not keep pace with the buildup or Reagan's proposed missile defense system (derided by critics as "Star Wars"). When those critics could not bring themselves to admit they were wrong, they unpersuasively claimed the Soviet Union fell under its own weight. More accurately, Reagan pushed it onto "the ash heap of history," with the able assistance of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II. What Reagan did more than anything else - and it will be his lasting legacy - is replace despair with hope. Most people, even his detractors, felt a glow from being in his presence. He was the kindest, most gracious president I have met, and I have met them all since JFK. In his presence you felt he was interested in you and not himself. He was a good man.'' [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2004/06/07/ronald_reagans_wonderful_life]

Brian Mulroney, the Canadian Prime Minister, said of Reagan: ''"Some in the West during the early 1980s believed communism and democracy were equally valid and viable. This was the school of "moral equivalence." In contrast Ronald Reagan saw Soviet communism as a menace to be confronted in the genuine belief that its squalid underpinning would fall swiftly to the gathering winds of freedom. Provided, as he said, that NATO and the industrialized democracies stood firm and united. They did. And we know now who was right."'' [http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/mulroney.asp]

==Miscellaneous Facts==

*The first, and so far only, divorced president.

*Reagan's 1994 announcement that he had Alzheimer's Disease brought large amounts of public attention to the disease.

*Reagan was a lifeguard for seven years growing up, and was said to have saved 77 people <ref>http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/reagan/stories/bio.part.one/index.html</ref>.

*The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum is located in Simi Valley, California <ref>http://www.reaganfoundation.org/visitorguide/hours_directions.asp</ref>.

*Was the first American President to have ever led a Labor Union, the AFL-CIO allied Screen Actors Guild.

*Reagan was the first president to break the "[[Curse of Tippecanoe]]"

*At 69, Reagan was the oldest man elected to the presidency.

*Reagan loved jelly beans <ref>http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/trivia.shtml</ref>. The blueberry flavor was made in his honor. [[Jelly Belly]] even created a [http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/bean_art_gallery.shtml Ronald Reagan portrait out of jelly beans].

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040614-646317,00.html Time Magazine Article on ''The All-American President'']
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html White House Official Page]
*[http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/ Reagan's Presidential Library]
*[http://imdb.com/name/nm0001654/ Actor Bio At IMDB]
*[http://www.ronaldreaganmemorial.com/ Official Memorial]

[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-24T03:23:18Z

Cracker: /* Israel News Agency */

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]

==The center of the world==

Sorry to tell you this, but USA are NOT the center of the world.

"About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." " ...

What a joke. Wikipedia is not to be read or written only by americans.
[[User:Proutgirl|Proutgirl]] 09:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

===Reply (to [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Figured you'd find this interesting|this]])===
Aschafly: Sure, go ahead. Just remember to attribute. And i'm not hiding anything. I am a liberal.

Order: I took that view from looking at the above talk page. Also, you should remember that Wikipedia generally inflates that count since around 70-80% of those accounts are vandalism only by my estimates, even back when I was doing that study when there were only around 800,000 user names.

:: Even if there are only 10%, i.e. 380 000, active wikipedians, a group of 20 self selcted respondants is still insignificant. --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:35 (AEST)

:::There were around 50, and they weren't self selected. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 15:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: How did you get the sample, if I may ask? -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

Others: Feel free to add to the study if you want in any way you'd like. Just remember to attribute the initial research. I took it basically by word of mouth in metapedian areas, that old user name of mine ("I", the real world "I", Andrew Sylvia, has a few more user accounts that still edit actively, including a few admin accounts) had around 10,000 welcomes if I remember correctly.

And "I"(karmafist, not "me") didn't leave that place due to this survey, it was because I fought the tyrant that runs Wikipedia when he bullied an underage minor and sacrificed my reputation with those monsters for it. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Using fun statistics on wikipedia, just turn this site into a joke ==
I just saw that there is an additonal item on the list on bias using yet another fun statistic. You are now also quoting [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion| List of wikipedians by religion]. This has nothing to do with being a responsible serious site anymore. A very bad example for the rest of the editors. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:50 (AEST)

Polls show that America has more than three times higher percentaeg Christians (77% in 2001) http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm than Wikipedia (23% in 2006) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion (higher percentage Christian Wikimedias though 29%)

: Thanks for proving my point. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

I really feel sorry for Christians who are forced by both conservatives and liberals to be grouped with mind-numbing idiots like the people responsible for this site. Yes, a really large majority of Americans are Christians. A majority of Americans are Democrats too. Hmmm... this would indicate that most liberals are Christians too. Okay, so I'll admit that there are probably a greater percentage of conservatives who are Christian than Liberals, but nonetheless, we all are fully aware that this is a country comprised primarily of Christians. You know what kills me? There are a good number of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc., who are very conservative. I wonder how many of them vote Democrat because they're turned off by fundamentalist Christians who dominate the right wing of America? I have many Muslim friends (no, they're not terrorists). They supported the invasion of Afghanistan (as did I--and still do) and by and large are fairly conservative. In fact, I think that in many ways, they'd have a lot in common with conservative Christians, if they weren't marginalized in this country. They'd probably vote Republican if we didn't continually target Muslims with suspicion. Conservative Christians like to pretend that they welcome "good" Muslims, then they start throwing around statistics stating the "overwhelming" number of Christians in this country as justification or explanation for anything they feel necessary. Being a predominately Christian nation does not mean that policy should therefore be Christian. It means that we all get to see Christmas decorations put up every year, we have to wait in line at all the stores during December... in other words, our culture is visibly affected by Christianity in all sorts of ways. That's okay, as far as I'm concerned. It's not okay when we try to make Christianity into the driving force of policy in our secular nation. Conservatives love to quote the second amendment (which I support, incidentally) but love to forget what freedom of religion means. And guess what Christians, when you write articles that are slanted toward a Christian viewpoint, you can no longer claim to be attempting to represent truth. Instead, you're representing your own point of view. While it is true that no one can escape their own point of view when writing an article, approaching the article with the perspective of "I'm right" rather than at least a willingness to attempt to look at the other side dispassionately is patently worthless. If you wish to write an opinion piece, make it an opinion piece. I can take far more out of someone's opinion when they legitimately represent it as such. Oh, by the way, just because you think that your religion is correct doesn't mean that God agrees with your interpretation of the scriptures. So be careful. Who knows, maybe God will condemn you instead of me!

Aren't all of the groups on Wikipedia self-selected samples? Doesn't that mean that any statistics you use when referring to Wikipedians things to be taken with a grain of salt, if not entirely irrelevant? [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 15:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Ratio (again) ==

This ratio is totally bogus because the words are loaded. The reason that the number of people who say that they are conservative has been increasing for the last two decades is not because America is becoming more conservative, but rather because the conservative movement has made a concerted propaganda effort to demonize the word "liberal" and prop up the word "conservative". The proof is in the pudding: If you instead ask people what their political views are, the evidence suggest that people overwhelmingly entertain liberal positions on most issues. For example:

(1) As of 3/11/2007, 69% of the country feels that the country is "on the wrong track" after 12 years of Republican control of Congress and 6 years of a Republican president.

(2) 59% of Americans have an "unfavorable" opinion of the republican party, compared to only 43% for the democratic party.

(3) 51% of the public respond that they "feel closer" to the democratic party than the republican party, compared to ony 40% for the republican party.

source:
http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070313_pollresults.pdf

Other studies show that most Americans disagree with the republican position on a whole host of issues, including: the international criminal court, global warming, protecting the environment, the Kyoto Treaty, nonproliferation treaty, etc. Interestingly, people who watch Fox News tend to believe that the Bush/Republican position is similar to their own position even though that is not true, which bolsters my suggestion that the conservative propagandists misinform the public. This is all very well documented in the PIPA study about misperceptions in the media, which can be found here:
http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

Why hasn't the statistic displayed been changed, even though it has been ''conclusively'' demonstrated that the math is bad? In addition, I would not define "liberal bias" as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, that is simply anti-intellectual. If they were editing from a liberal POV, instead of an NPOV (the two are different things), ''then'' it might be somewhat reasonable. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I defined "liberal bias" in the only sensible way possible: the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. If you have a different definition, then let's hear it. Based on my definition, the ratio of 6 is plainly correct. Liberal math to try to get a different result for 3 divided by 1/2 doesn't fly here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: No, it's plainly not. If 2:1 is a 200% liberal bias, then that makes 1:1, a completely unbiased ratio, 100% liberal. According to your definition of ratios, the only non-liberal-bias is no liberals at all. So what makes your idea of ratios the "only sensible way possible"? --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 16:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: What? Liberal math? You divide the fraction of liberals in Wikipedia (3/4) by the fraction of liberals in America (1/3), and you get (9/4). Thats 5th grade math, not liberal math. And you graduated from Harvard? [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 16:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Folks, I've asked someone to propose a different definition of liberal bias. My definition makes the most sense because its scale is from 0 to infinity, like the Kelvin temperature scale preferred by scientists. No one has proposed a plausible alternative scale for liberal bias. Based on the obvious definition, my math is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: What kind of argument is this? It scales from 0 to infinity? There are many continuous monotonous functions that have an [0, infinity] range. Actually, there are infinitely many. There are even uncountably many. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 14:00 (AEST)

::::* First, you use raw numbers of a self selected group to come to do your statistics. Any conclusion drawn from it is speculative at best. A no-no in statistics 101.
::::* What raw data can do shows this example: In the harris poll 34% of all people are conservative. Your raw data on Wikipedia gives that 36% are conservative. This means that wikipedia is at least as conservative as the american public.
::::* You assume that articles written by a conservative are automatically convervatively biased, and articles written by liberal liberally biased.
::::* You simple forget about the 40% moderates in the Harris poll. Your stament '''six time more liberal than American public''' compares liberals to the American public as a whole, including moderates, your math however doesn't count moderates.
::::* What you need to compare, if anything, compare the percentages of the overall population. Because with your math it doesn't matter if there are 66% conservatives in a population vs 33% liberals, or 12% vs 6%, or two conservatives vs one liberal.
::::What raw data from a self selected sample, with your approach to fractional math, can do was demonstarted in [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#New_Jersey_bias_in_Wikipedia Wikipedia 87.5% more New Jersyian than America] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Wikipedia_biased_towards_Erd.C5.91s Wikipedia 75 times as biased towards Erdos than average mathematicians]. Talking about fun statistics. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:00 (AEST)

We had an editing conflict, so here my answer to your question on how to define liberal bias.

* You say '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.'''.
* This means you compare Liberals to the American public.
* The American public includes Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives.
* What you need to compare is the percentage of liberals in America vs the percentage of liberally biased articles in Wikipedia. To obtain an estimate for the latter just look at 100 random pages (or better 1000), and count the pages that have a liberal bias. Done. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:10 (AEST)

::So many times since I joined this site I've seen people argue different points about the 6x more liberal line and every time Aschlafly claims that no one has brought it up before. It's almost a lost cause. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::: yeah, I guess intellectual honesty is not a conservative value. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark]

And which term do you think people are more familiar with -- Noah's Ark or "Great Flood"? Many civilizations have had a "great flood" story at one point or another, so why cater only to the Christians?

--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 20:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:It gets worse from there. The "Deluge (mythology)" article covers many flood myths, including the Noah one. but here's the start of the Noah section:
{{QuoteBox|Hebrew (Genesis) Further information about the Genesis version can be found at Noah's Ark.}}
:And the "Noah's Ark" bit is actually a link to the article LutherBifteck mentioned. This "bias" entry is more than silly, it's just plain wrong or misinformed. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

REPLY: The Noah's Ark entry on Wikipedia has the same bias, with numerous references to "myth" and "story", and gratuitous claims that it is rejected today. 60% of Americans accept that the Great Flood occurred. You obviously disagree, which is fine, but your view is way out of step with the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:That may very possibly be because I'm not a member of the American public. Not even to mention that Americans aren't the majority of Wikipedia users... (Assuming that you actually meant me... it's hard to tell when your reply comes on the "opening post" level addresses an unnamed "you") --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:All narrative Bible verses are called stories. What word would you like in its place? Dictionary.com defines "myth" as "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation". Noah's Ark is the very definition of a myth.

:What gratuitious claims? Noah's Ark maybe accepted by 60% of Americans (who you seem to think are the sole users of Wikipedia), but don't the 40% of people who ''don't'' believe it count for something? I have not found one thing in that article to the effect "nobody really believes the Great Flood story anymore."--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The term "myth" is actually a neutral term when used anthropologically. Myth only has a negative connotation in popular culture. Myths are the stories that cultures inherit that define them as a culture, including their creation stories. Calling them myths neither validates nor invalidates them, but simply explains that they are the stories by which a culture defines itself. Christianity often objects to this term when it is used in regard to Christianity because they either A) Think that myth=lie or B) Equate myths to outdated pagan beliefs (e.g. Greek mythology) that most people no longer have faith in. However, in order to present a balanced point of view, one cannot refer to the creation stories of one religion as fact and another as falsehood. If the word myth bothers you, then go become an anthropologist and work to get the terminology changed. The simple truth is that when you object to a word like "myth" you show your ignorance and your bias. Ignorance because you're interpreting the word incorrectly, and bias because you clearly only want people to believe as you do, a mentality which has been historically responsible for most of the monstrous deaths throughout all of human history. Incidentally, it really doesn't matter if 5% or 100% of Americans believe in the Great Flood--if 75% of Americans believed in the Easter Bunny that wouldn't make him real--there's no conclusive scientific evidence to prove there was a Great Flood (and I've read the counterarguments so don't bother posting them) so until there is, it must be, in all fairness, framed in terms of what it is--a story in the Bible, which is the main foundation of Judaism and Christianity.

In addition to the arguments above, I'd point out that what the majority of Americans believe has precisely no effect on historical fact, unless you happen to believe that opinion in the present changes the past. To list this as an example of bias is ridiculous. The truth is the truth, no matter what people believe. Bias is deliberately distorting the truth, not reporting fact even where it runs contrary to popular belief. The fact remains that there is little or no evidence to support a world covering flood, and wikipedia does a reasonable job of conveying that fact while still presenting dissenting opinion in a neutral light.

== Palestinian people on Wikipedia ==

The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people Palestinian people] screams with bias. Time and time again have others tried to remove the top photograph of young children, with no avail. Encyclopedic articles on other cultures and groups of people do not try to invoke sympathy and emotions by posting images of cute and innocent children. This is clearly a propaganda piece, and it holds no merit. There should be a note of this on the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] list. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 20:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Boy, you really opened my eyes to Wikipedia's bias here. Not only are children's photographs used there, but it makes no mention of the PLO as a terrorist organization. In fact, it doesn't even define the PLO! Click on the PLO entry, and there is no acknowledgement of its massacre of innocent athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. I'll add this now. Thanks much for pointing this out ... and I hope you can stick around and enter some info here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it's true that the 'Palestinian people' article omits the words "terror" and "terrorism", but the intro to the 'PLO' article contains the following statement:
:::*The PLO was considered "the richest of all [[terrorist organizations]]" with $8-$10 billion in assets and an annual income of $1.5-$2 billion from "[[donation]]s, [[extortion]], payoffs, illegal [[Arms industry|arms dealing]], [[drug trafficking]], [[money laundering]], [[fraud]], etc.", according to a 1993 [[National Criminal Intelligence Service]] report. ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' reported in 1999 that the PLO had $50 billion in secret investments around the world.<ref>Rachel Ehrenfeld, [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_14_54/ai_88990523 And a Thief, Too: Yasser Arafat takes what he likes], ''National Review'', [[July 29]], [[2002]]. Accessed online 5 December 2006.</ref>

::::Not to mention direct European Union subsidies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Uh... actually, there is acknowledgement of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page, and there's a whole section devoted to PLO as a terrorist organization.--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The "acknowledgement" of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page is part of a template, not the article itself. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Why must it be acknowledged in the article itself? "In 1972, a terrorist organization some believe to have been controlled by a faction of the PLO..." If you want to add it in there, go ahead. Just try to keep a neutral tone. --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Besides, the Munich massacre has its own article. Why does an already long article need to state stuff that's extensively covered in other articles already? And yes, I agree that several things on the list fall/fell into the "Well, then just add it!" category. But Conservapedia appears to be more proud of pointing and shouting so that it can praise itself for doing so once somebody edits the article. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::So that it can be immediately shot down and reverted in the name of "fighting vandalism" by some self-appointed administrator? No thanks. The majority of regulars on Wikipedia, who have enough free time to dedicate their lives to editing and monitoring articles, are usually teenagers, unemployed, or both. It is no surprise as to which way they lean on the political spectrum. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: There are many liberals, especially in the US, that are very supportive of Israel. A POV article on Palestinians isn't proof of a liberal bias, its proof that you'll find, since Wikipedia is international, more pro-palestinian and anti-israelian rethoric than Americans (Conservatives and Liberals) are used to. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 1:50 (AEST)

: I'm really starting to think this site is a joke. I mean, you can't really be this... never mind. I don't see anything other than that one picture that indicates that the article is a 'propoganda piece'. And the title of the article is 'Palestinian People'; therefore, the article is about the Palestinian people. NOT the PLO. Palestinian people. The PLO is defined in- you guessed it! - the PLO article! Isn't it starting to come together now? And maybe the same goes for the Munich Massacres! I think we might be on to something! --[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 23:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Three, actually. It is not a matter of posting images of the PLO (how does the PLO keep sneaking into this conversation?), it is a matter of posting images more suitable for an encyclopedia. Perfect examples are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_People Turkish people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_people Greek people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_People Finnish people], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_people Norwegian people]. Is it really that difficult to understand the difference between something encyclopedic and something that invokes emotions, like [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Palestinian_Children_in_Hebron.jpg these], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Palestinian_children_in_Jenin.jpg three], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Palestinian_family_in_Yanoon.jpg images].? [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 11:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So it's the same sort of thing as the inclusion of an image of a fetus in utero on the abortion page here on Conservapedia?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I was referring to Aschlafly's post (second one in this section). Even if the picture does invoke sympathy, it doesnt make the whole article biased. And its been removed now.[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, at least one person at Wikipedia corrected this biased item. It's a start, and I've reflected that change on the content page here. Add a meaningful admission of terrorism in the entry on the Palestinian people (terrorists are people) and I would update the remainder of Point 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: The key to understanding the way bias is handled on conservapedia is the likes of Barnum and Baily not Merriam and Webster. If you realize this is simply a promotional campiagn built on the poisonous ideas of the radical (not conservative) right and hard core fundamental evangelical 'christians' (as opposed to real world loving Christians) and place its editors in the context of impressarios not scholars, it all makes sense. Hate is this family's value. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 09:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks for pointing out that it was an article about the Palestinian people, and not the PLO. What is wrong with you people, that you cannot bear seening a picture of kids from another people? What did Jesus say when he saw childern? Take them away because I cannot bear their sight? Guess not --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 11:40 (ASET).

Hi, I'm "Uncle Ed" from Wikipedia, and I'd like to comment on the 'Palestinian' articles. I spent countless hours brokering agreements on terminology and value statements. I am the original author of 'Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian', which I worked out in collaboration with a pro-Arab contributor.

It's not easy to maintain editorial neutrality, especially on topics which attract a majority of Liberal contributors. But it often can be done, with effort and patience. What's the rush? It took God 6 days to create the universe, and for Him "a day is as a thousand years". If He can be patient, shouldn't we? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Ed, you sound like a terrific editor and you're welcome here anytime. We have many (including myself) who left Wikipedia after tiring of dealing with an overwhelmingly liberal group of editors there. You seem to acknowledge that environment at Wikipedia by referencing "a majority of Liberal contributors."

: But the problem is getting worse on Wikipedia, not better. More time is not the solution. Better rules are the answer, which is what we have here. That enables us to be "neutral" to the facts, not to the political views of a majority. If you would like to post a new, factual entry on the Palestinian people here, we would welcome it. Thanks for your thoughts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Ed! We've never talked, but I know you get great respect over there. The points you cite here are so true. Rather than silence a "sparring partner" we actually can sharpen our own skills and outlook. It's not always a matter of converting another editor, being openminded means an editor should be able to recognize thier own flaws by hearing a well reasoned argument. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Face of Terror: Basque ETA? ==

As is expected, the "safe" and politically-correct path was taken in choosing an image to post on Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Perpetrators terrorism.] Some of the most prominent and widely recognized terrorist groups in today's world include [[Al-Qaeda]], Hamas, and Hezbollah; all of which are compromised of fanatical [[Muslims]]. However, the one and only image used to display an example of terrorists on the article coincidentally happens to be a non-Muslim group: ''Basque Fatherland and Liberty: ETA.'' How pathetically feeble. It is very apparent that Wikipedia is doing its best to be politically correct, as to avoid "offending" certain groups of people. As subtle as these instances of bias are, they make quite an impact with their sheer numbers, combinations, and occurrences. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:And the one and only image used to display an example of terrorism is the World Trade Center. Who exactly is Wikipedia biased against by not showing a Muslim terrorist group? The Basque ETA?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::The attacks on the World Trade Center may or may not be terrorism, after all:
::<blockquote>''"I believe the photograph of the WTC used in this article invokes doctrined points of view without proof or cause. Although the 9/11 acts can very easily be described as 'Acts Of Terrorism', that is an assumption with no solid references."''</blockquote>
::Just because something is done in subtle manner, that does not mean it is not biased. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Again, biased against who?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Do you have a image of any terroristic group that is PD or that you are releasing to PD or any other free licence. Feel free to upload it to wikipedia. The A-Queada image that is used on conservapedia is without any information about copyright. So please do not use that one, as it could be illegal just to copy it. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The term 'Terrorist' is a subjective one. The persons we may consider Terrorists are considered Freedom Fighters by others. This distinction is due to a different point of view. Citing Al Quaeda attacks on civilian targets should be enough to implicate them as a terrorist organization, without explicitly stating it. This is not just the safe route, it's the route that best respects the viewpoints of others. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:45, 21 March 2007 (CST)
we don't care about respecting the viewpoints of others here. That is what wikipedia is for. This my freind is a glorified blog in wiki clothing. Consider this the safe haven for the radical right. I only wish they owners of this site would stop pretending to be conservative. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 20:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neutral point of view on the Wikipedia bias ==

Before I point out the views on the bias, I would like to point out that I am neither [[Liberal]] nor [[Conservative]]. There is some plausible bias in what you point out but sometimes that bias is necessary. Don't forget that you can add details to Wikipedia itself if you find it is missing something. (One more thing - I am a Christian, don't label me)

1. Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the CE deception.

''One could add B.C.E. and B.C. both to the timelines. Same with C.E. and A.D. Nevertheless both can be used because there are different point-of-views regarding this.''

2. Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestianian People" omits any mention of terrorism.[1] Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.[2] Israel News Agency reports:[3]

No where will you ever find Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah described as terror organizations by Wikipedia. Wikipedia will quote the US State Department or the United Nations Security Council as saying that they are terror groups, but Wikipedia itself will only describe these organizations as "militants".

''A article called Palestine and terrorism could be added but there is no real need to. Why? Many of the terrorist organizations are based somewhere else and has no complete connection to the actual country. A mentioning of terrorist bases could be mentioned, however.''

3. Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."[4]

''Some people believe different things. They are just pointing out a group of people that think normal math is racist. It is like a group of people who still think the world is flat (They exist).''

4. In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.[5] Wikipedia's entry on Jesus has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."[6] But no credible historian makes such a claim.

''It is a good idea to point that out, even if they are wrong. Why? It is to show that not all scholars believe Jesus existed. It would be biased in itself not to add that.''

5. Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.

''I also think that Christianity should be added as a leading factor but do not forget there were many other factors involved. Inspired by Christianity or not.''

6. Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[7] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[8] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.[9]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more Liberals than Conservatives.''

7. About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]

''Somehow somebody chose to make a connection with some pagan belief. People could try and petition, however, to get Great Flood its own article and have Noah's Ark more based on bible manuscripts and keep all criticisms of that in a separate article.''

8. Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as atheistic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, other."[13]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more atheists than Christians. You cannot forget that there are also Christians who do not have the right idea about Christianity.''

9. Wikipedia's entry on abortion reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.[14] Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.[15]. Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"![16]

''There seems to of been some biased users writing this. Sometimes the most controversial articles are not noticed until it is too late. Hopefully somebody will go and make the Neutral-Point-Of-View and No Advertising rules evident in those articles.''

10. The Wikipedia entry for the Voting Rights Act contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.[17] This is a longtime liberal cause prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.

''There are some bad apples in Wikipedia. If you feel that you are being harassed, contact an administrator. There is the Neutral-Point-Of-View rule, so use that in your defense.''

11. Initially a Wikipedia admin named "Nearly Headless Nick" deleted, without explaining his decision, an entry about Conservapedia. Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.[18] For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.

''Contact ANOTHER administrator if you would need to. Like I said, there are some bad apples in Wikipedia. I wish there were more people like me on there...''

12. Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist Edward Teller promotes the liberal attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".[19] In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the Manhattan Project and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.

''Like I said earlier, create a Conservative point of view (In the article itself) and organize it so that there is both the Liberal and the Conservative parts of the story. Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View for anything else.''

13. Wikipedia's entry for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.[20] The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another liberal journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!

''If you feel that that entry has no evidence, mark it with a 'citation needed' mark. This will show that the entry might just be some made-up nonsense. Also use a quote to support the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.''

14. There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalism bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war Bell Trade Act of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."[21] The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.

''Like I said earlier not everybody is American. Be sure to use the Neutral-Point-Of-View on that.''

15. Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation." Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[22] Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

''It is used as a formality. It is not anti-American, even though it looks that way. The language for it is not stated American English but rather just English. Remember, America is not the only that edits Wikipedia.''

16. Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of deism by Benjamin Franklin by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the Constitutional Convention for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,[23] an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of Pilgrim's Progress in his autobiography.

''You should add that then and be sure to have a reference to back that up.''

17. Wikipedia's entry on the Intelligent Design court decision in Dover[24] distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the ACLU's side (not $1 million),[25] (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the ACLU's briefs,[26] and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.[27]

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

18. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer. For example, Wikipedia's entry on Nina Totenberg states, "She married H. David Reines, a trauma physician, in 2000. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming." That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

19. Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple rules are respected to the maximum extent possible.

''Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View in your defense. If there is an article about the creationalist theory, add that link as a 'criticisms of the theory of evolution'.''

20. Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone." [28] Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on Young Earth Creationism? It currently offers am article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience". [29] What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism. [30]

''You should then change it to have a dictionary tone, then. I have seen 8-year olds edit Wikipedia and I am sure they might not know how to give an encyclopedic tone, even if the article is beyond their years.''

21. Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry Criticism of Wikipedia.

''What page, then? Sometimes people add pages as vandalism, so you have to keep an open mind. If you need to, add the political bias in the criticisms by stating that some think... Do not make it look like it actually is because there are people with different point of views.''

22. Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[31] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

''There is a portal to a Wiki that focuses on actually practical articles. People often use Wikipedia as a reference, though, so it would likely be more appropriate to call it a data base rather than an encyclopedia.''

If you are wondering about the remaining responses, it is because I am somewhat running out of energy to do so. There will be more added but until then discuss and try and debunk my neutral point of view. If you feel offended, do not delete. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

One point I would like to add:
About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]
from number 7
Going onto the linked article, I found that the masimum number interviewed mentioned on that article about Americans and religion, was 2306. For a country of your size (~ a few hundred million people), this seems pretty pathetic. Chances are, this research was done in a few select counties in one of the southern states. BINGO! America = Christian fundamentalists through interpretation of dubious statistics.

==Downright Untruth==
Most conservatives would probably consider me a liberal. Truth be told, I'm probably more of a moderate libertarian, but from what I've seen here, you'd all probably consider me a liberal. In any case--

This cite claims that wikipedia won't use the word terrorist. I'm not going to waste my time quoting the Hamas article on wikipedia. Look it up yourself. It uses the word terrorist. Well heck, five seconds into reading conservapedia and you've already lost all credibility in my eyes. Good luck with being delusional.

:: OK, I called your bluff. I looked up Hamas and found, just as the content page says here, Wikipedia does not assign the label "terrorist" but merely cites other groups that use that term. The content page here is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::"Terrorist" is opinion. WIkipedia in this case is avoiding opinion, but is citing facts about opinion. That's an example of neutrality, not bias. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: You forget one thing. This is conservapedia. A highly biased site for extremly conservatives and fundamental christs. Everything that is not fundamental christly or conservative is biased in their opinion. Democracy is called Mobocracy (hope I spelled this word right), NPOV is bias and bias (as long as it is towards conservatism or christianity) is true and neutral. And the most important argument (besides the bible) is the stupidity of Americans. For example when saying "xx% of Americans believe that ..." --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 06:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::"Terrorist" is a loaded word. Hamas would probably tell you they are freedom fighters. Also, they are the majority party of the Palestinian National Authority. Wikipedia is handling the nature of the organization in an neutral way, by telling you who actually calls them terrorists. --[[User:Transfinite|Transfinite]] 21:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I must agree in this regard; even though many terrorists are indeed terrorists (deliberately targeting innocents to forward a radical worldview), they obviously don't consider themselves "terrorists". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::See there's a conspiracy theory beneath all this. Supposedly Wikipedia is baiting in real terrorists by creating a comforatble, friendly editing environment. Then, unbeknownst to the alleged freedom fighter, he is profiled, stalked, identified, outed, harrassed, arrested, detained, sent to Gitmo, interogated, tortured, and finally joins a class action suit. Actually something like this already happened. Terrorists really did in fact take over Stephen Schwartz's page and Schwartz threatened legal action against Wikipedia. The uncensored page is at Wikitruth. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Talk:Uncensored:Stephen_Schwartz#Legal_threats] And there may be lawsuit right now ongoing in Germany over that whole matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

P.S. If Wikipedia is so terrible, why do you use their format? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, my friends.
:Conservapedia's format is from "Wikimedia", which is an open source program used for any wiki. Wikipedia didn't come up with it either.
::Maybe you should check your sources on that. Quoting the MediaWiki homepage:
{{QuoteBox|MediaWiki is a free software wiki package '''originally written for Wikipedia'''. It is now used by several other projects of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation and by many other wikis, including this very website, the home of MediaWiki.}}
::Just pointing it out... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: "originally written for Wikipedia" is not very persuasive. We have many editors here (including myself) who originally wrote entries for Wikipedia too. That doesn't mean Wikipedia can take claim for our work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh Gott, lass Hirn vom Himmel regnen. *facepalms* First of all, "writing entries for Wikipedia" does NOT equal "developing MediaWiki". This is about the software this site uses and how "Wikipedia didn't come up with it". You know? MediaWiki? A WikiMedia project? Like, a project of the foundation Jimmy Wales co-founded?
::::*"In July 2002, a major rewrite of the software powering Wikipedia went live; dubbed "Phase III", it replaced the older "Phase II" version, and became MediaWiki."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia]
::::*"MediaWiki is a free software wiki package originally written for Wikipedia."[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Originally developed to serve the needs of the free content Wikipedia encyclopedia"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia project, that initiated the development of the MediaWikiSoftware."[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction]
::::So please tell me how this is not very persuasive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Please, let's distinguish between the content (the text of the articles, etc.), the medium (the Wiki software), and the "skin" (the visual look and design which is a part of the Wiki software, implemented as a CSS "style sheet," but easily changed.

:::::MediaWIki is open source '''software,''' licensed under a free license. Anyone can use it, including Conservapedia. Using it the way Conservapedia does is perfectly OK, the WikiMedia foundation ''encourages'' it, it's a big win-win.
:::::The MediaWIki development project is so very very closely associated with Wikipedia that it's extremely close to untrue to say "Wikipedia didn't come up with it." MediaWiki is more closely associated with Wikipedia than Jimbo Wales is.
:::::The "look" of Wikipedia, the skin as it's called, is very definitely a part of MediaWiki. It is called the "monobook" skin. Wikipedia used to have a very plain "1995-ish" look, and developing the new look was a big part of the revisions that went into MediaWiki 3.0.
:::::Conservapedia used to use the Monobook skin absolutely unchanged, which gave it a look that was so similar to Wikipedia as to be downright confusing. Recent tweaks and the addition of the logo have now made it visually distinct.
:::::While it is correct to say that Conservapedia doesn't use '''content''' from Wikipedia (by the way:
::::::'''it is absolutely CHURLISH''' not to acknowledge that "Wikipedia" or more strictly the Wikimedia Foundation has not made Conservapedia (and most other WIki-based sites) a great and generous '''gift''' in the form of the Mediawiki software.
:::::Fair is fair. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==CE is not an example of bias==
I fail to see why CE should be listed as an example of bias. Why should it be maintained that using the term "common era" is to deny the dating system is based on the birth of Christ? It is merely a recognition that many people object to using a phrase meaning "year of our lord", when quite obviously they do not wish to recognize Jesus Christ as their lord. I don't see any denials at all, just pragmatism.

Further to the above point, this site fails to establish a link between Jesus and God. I do not dispute that a person such as Jesus exists, but the actual date of his birth is an estimate. If you do your calendar research, you will know that nobody started tick marks on a wall the day he was allegedly born. However, there is no definitive evidence on the existence of God, and thus there can be no proof of a link to Jesus. CE is an attempt at an international standard, and is an attempt to eliminate bias. BC and AD are a bias in favour of Christianity/Catholicism. QED.

Having though about the subject a little further, it occurs to me that since the stated aim of Conservapedia is to avoid all forms of bias, wouldn't it be better to switch to a less controversial dating system yourselves? I'd suggest the widely recognised and implemented Unix Epoch, 1st January 1970. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 00:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Mathematics==
Actually, if the person responsible for the entry on Wikipedia's liberal bias on Anti-racist mathematics knew anything about sociological theory, they would understand that education in general is biased in favour of the white middle to upper class. It has to do with the language used in the home versus in school. The language used in a lower class household, and the frame of reference for the students is vastly different than the upper class. However, the Wikipedia article does not do an effective job of explaining the overall concept. For instance, an inner-city youth might do better if word problems reflected situations more relevant to their station in life, rather than an upper class youth. (Example to follow in the next 24 hours, I just have to find it). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Request==
1) I just want someone to give me the exact reason why using British words instead of American is so bad. Why exactly do we have the implication that America and the American way of doing things are so 'Superior'? There are plenty of examples of American editors on Wiki doing the wrong thing - take for example the history of the article 'To Kill a Mockingbird'. It's one of the bets books written in America, and kids kept replacing it with rubbish, using an IP address that led - ta-dah! - to a School in Washington. Is the American way of doing things so Superior when the Kids who live in its Capital have no respect for Literature, or even the process of learning?

2) Example number 6 is facutally incorrect. You multiplied the number of people who consider themselves Conservative against the number of Wikipedians considering themselves Liberal, creating the statistic for the number of Wikipedians and Americans who cosndier themselves Conservative and Liberal.

3) Why do Statistics, one of the most unreliable and inaccurate mediums for recording factual information, feature so prominently in a website dedicated to 'The Truth'?

4) How exactly do you define credibility for a Historian? All of the ones listed on Wiki have received Qualifications and written previous books.

5) Why shouldn't Wiki use 'BC'? It's offensive and inaccurate to people of other faiths to measure time by someone else's. Christians may or may not be the Majority, but whether they are doesn't affect decisions made about the Majority along with everyone else.

6) There is no controlling a Bias for 'Gossip' when anyone is allowed to edit the Encyclopedia.

Please could someone respodn to as many fo these as they can on my talk page? Thanks. [[User:TheJesus|TheJesus]] 08:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative does not = Christian ==

Scanning over this list, indeed the site in general, there is a notion that the terms Conservative and Christian are interchangeable. I wholeheartedly disagree with this. Conjoining the terms completely disregards members of all other religions (or lack thereof). Such exclusion is blatantly un-American, and unworthy of a educative resource.

"American spelling"?!? '''Habsburg''', for example, is not subject to interpretation as it is a family name. "Hapsburg" came about as an alternate spelling due to the native pronunciation, and the resultant usage of the alternate is just as appalling as Ellis Island workers assigning new names to immigrants whose names they could not pronounce.

Quite a few of the items on this list pertain to individual articles on Wikipedia, and content within them that is disagreeable to certain people. This does not justify a wholesale disregard of Wikipedia as biased, "liberal", etc...

:: it is a little confusing but this site mixes editorials, articles, lectures, and editorials. This page seems to be the former: editorial. It would be helpful in as much as this is not likely to change if there werre some indicator as to what kind of page each one is. Also the policies are pretty much ad hoc and applied according to the whim of individual admins, so there are obvious inconsistences. Finally you should realize that this site has a conservative bias and thus no attemp at objectivity is made. In fact the founders seem, oddly enough, to buy into the kind of moral relativism usually confined to post modernist zealots . . . the difference being that the relativism is based on a narrow view of christianity and conservatism and the kind of rabid patriotism that made freedom fries seem like a rational idea. Basically this is the founder's blog or at least you should treat it as so. 18:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Paged Locked ==

Can't fix this up, but [http://www.conservapedia.com Conservapedia] should be replaced with [[Main Page|Conservapedia]]. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] 09:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Israel News Agency==
Example #2 [http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia] uses a link to Israel News Agency, however recently when I tried to link to that same source

<nowiki>http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipedialibelslandersexwoolencyclopedia48330508.html </nowiki>

it was blocked by a spam filter. Can anybody explain this or help out? There is also a third article which may be useful.

<nowiki> http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediacensorshiplibelslanderisrael880512.html </nowiki> [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: RobS, that baffled me also. I'll copy and post this on my talk page to see if our gurus know why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Just going to the top level domain, trying "search" with "Passover" yielded no results other than adverts. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== #26 - (lack of) math proofs ==

"Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an elementary proof until this omission was pointed out here.[35] Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia."

Browsing through [[Category:Mathematics]], I see a large number of advanced number theory topics that fail to have the elementary proofs with them. If this is to be a criticism of wikipedia, it would be best to start with the basics proofs here and work up to the more complex areas of group and set theory. Alternatively, this criticism could be removed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: The criticism is clear: Wikipedia failed to recognize the important concept of the elementary proof, until Conservapedia highlighted this bias here. That's the criticism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Dinosaur

2007-03-24T03:13:52Z

Cracker: /* It's a lie */

'''Note:''' an alternative version of this article is currently being written [[User:Hojimachong/Dinosaur|here]]. This is not an attempt to usurp [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]'s views, but rather add more factual information regarding the evolutionary view. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]

==Modern Day Dinosaurs==

I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said "dinosaurs" that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).

Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in NativeAmerican mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]

:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientists do. Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...

::::If you knew your Leviticus like you should you'd know that a bat ''is'' a bird! [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLevi.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=11&division=div1| Leviticus 11:13-19] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You ruined my set-up XD. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==No mention of popular documentary==

Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series ''The Flintstones'' on this page?

==How absurd!==

What are "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? Is there another kind of "evolutionist"? Is evolutionist a word?

Why is the word "evolved" in inverted commas in the second sentence?

Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the "Old-Earth Evolutionists" are not?

Why does it say that the "Creation scientists" have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).

Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?

I will be back to do some editing. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism "inverted commas" instead of the proper American "quotation marks". This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And "proper American"? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).

:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'. He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels. The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.

:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a "strong anti-British bias" (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Heh this bit made me laugh. All English (Whether proper English or american butchered English) is influenced from the French. There's a reason the rest of the world uses the proper "foreign" spelling of words. Because it's not a dumbed-down version. Oh, and it's ZED, not ZEE. How is that a rationalized "improvement"? Was the alphabet too hard to remember without 'Z' rhyming with some of the other letters? And Linus, I think you're correct, except it's not so much an anti-British bias, as an anti-rest-of-the-world bias.

::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops. Did it again. I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves. I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)

There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Courtesy ==

How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Anti-Christian Bias ==

Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.

::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to "Creation Scientists" -- for whom those sources do speak -- not "all Christians" or "most Christians". This was altered to "Creationists" in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)

::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to "some Christians", then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called "Creation Scientists". They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.

:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented "fresh" dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny. Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Catholic links deleted ==

Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named "Aschlafly" who deleted them with the comment "deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution" and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism. Is this conservapedia actually a "Southernbaptistapedia"? I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)

: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]

==Edit by Sureal==

I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Birds==

From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So, so horribly wrong, Sureal, but don't sweat it. We are descended from amniotes, therefore we are amniotes, we are descended from vertebrates, therefore we are vertebrates, we are descended from mammals, therefore we are mammals, etc. down the classificatory tree for life. [[User:RedDedNedHed|RedDedNedHed]]~~

:::Does that make me a Prokaryote? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 18:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Picture==
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down. He thinks it's legit. Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==

Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!

== "American English is a rationalised improvement on British English" ==

In English, "practise" is a verb and "practice" is a noun.

In the American dialect "practice" is used for both.

In English, "license" is a verb and "licence" is a noun.

Americans use "license" for both.

So much for "a rationalised improvement on British English".

CAS

I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.

== "I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex" ==
If one is going to "discuss" dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word "dinosaur" right. "Dinos sauros" is GREEK, not Latin.

Edit made.

AQ

== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==

The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected. Please be aware of vandalism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's impossible to take this page seriously. Actually it's impossible to take any page on this site seriously. However, being specific, it is absurd that this page is locked, and that "according to evoutionary scientists" is allowed, but not "according to creatiionists" is not mentioned once.

::The above comment represents exactly what I am talking about - liberalism will 'creep in' to this article if we don't stop it, and soon. Please, Conservative, lock this article after you have finished editing it as you see fit. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:56, 21 March 2007 (PST).

==Protected "Dinosaur": protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==

So how much factual information is going to be left here once this "clean up" has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.

:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't even regard it as pro-"Christian", it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one. Should be exciting soon. Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Please do. If you do create "liberalpedia" we will probably make a page for you. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Raymond Burr==
I'm very surprise the sentence about the "documentary" with "Raymond Burr" has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Oi Vey==
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article. 95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans. They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased. Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas. I forgot we can't include those. Seriously, someone fix it. It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark. Obsurd.)

(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)

:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Needed Corrections==
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles. Note that not all dinosaurs were large.

== Are you scared to be wrong? ==

Why can't we edit this page? Are you scared that some actual scientists with doctorates in paleontology might actually change this page so there is some truth in it? Dinosaurs never lived at the same time period as humans. If you claim that explorers saw a dinosaur, why don't you back it up with some citations. I'm surprised you aren't trying to say that the scientists put the dinosaurs in the ground and made the whole thing up. Just ask yourself, how would Nixon write this page.

:No no, you have it all wrong, obviously the dinosaurs have such a superior intelligence that they can evade all detection by every human on earth, and they actually planted fake fossils in the ground to fool us all. Amazing what animals do to survive. On a serious note, yes they are scared to be wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Protection as of 3/19 ==

Conservative: You just deleted '''referenced''' facts. Is National Geographic no longer a reliable source? Should we put that somewhere? And then you "protected" the article. Are you now going to be the sole editor for this article as well? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Dear Conservative, '''please do not use your locking powers over content disputes'''. You removed what looks like TONS of well-sourced material. If you have an issue with the content, go to the Talk page before simply vaping several well-sourced paragraphs. This is NOT how a Wiki works. This is NOT your private playground. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Eh? They're the ones paying the bills, they're the ones who setup and maintain the servers, they certainly can do whatever they'd like with it. There's an element of community-building to wikis that means they need to use some restraint, but ultimately, it's up to them what kind of community they'd like to build (unless you're willing to start donating lots of bandwidth fees and technical support time). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's a fair point, Interiot, but there is nothing in the site guidelines (those seven simple rules which Conservapedia is goverened by) to support the deletion of referenced facts. I have been threatened with being blocked for deleting unreferenced opinion, what is the penalty for deleting referenced facts? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I just pray to God [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] doesn't own any firearms. Given his penchant for mis-using whatever power he has no-one around him would be safe. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::(sigh) Yes, you are right, of course. It's Aschlafly's server, and he could just put Goatse onto every page if he felt like it. But I went with what's in the rules and goals they themselves state. Most community projects are a tad more organized and actually hold people in power a little bit responsible for the actions. I think fewer people would be up-front with the rules of the site instead of having a bunch of unwritten rules, some case-by-case decisions and lots of stubbornness when it comes to ignoring complaints and questions. However, the best I remember him saying was something about temporary protection against vandalism (with "vandalism" having an interesting definition, but that's a different topic). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wonder when I'll get banned next. Surprised it didn't happen when I re-added the facts to this article. [[user:Conservative|Conservative]], you still have outstanding questions that curious readers want to know: (1) why are evolution and religion so incompatible in your mind to claim that all evolution-related facts are fraudulent, and (2) what special knowledge do you have to know what is scientifically fraudulent? And in your answer, I don't want the site "Answers In Genesis" to come up once. Not once.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Conservative! You have work to be done here! The Godless are denying You! Edit, then lock! [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:58, 21 March 2007 (PST).

== Farce ==
What is a good way to describe this page? Geez, do you want to include some facts about dinosaurs? It's not all about Creationist/Evolutionist arguments. At least put up a picture of a T-Rex chowing down on a Brontosaurus. It'd be wicked cool to see that kind of stuff. Maybe even a Raptor eating a man...

== Experience with Dinosaurs ==

I can verify that Dinosaurs lived alongside men. In 1994, I went with my girlfriend to a remote Island in South America; following an invitation from a high profile business man who I won't name. It turned out that he had set up an amusement park with dinosaurs as the main attraction. When the parks electrical fence system was sabotaged by an IT worker trying to steal eggs to fund his debt problems, we were left at the mercy of various carnivore species including a T-Rex and a pair of Velocaraptors that could open doors. It was a horrible experience, but I did warm to the idea of having kids, and Jeff Goldblum's an idiot anyway so no real harm was done.

==Conservative POV?==

While I don't honestly care in which order the sections are placed, the section "Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism" is not the conservative POV. It isn't even the creationist POV. It's the YEC POV at best, and should be rewritten to reflect that. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Quote Mining==
Your Mayr quote is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The full quote (found here: '''Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (Columbia University Press, New York, 1942), p. 196.
''') reads as such:

"It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). ''However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.''"

In other words, this explanation is the best we have so far because people like you, Conservative, have no evidence to the contrary --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:The sad part is, in changing around the cites, Ernst ends up being a '''creationist'''. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlocked ==

Unlocked for however long unless persistent vandalism lingers.

I hope users can contribute in a positive manner. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 13:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps you could unlock the Theory of Evolution page now. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 13:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

He locked it again because I deleted the Ernst Mrawyr quote (see debate above) and a citation to CreationWiki :-(--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::13 minutes '''unlocked'''! A new record! If only [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] didn't have to take potty breaks, he could keep it locked forever. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Pfft, as expected. Someone's on a power-trip once again. Try reverting things you think are wrong rather than closing it up for your own personal discretion. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Were my edits wrong? I was just correcting what wasn't proven as fact. Isn't it also really bad form to cite to another Wiki??-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think she meant things Conservative regards as "wrong". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, '''she''' :) [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Yup, I checked your user page after writing it and edited out the "(?)" part accordingly (but in such a high-traffic zone, it ran into a few edit conflicts and got delayed XD). :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, it was fun while it lasted (the whole 13 minutes). But thanks for the vote of confidence, Niandra! The gesture is worth a lot, even if your good deed got undone by Conservative again. :)
:In more hilarious news, check out [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&diff=51774&oldid=51772 this diff]. Note the "Violations of conservapedia fact policy" comment in the left version and the "These are not facts! *delete delete delete*" edit on the right side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I can't believe the user is basically just being a dictator of the article. This is a wiki-oriented site! If users post wrong information, you revert it but rarely use your power to protect so no one else can contribute! [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I am utterly speechless that he removed all of that material. I generally try not to use unparliamentary language but the man is an idiot. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 14:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed. The edits between your unlock and his lock were '''not''' vandalism. They added sourced facts. If he has an issue with "propaganda" or something, he can try to bring things into a more neutral (*snickersnort*) tone. Simply deleting sourced material (repeatedly, I think) is just plain abuse. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:: So what do we do about it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Stop trying and leave site? Only use Conservapedia in dictionaries as an example of 'hypocrisy'? Laugh at anyone who cites this article? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, I unlocked the article again, and reverted to the AmesG version that includes creationist and "evolutionary" views, but Conservative changed it back to his version within minutes. Tis a shame. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:The gesture is highly appreciated, though! :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== This article's getting worse ==

All I can say is - wow. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I thought Conservative's edits were bad...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::So do I. I'm just impressed with the badness. The article made my brain implode - that's never happaned before. :-)

:::Maybe instead of including articles for some topics Conservapedia should just link directly to Answers in Genesis. The current version of this article is beyond ridiculous.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==More quote mining==

The Scientific American quote that you cite is stripped out of an article that overwhelmingly SUPPORTS evolution - the question at hand was when the feather evolved. The surround context looks like this:

"Several lines of research have recently converged on a remarkable conclusion: the feather evolved in dinosaurs before the appearance of birds."

"Conservative's quote-mined paragraph"

"Progress in solving the particularly puzzling origin of feath-ers has also been hampered by what now appear to be false leads, such as the assumption that the primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale, and speculations that feathers evolved for a specific function, such as flight. A lack of primitive fossil feathers hindered progress as well. For many years the earliest bird fossil has been Archaeopteryx lithographica, which lived in the late Jurassic period (about 148 million years ago). But Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today’s birds. Very recent contributions from several fields have put these traditional problems to rest. First, biologists have begun to find new evidence for the idea that developmental processes - the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form —
can provide a window into the evolution of a species’ anatomy. This idea has been reborn as the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo-devo.” It has given us a powerful tool for '''probing the origin of feathers'''. Second, paleontologists have unearthed a trove of feathered dinosaurs in China. These animals have a diversity of primitive feathers that are not as highly evolved as those of today’s birds or even Archaeopteryx. They give us critical clues about the structure, function and evolution of modern birds’ intricate appendages. Together these advances have produced a highly detailed and revolutionary picture: feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight."

THAT is the context. Of course, it supports the idea of evolution. Your hack job is simply a deliberate deception.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Gah, I was just writing that. You beat me to it (and said it much better). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Amazing what you find when you Google-search a sentence...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Google search a sentence? I included the link to the full article! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::Look at the bolded portion of the above quote. They are '''"probing". ''' The devil is in the details. Creationism is still the best answer. Plus, there are no transitional fossil to birds as I cited. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Look at what comes before and after the phrase you bolded. You can't just take out one little piece and ignore the rest...well, obviously you can, as you keep doing, but it's misleading at best.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Why do you insist on taking out a single phrase and ignoring the context? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::The Scientific American article clearly states: "Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most '''mysterious'''." Let not pretend they have a good explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::Yes - their evolution is not fully understood. However, that doesn't give you the right to quote mine articles to imply we know nothing about birds evolving from dinosaurs. Indeed, does not the existance of feathered dinosaurs (which was conviently missed out from Conservative's quote) give weight to the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 16:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Maybe we could add something about..==

Dinosaurs? This is what the article currently says about Dinosaurs - ''"The word dinosaur was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen[1], from the Greek for "terrible lizard" (fututor). Dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles that previously lived in abundance on Earth".'' - That's it! everything else is quoting mining about why evolutionists are wrong!

Sure that needs to be in there on convervapedia but surely an article about dinosaurs needs to spend a little time talking about the your actual dinosaurs! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree, I have unprotected the page as I protected by-mistake. By all means improve it, just keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased. Thanks... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 16:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Question! When you say "keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased", do you mean as "entirely un-biased" as you were when you asserted that the evolutionary view is "entirely false" or as "entirely un-biased" as Conservative was when he removed several fully sourced paragraphs, but at least admitted that creationists merely reject the evolutionary view and just believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== SYSOPS: The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly..... ==

The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly you cannot state a "fact" that is not a fact.

Here is portion of what I wrote to user Aschlafly:

I tried to reach a compromise with the evolutionists and reasonably ask that they not have only one disclaimer and then go on stating "fact" after "fact" after "fact". I reasonably said when I composed: "according to creationist scientists". They refuse to do something similar regarding the claims of evolutionary scientists even though I took the time to put in front of their "facts" the phrase "according to evolutionary scientists". I protected the article until they agreed to do that.

'''Now I ask the Sysops to keep the article protected until the evolutionists agree to abide by Conservapedia rules and not state opinions as facts. '''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Wasn't it, 'what follows is the mainstream scientific opinion' (which appears to have dissapeared) before the scientific side was given? Why do we have to state this more than once? Do you think Conservapedia's readership uniformaly suffers from some form of metal condition, and needs to be constantly reminded that they are reading the scientific/evolutionist side of the debate?

The repetitive sentance structure is disjointing to read, and an ecyclopedia should be as easy to read as possible.

The Creationist side can be the same. At the moment, it's painful to read. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely that's sensible - the start of each section just needs the disclaimer once? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is the following sentence a fact? "Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive." Or is it scientists opinion? Before you answers that question please read this article: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2587 The truth is that there have been countless dinosaur extinction explanations given by the evolutionary position. You can't have countless sentences stating "facts" when they are not facts. The compromise is the only solution that will end the countless edit warring. Do the evolutionists, including AmesG, agree to compromise. If they don't I will ask Aschlafly to keep the page locked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::That section did say at the beginning that this is the current accepted scientific opinion. I see no reason why not to include it. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Colin, Again, is this sentence a fact: "Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive." yes? no? Please do not allow Conservapedia rules be broken. One little disclaimer followed by "fact" after "fact" after "fact" after "fact" is totally unacceptable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::It is a fact that that is what the mainstream scientific consensus is. Just as it is a fact that the Creation science opinion is that that never happened. Both claims ('this is what scientists believe...' and 'this is what creationists believe...') are, therefore, correct. Therefore a compromise has already been agreed upon, and the only person warring is you. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, to be consistent with other pages, the Theory of Evolution page has no disclaimer and then "fact" after "fact" after "fact". You can't have it both ways Conservative. Which will it be?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I hope you remember, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], that your view if Christianity is certainly not the only one. Theistic Evolutionists, Old Earth Evolutionists, etc. would disagree with your edits. Stating your "cited" (sarcastically used due to the fact that half of them are probably unnotable, personal websites which carry no philosophical or scientific merit) material as fact, I would assume, is also not the best idea. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::It is my understanding that Aschlafly wants to have a creationist perspective in the [[Theory of evolution]] article. I would also state that the Theory of evolution article establishes facts and constantly has phrases like "creationist assert" or "Opponents of the evolutionary position assert" etc etc. It also has candid admissions by notable evolutionists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Regardless, you seem to be forgetting that we are supposed to be writing a biased encyclopedic article. This reads more like a persuasive essay. It doesn't even have a good explanation of what a dinosaur is, it just jumps straight into criticism (without explaining what it is criticizing). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

(unindent a bit)
:What is this encyclopedia's standard for citations? Are blogs okay, or what? I'd like to see something like [[Wikipedia:Attribution]]. Not saying we have the same policy, but we should have some sort of policy. Makes it handy to refer to, when there's a dispute over what "can be in" and what "must go out". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Hojimachong, I would agree with you that info like dinosaur classification should be given. I was going to suggest to Aschlafly that we get an agreement with [[CreationWiki]] to copy material like "classification" for animal/plant articles. We then could cite the material and [[CreationWiki]] would get more traffic. It is a win-win scenario. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::I'm against using anything from CreationWiki outside of referencing articles involving it. Furthermore, wikis are usually not considered reliable sources for citing. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 18:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

if this is going to be a creationist encyclopedia should there not be a disclaimer to that affect on the front page. Many of us are conservatives but we are not creationists - the two do not automatically go together - we all believe that biases should be out front where everyone can see them right? there seems to be an assumption that anyone who does not buy creationist must be a liberal but for many of us the two do not go together in that way. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I hate to nitpick, but to answer [[user:Conservative]]'s earlier question, the statement re: the K-T event '''''is''''' a fact. Facts are provable by evidence. Creationism is an opinion informed by faith. Both are entitled to equal time as long as they are pronounced that way. Anything less is a breach of Cons. Comm'ds 1 & 6. Also, I really think we should either stop citing [[CreationWiki]] - it's not a primary source. Finally, the quote-mined text and the text from the 1942 book that [[user:Conservative]] didn't actually read should go.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
== Loch Ness Monster ==

Wait... really? We're going with the Loch Ness Monster? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, good grief. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::You have a problem with this? I saw an excellent documentary on cable abotu the Loch Ness monster, and it was clear there has been a massive cover-up of this wonderful, Biblical creature's existence. If only we can finally capture enough evidence about it, I'm convinced the LNM could be a missing link that would finally blow the evolutionists arguments out of the water. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:38, 21 March 2007 (PST).

:::If only you could find it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes, but it's had millions of years to practice hiding. Just a minute - should that be thousands?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::How about an article on how the Loch Ness Monster was domesticated by Piltdown Man? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Suggestion for intro==

May I create a "sandbox" for alternative versions of the intro?

[[/intro]]

This has often worked at Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:You mean like [[Talk:The Theory of Evolution/draft]], which we tried here with not much success? It ''could'' work well. What would be needed is a sysop

::*with a claim, accepted by the community, to be in charge of the article;
::*not personally heavily involved in editing it or otherwise ego-involved in the article;
::*committed to the concept of judging consensus, and updating the protected page in a timely way to reflect consensus wordings as they are are reached. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise dialogue as far as "disqualifiers" like "according to evolutionary scientists" ==

I suggest the two sides work out a compromise here so the page can be unlocked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I was always under the impression that in any wiki article, the article itself reflected a compromise between various editors. Unless, of course, a renegade with the authority to block a page and a mentality childish enough to do so actually went through with an act so senseless. Guess I'm wrong? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 19:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:A common misconception: it's not automatic. It requires each contributor to be thoughtful and considerate.

:Imagine a classroom where students are free to move their desks around wherever they want, and post anything on the walls. It could be heaven or it could be hell (apologies to [[The Eagles]]). Neither chaos nor harmony is inevitable. It's up to us.

:I made 42,000 edits at Wikipedia since 2001, and I'm here to tell you that compromises are '''hard''' to reach. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

What makes this article inherently different from anything else? Vandals target every entry there is, no matter how benign they may seem. Additionally, even among the conservative base this site attracts, differences of opinion are going to exist across the spectrum of material - from dinosaurs, to physics, to sex. Lastly, your analogy fails. When the classroom turns into a hellish romper room, the kids are not there to learn. By contrast, serious editors want their work to educate. We're all here for the same purpose, and censorship is clearly not part of that vision. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 19:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:What a confused mishmash that comment was. I wonder why you came here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe I should break it down for you. Protecting the dinosaur page doesn't make sense. Here's my reasoning: 1 - the page is no more prone to vandalism than any other page. 2 - the page is just as open to differences of opinion as any other page. 3 - your analogy is garbage, as it ascribes motives to editors which clearly don't exist.

Try to keep up. Slow minds keep right. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 20:10, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Fair enough. Besides, I got a good laugh out of that last.

:I take it, you'd like the Dinosour article to be unprotected. Well, so would I. How do we go about requesting this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [[Conservapedia:Request Unprotection]] (in general, [[:Category:Conservapedia maintenance]] is a good place to look for things like this). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 10:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

One of the arguments proponents of teaching ID in schools like is: "Children should be able to hear both sides, and make their own mind up". So why not do the same here? Have the dinosaur article link to two sub articles:
#Dinosaur origins according to Young Earth Creationists.
#Dinosaur origins according to non Young Earth Creationists.
And let each side do what they like with their respective articles. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
: Why only those two? What makes those two so special? Why don't you present the Native American or Ancient Greek or Hindu approaches to the creation of the world and how they each account for dinosaurs. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::I Wouldn't have a problem with that, of course. I only chose those two because this site is biased towards Christian YEC and they were the two "sides" currently in dispute. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Wouldn't that then be a better subject for comparative creation theories? (The different creation theories made up about 4 weeks in the comparative religions class I took in high school). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes it would ideally, but I can't see that happening on this site at the moment. I was just trying to make a suggestion that would break the deadlock in the short term --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: [[user:Conservative|Cons]], can we get the words "evolutionary" taken out of the science part of the article? It does nothing but make it sound like it was written by a three-year-old. If you want to convey the point, "I don't believe in evolution," please think of a good disclaimer.-
: Also, could this compromise also apply to the [[Theory of evolution|anti-evolution polemic article]] that we also fight about? [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 21:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Creationist Scientists Perspective" ==

Part of the edit war involved someone removing "Creationist Scientists Perspective" and replacing it with "Creationist Perspect". I see no reason why this should be done. This is part of the conflict that is keeping the page locked although it is a minor one. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:I think it might have something to do with the fact that creationism does not fit with commonly accepted definition of science... namely the natural explanation part of it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Proposed replacement language for Loch Ness monster material==
Pursuant to [[User:Conservative]]'s suggestion [[User_talk:Dpbsmith#Compromise._I_put_a_link_for_you|here]]:

I propose that the paragraph currently reading
:Since 565 A.D. there are reports about the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie by birth), a large Monster living in Loch Ness, near Inverness, Scotland. People who saw Nessie described the Monster as it would look similar to a dinosaur. In the life story of St. Columba, there is an account of him driving off a monster attacking a Pict. Some have taken this to refer to the Loch Ness Monster.
be replaced with this sentence:
:Among those who believe in the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]], one popular theory is that it is a living [[plesiosaur]].<ref>"New Quest Is Haunted By 'Nessie'", ''The New York Times,'' July 14, 1992, p. C4: "Believers say it resembles a plesiosaur and was trapped in Loch Ness during the Ice Age 12,000 years ago. The plesiosaurs were marine reptiles who are thought to have lived 65 million to 200 million years ago."</ref>
Any pro-and-con stuff about the existence of Nessie can be worked out in the [[Loch Ness Monster]] article. No more needs to be said in [[Dinosaur]] other than to mention it briefly, if it all.

Mind you, I personally do not think there is any good reason to mention the Loch Ness monster in ''this'' article whatsoever, but ''if'' it were real and ''if'' it were a plesiosaur then, OK, it would be an example of dinosaurs and humans coexisting. (And if Barney were real he, too... oh, never mind...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== The DNA-argument ==

I just don't get it. After I read the linked article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp),
i didn't know if the author was serious. He explains correctly that Jurassic Park is just fictional and I think every scientist (pro- or contra-evolution) would agree with that but on the other hand he tries to use the "DNA-aspect" to show that evolutionist are in the minor-evidence-position in the dicussion about the age of dinosaur-fossils. I don't think that there is any evolutionist who ever wanted to publish a theory like "we have some base-pairs of dinosaur-DNA and now we really build a Jurassic Park"!
Additionally I can't accept his statements about the fresh dinosaur bones. If you read his text properly you will see that the unfossilized bones are found in Alaska and Canada. Precisly on the northern slope of Alaska and on Bylot Island in Canada. Uh, wait...what can you find there? Yep, permafrost - which includes the words permanent and frost. So what could keep a good old dinosaurs bones fresh for millions of years? Keeping them frozen for millions of years, perhaps.

P.S.: Oh yeah, the point with these large amount of really reliable dinosaur sightings. Should we discuss the large number of UFO sightings and Elvis sightings in the same sentence?
If I think about it, maybe all these sightings are true and there are lots of elvis-faced-dinosaurs who come in their UFOs to spend the summer holidays near Loch Ness?

:Wow, not going to lie, I thought that article might have been a parody at first. This article tries to associate psuedoscience in a '''fiction''' movie to real science and "evolutionists." The author's arguments are simply ridiculous, and I have a hard time taking this seriously. As much as I disagree with Creationism, seeing the beauty and the awesomeness of nature and life (esp. after my recent afternoon at the aquarium), I can understand the argument that this universe must have a creator. However, articles such as this take every bit of respect I have for Creationism and rip it apart. Please, as a service to yourselves, Creationists, don't cite or refer to such articles. They're not going to help your case in anyone's eyes but your own. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==To User:Conservative==
I was going to put this on your Talk page, but apparently it is currently protected ??!! I thought you were suggesting that the paragraph in [[Dinosaur]] be replaced with "a link," i.e. a short sentence linking to [[Loch Ness Monster]], and that all of the details on whether it does or does not exist and whether it is or is not a dinosaur could then be presented there. That seemed very sensible to me, and I proposed specific language above. However, you haven't followed through, and based on what you say on my Talk page all I can say is that obviously I misunderstood you and I do not grasp what you want as a replacement for the incoherent paragraph that is there now. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please add this to the article ==

Please add this material to the article:
----

In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, [[Edward Drinker Cope]] (1847-1897) and [[Othniel Charles Marsh]] (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.

Osborn was a proponent of ''orthogenesis,'' as were many paleontologists up through the middle of the twentieth century. These paleontologists interpreted the fossil record as showing sustained, continuing, unidirectional trends in evolution, which they felt required some kind of driving principle in addition to natural selection. As the author of an encyclopedia article on variation and selection put it in 1911,
:Selection cannot create the materials on which it is supposed to operate... Both sides concur in the position assumed by Darwin, that the word "chance" in such a phrase as "chance variation" does not mean that the occurrences are independent of natural causation and so far undetermined, but covers in the first place our ignorance of the exact causation.... No doubt a large amount of variation is truly indefinite, so that many meaningless or useless variations arise... But there are several directions in which the field of variation appears to be not only limited but defined in a certain direction.... When beetles, or medusae, or cats vary, the range of possible variation is limited and determined by the beetle, medusa or cat constitution, and any possible further differentiation or specialization must be in a sense at least orthogenetic - that is to say, a continuation of the line along which the ancestors of the individual in question have been forced. Darwin himself showed that different species in a genus, or varieties in a species, tended to show parallel variations.<ref>Mitchell, Peter Chalmers (1911), ''Variation and Selection,'' ''Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition,'' volume 27 (TON-VES), p. 906</ref>

[[Roy Chapman Andrews]] (1884–1960), said to be the prototype for the fictional Indiana Jones, is famous for his discovery of fossil dinosaur eggs in Outer Mongolia.

----

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== It's a lie ==

Dinosaurs are made up! This page should be deleted. The world is only 6000 years old. Scientists planted the bones to make us think that the world is older. Everyone needs to read the Bible. It's the only truth.

:Now, now conservative you didn't need to make a sockpuppet. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:My God you're right! What were we thinking!? I'd go on a missionary journey tomorrow and tell EVERYBODY on Earth...but then I might fall off of the edge, so I'll just stay home. {{unsigned| Cracker}}

User talk:Jesusrules

2007-03-24T01:43:06Z

Cracker: New page: Hi. Play nice and Good luck. --~~~~

Hi. Play nice and Good luck. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 21:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Homosexual Agenda

2007-03-24T01:33:59Z

Cracker: /* Eliminate this Hate */

Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== WOV's got a point ==

Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe. It presents the "homosexual agenda" from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary. '''I recommend the entire thing for deletion.'''

Scalia's remark is regretful and a blemish on the pages of the U.S. Reporter, up there with Scott v. Sanford. But let's not expand it still further.

I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion.

Seconded. If this is a homosexual agenda, then what homosexual wrote it? This is nothing but political game-playing: Identify a group as ''The Enemy'' and then brand them haters and abusers of family, children, and country. It makes dehumanising them so much easier. - Suricou

: I didn't see anything "hateful" in it. The Scalia reference was not intended to be about what is binding law, obviously. There was nothing binding about his phrase. I'll note that it was in dissent.

: The edits to this article were completely inappropriate, turning it into a liberal puff piece. Wikipedia exists for that. Actually, your edits made this even more liberal than Wikipedia's article on the same topic!

: The hour is very late and I need to lock this page to guard against vandalism or conversion to a liberal message. I can unlock tomorrow. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Presenting both points doesn't make it a liberal puff piece! It presented only one perspective (Focus on the Family), and referred to the Shepard incident as OVERBLOWN. That's awful!! I consider my entry a moderate tack, but if you can think of an acceptable compromise that preserves an unbiased perspective, be my guest. It shocks me to see you go against your own commandments, though, about not including bias, and not importing a political perspective. I have tried to, and continue to try to, do the same.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Instead of the http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm cite you may want to use this one [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm] This cite goes straight (NPI) to a section of the book ''After the Ball''. -)[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks. Will do tomorrow. Goodnight, Cracker!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I would definitely change the "promote homosexuality in schools" to "promote acceptance of homosexuality in schools". Definitely sounds like they're trying to make me gay. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with the comments of [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] and [[User:Splark|Splark]]. The idea that one's ideological opponents have a specific "agenda" is an all-too common one, but such agendas are more often touted by those who oppose than by those who support a group. That a Supreme Court Justice referred to it, or that it's in some leaflet somewhere, isn't substantive evidence that it exists.. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Aren't those five points of the "homosexual agenda" linked to more of a strategy than an "agenda"? And, aren't they the standard strategy for all interest groups? 1. Talk about your issue. 2. Show your group is harmed unless you get what you want. 3. Provide facts so people can justify agreeing with you. 4. Portray yourself and your point of view as right and moral. 5. Portray your opponents and their point of view as wrong and immoral. 6. Get corporate or other financial support. Every group and lobbying organization does that, and I don't know that singling out gays and the gay rights movement as doing that is really informative.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 11:23, 15 March 2007 (ED

I think this page is extremely biased. It presents only one side of the issue and is locked to prevent the other side from responding. Proof of a bias of another kind here.
-Gasmonkey

== Eliminate this Hate ==

The aforementioned article makes me shake with fear as I think that people will actually be exposed to this. Present both sides of the issue fairly. I agree with Gasmonkey that this entire article should be deleted. Moreover, this entire web site should be deleted. It claims to be an informative, "Christian" site that in fact promotes hate and spews false information across our nation.

:Teaching God's word that homosexuals are sinful and militant is not hate speech, but free speech. God's teachings of homosexuality indicate that throughout history, homosexuals have continuously been savage aggressors -- with an agenda. The story of Sodom is particularly informative. It described the homosexual agenda of the ancient city of sodom in 1898 B.C. as forcible homosexual assault and enslavement by the homosexual inhabitants of the city to any men who visited the city. If you believe the bible is hate, then you can head over to Wikipedia and read the alternate viewpoint there. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 02:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::"The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 326 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean God doesn't love heterosexuals--He just thinks they need more supervision"--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 02:56, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm sorry, but you are flat wrong. There are over 30 admonishments against homosexuality in the Bible. God specifically states he hates homosexuals and has given them up as servants of the devil. There are 132 passages in the bible where specifcally states he HATES either a person or group of people. God does not love everyone, and he says as much in his word. I know you have heard this soul destroying lie from many people claiming to teach God's word. It simply is not true. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 12:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, can I just point out, (as a happily married, middle aged heterosexual), there is nothing in the Bible which proscribes female homosexuality. Aren't lesbians homosexuals too? KT

:Some would reply with Romans 1, but not me. (BTW, you can sign with the sig button next to the SLASHED W above or simply four tildes <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 21:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You are a piece of work. I am sorry you are so angry about the world you live in. But you certainly make one thing easy: if there is an afterlife and you are the type of person who is going to be occupying heaven, I'd much rather burn in eternal hell with my incredibly wonderful gay friends.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 13:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What would you know Jack? With one up the transom and another one in the gob, it's hard to hear you. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 15:14, 21 March 2007 (PST).

== Everything you post must be true and verifiable ==

This entry violates the first (and perhaps most important) Conservapedia commandment. There is no homosexual "agenda" -- no "they" who "wrote a book", no 10-point plan. It's the same kind of paranoid nonsense that's in the articles here on Joseph McCarthy and Alger Hiss (WP has far more accurate articles on both subjects, with the one on Hiss very clearly identifying areas of controversy), with conspiracy-theorist types quoting and sourcing one another. I propose this entire article for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 10:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Adolf Hitler

2007-03-24T01:25:58Z

Cracker: SIG

==Improvement Proposals==
*'''''Due to vandalism, please post ''MAJOR'' improvement proposals here, in this section. Page is now unlocked for registered users.'''''

----
I don't think "liberal" is a word most people would use in describing Adolph Hitler. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:12, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Going by Conservapedia's definition of "[[liberal]]", for example the points about gun control, same-sex marriage, amnesty for illegal aliens, foreign treaties, increased power for labor unions, etc., I think we can all agree that Adolf Hitler was undeniabley liberal in every way that matters.

:--[[User:Tooner440|Tooner440]] 01:09, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:: I don't mean to rain on your parade, but most of your claims are either partially or entirely wrong. Hitler did not promote same-sex marriage; in fact, the Nazis made an attempt to exterminate homosexuality[http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/homobg.html][http://www.holocaust-trc.org/homosx.htm][http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=395203][http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JLKUJH2DhsgC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PR9&sig=9gAKq3BpNPbebZqenWnNH7npmcE&dq=nazi+homosexuals#PPA14,M1][http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cYIlhr8ygHkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&sig=uzd8I5LpQJfXzrxukvDzW7B3Tmg&dq=nazi+homosexuals][http://www2.rz.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SWAST.HTM]. So, we can remove that point from your argument. As for the others, we all know that the Nazi immigration policies were entirely race-based; they may've been friendly towards "Aryans," but not so towards anyone else, so I'm confused as to where the unsourced, blanket claim that they provided "amnesty for illegal aliens" comes from; at best, that's partially (significantly so) incorrect. The claim that Hitler was friendly towards labor unions is a mistake, though I think I know how (through faulty reading) you arrived at that conclusion; while Hitler pandered to labor while a powerless politician, when he gained power, he actually abolished all labor unions except the German Labor Front, a wing of the Nazi Party (this being a Fascist, not "liberal" move, and one designed to ingratiate him with industry)[http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch16.htm][http://www2.dsu.nodak.edu/users/dmeier/Holocaust/hitler.html]. Finally, it should be noted that the Weimar Republic passed the first gun control laws in 1928[http://www.gunownersalliance.com/kopel.htm]; this certainly doesn't mean that Hitler was (or wasn't) a fan of gun control, but it really leaves you, I would say, grasping at straws to say he was in any way a "liberal."
::-- [[User:S. Ugarte|S. Ugarte]] 22:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Gun control is a phenomena of any dictatorship, regardless of political bent. Treaties have been signed by leaders on the left and right alike; they're not a "liberal" invention. And I'd hardly call beginning a continent-wide war and the attempted extermination of an entire people "liberal" qualities. The word is pointless here.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 01:15, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Its certainly not pointless! Just because Hiltler was evil that means he can't be called liberal? He above all other examples shows what liberalism takem to its extreme can do!!! -- [[User:Earth6000|Earth6000]] 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Hitler had a liberal stance on same sex marriage? And amnesty for illegal aliens? Goodness. I'm more galled, though, by the "in every way that matters". Sure, mass genocide isn't a terribly liberal idea, but hey, look at the big picture! The man banned handguns! [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 07:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Um aren't you forgetting the stuff he's famous for? For example, mass genocide? I think his views on marriage pale into insigificance! [[User:Kahlua bridge|Kahlua bridge]]

Also is there any research that shows Hiltler was possessed by satan or some sort of demon? I want to include that possibility in the article but I don't have a good source yet. Can anyone help? -- [[User:Earth6000|Earth6000]] 23:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: Unfortunately you can't explain someone's actions by 'possession'. If we're going to understand how a whole country could follow a man's actions that led to the extermination of 6million Jews we have to kind of think beyond 'it was a demon wot did it'. [[User:Kahlua bridge|Kahlua bridge]] 14:10, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

How can there be research showing Hitler was possessed by Satan or a "demon"? Regardless of whether this "research" exists, by Commandment 1 everything here has to be "true or verifiable". The existance of God, Satan or "demons" is faith-based, i.e. it is not possible to prove by a scientific method and has no place in an encyclopedia. This is not to dispute the veracity of these claims, I just do not see how something can be "verifiable" if we are talking about a matter of faith. You can believe it and it may well be true but to include it here is not readdressing Wikipedia-based bias, it's just plain wrong. --[[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]] 11:10, 13 March 2007 (GMT)

A liberal? I doubt it. A totalitarian fascist dictator would be a more accurate description. A left wing or right wing view of his politics is irrelevant to the fact that he was responsible for the deaths of millions of people - something which surely all people from all sides of the political spectrum find horrifying.

Politics is a grid, not a line. Liberals are "Government controls economy, leaves morality alone", Conservative is "Government grows morality, leaves economy alone", Libertarianism is "Government leaves morality and economy alone", and Fascism is "Government controls economy and morality". Hitler was a fascist. Of course, the real world has millions of political ideologies, but cut it down to the broad four, and Hitler was clearly a fascist. Trying to fit people, especially people with extreme viewpoints, into an either-or political equation is folly. -Momoka (I appear to be having issues signing my name. Fah.)

== RobS and Order playing ping pong on German history ==

: Adolf Hitler was not a liberal, not even by the list positions that define [[Liberal|liberal]]. He neuterd gays, killed trade unionists, gave mothers who had more than 4, 6 and 8 kids a medal of honour (rank 3 to 1), implemented a maximun of 10% for female students at universities, madeit illegal for women to pursue a professorship, he killed and starved foreigners, broke disarments treaties and increased military spending. This just show that you don't have to be liberal to be evil. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 2007, 22:22 (AEST)
::''implemented a maximun of 10% for female students at universities''
::How about "''implemented a sex based quota for female students at universities''"? [[User:RobS|RobS]]
::: I guess you just want to mock this site, don't you. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 2007, 12:00 (AEST)
::::Let's be clear and unambiguous as to what we are talking about. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: Calling a ''10% cap'' a ''quota'' is just plain wrong. They are different things. But since I assume that you know this, I conclude that you just want to slip in some outrageous claims, to make Conservaedia look like a project of a bunch of ignorants. It's called subtle vandalism. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 2007, 12:40 (AEST)
::Is this the definition, Liberal = good guy, non-liberal = bad guy? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::: No, look at the article on [[Liberal]] how conservapedia defines it. And there you find that liberal is defined as pro-gay, pro trade-union, pro-affirmative action, pro-gender equality, pro-foreign immigration, pro-disarmament, anti-militaristic. And he was obviously none of it. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 2007, 10:22 (AEST)
::::Another article that needs improvement, it is after all, a work in progress. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:21, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Do you suggest to change the definition of liberal, such that it also includes fascist dictators? I am puzzled at your eagerness to cast history of the 3rd Reich in terms of current US politics. Either its just a trap to provoke people to say something stupid, or you are just fairly naive about the nature of third Reich.--[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 2007, 12:40 (AEST)
::::::Actually I was just reading some of Hitler's enlightened reasoning. Seems his Socialist background gave us this piece of wisdom:

:::::::"'''''Science cannot lie, for it's always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does 10 in good faith. It's Christianity that's the liar.''''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:53, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: First, science and socialism are not the same. Edward Teller e.g. was a great scientist, but certainly no socialist. That Hitler was critical of organized religion, and especially of Christianity is no secret, especially the peaceful variant of it. But for any anti-christian quote you can find, there exists dozens of theistic quotes of him, as well. Is it so hard to understand that Hitler doesn't fit well in your limited liberal vs conservative, christian vs atheist world view that define current US politics.--[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 2007, 12:40 (AEST)

:::::::::(a) Science and "enlightened, rational" thinking, from which Socialism was born, certainly does need to be discussed here. (b) Yes, Hitler claimed Providence ordained him to his mission; however I think we can safely conclude his god was not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (c) What limited view? Let me state '''emphatically''', I reject the Left/Right Political Spectrum Theory. And like any [[theory]], it is lacking in facts. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: (a) Just because socialism was one of the outcomes of the enlightenment, it is not the only one. The American constitution for example is another. You give, probably unwilling, to much credit to socialism. Socialism pretended to be scientific, but that doesn't means that it was scientific, and certainly not that science is socialist.
:::::::::: (b) There are also many quote where he refers to the Christian God. Its not the Abrahamic God's fault that he was claimed by Hitler, nor is it your fault, if you follow the same God. Hilter also claimed Martin Luther, and many others. Just because Hitlers view of the Christian God doesn't coincide with yours, doesn't mean that he is a socialist (which again is something different from being a liberal).
:::::::::: (c) Indeed. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 2007, 15:00 (AEST)
:::::::::::(b)(cont)-- Hitler didn't claim any God that I know, other than himself. The divisions in Germany are not traditionally East-West; it is North-South, Lutheran-Catholic. Hitler was from a Southern German state, Austria. And the majority anti-Catholic Lutherans til this day in Germany view Hilter & Nazism as what may happen when (secularized) catholics get in control.
::::::::::::Austria wasn't a state of Germany, until Hitler's Anschluss. An it isn't a state now. And indeed there is a north-south divide, but hat doesn't coincide with the Catholic-Lutheran divide, which is more a North-West South-East divide, not even that would be correst. Westphalia has, and especially in the Weimar Republic one of the centers of political catholicism. And Adenauer, the first Chancellor after the war was Catholic, and not from the South either. The majority of Germans view Hitler an Nazism as what can happen if an ideology gets into control. Also the Lutherans. Ask some Germans.--[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 2007, 17:00 (AEST)
:::::::::::::You're using "state" it appears in the Anglo-Amrerican sense; Austria & Bavaria (Switzerland too) are southern German predominately Catholic states--more precisley Austria & Switzerland are predominatly Catholic nation-states, whereas Bavaria is a predominately Catholic state of the Federal Republic. All three states, together with the north German "Lander", share a common German culture. But the religious wars between Catholic and Lutheran are still deeply engrained in German concsiousness, trust me, even among Germans in the United States three generations removed from their immigrant great grandparants.
::::::::::::::* Given that this site has a US roots, it is only natural to use state for part of a federal republic. Especially, if you talk about Bavaria, which is a state, and Austria, which is a country. Switzerland is a separate category altogether, even though it has a German speaking majority, it was never a "German" state or country, it is just a German speaking country. Austria indeed considered it self a German country, and considered in the 18 hundreds to join Germany. And also after WW 1, there voices in Austria that it should join Germany.
::::::::::::::* The religious wars are something different again. You kind of forget about the Rhineland and Westphalia, very catholic areas. Especially in the Weimar Republic, when the Zentrum party, who was in government most of the time, was catholic and not southern German, but with a strong base in the Rhineland and around. --[[User:Order]]

:::::::::::::::Fine, but don't expect Germans to think of themselves in the same way you think of them. Blacfkforest too; most of the states that border Catholic France are Catholic too.
:::::::::::::::: Sure I don't expect them to think of themselves as I do. Afterall, there are 80 million Germans, other than me. Rhineland-Westpahlia, the biggest state even though it does not border France, is predominantly Catholic, too. --[[User:Order]]

:::::::::::::::Let me make an obeservation that shouldn't be too hard to figure out: of the nation-states of Europe, Germany is ''the most'' like American society. England is 90% Protestant with a State run Religion (i.e. no separation of Church and States); France & Poland are 97%+ Catholic, one highly secularized, the other not. Italy & Spain, virtually uniformly Catholic, whereas the Scandanavian and Low Countries are heavily Protestant. Germany, liket he US, is roughly 60/40 Protestant/Catholic, with the large Catholic minoroities constituting the single largest denomination in both countries. And the Protestant majorities are divided up among dozens of denominations. This is a big part of the unique relationship between germany and the United States. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::The Netherlands is by that account even more similar to the US than Germany. They even have a bible belt, something Germany hasn't. But what point do you try to make? --[[User:Order]]

:::::::::::::Albert Speer has pointed out, the real hard core racist Nazi's like Hitler and Eichmann came from the former territories of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, where Germans were a minority for a very longtime and held positions of privilege among people they looked down upon. With the collapse of their privileges in 1919 many left the former Austria-Hungry to reside within the territory of the old German Empire, and blamed the Jews for the collapse of both. But the racist attitudes were always a tuff sell among the Protestant North, which being secularized, embraced many Socialist doctrines. Even today, Angela Merkel, daughter of a Lutheran preacher who family was persecuted under the Communist East, embraces "market socialism", whatever that means. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:56, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::::*There were also core Nazis from Prussia. You might want to look at the election maps from that time.
::::::::::::::* Also to say that Germans were a minority in Austria-Hungary is a bit a funny view. Austria-Hungary was a patchwork of nations, and the German nation of Austria was the dominating one. Its like saying that the English were an oppressed minority in the British empire. And after the end of the Austrian-Hungarian empire, Austria just remained Austrian. Austria is within the bounds of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.
::::::::::::::* The racist attitudes were not to much a touch sell among Lutherans, mainly because Luther himself said very nasty things about the Jews. The a large part of the Lutherans, who later formed the "German Church", who were supporters of most that the Nazis did.
::::::::::::::*Angela Merkel is not supporting market socialism. What she supports is "soziale Marktwirtschaft", social market economy. And this has been the doctrine in the Federal Republic, ever since Erhard was minister of economy in the 50s.
::::::::::::::*It seems that 3rd generation German immigrants have sometimes a funny recollection of events and German culture. You got for example Octoberfests in to celebrate German heritage. The Oktoberfest is however a decidedly Bavarian event, and most German immigrants to the US will never have been at any "Oktoberfest". However their offspring does celebarte it. The most important fests in other parts of Germany are "Schuetzenfest", or "Kirmes", or "Karneval". --[[User:Order]]
:::::::::::::::Let's not confuse Prussian Officers with Nazi Party members, despite all the Hollywood garbage we've all been subjected to. Germans in Austria-Hungary were about 10 or 11% and mostly held all the Civil Service positions; Hitler's dad was a Customers Inspector. I know Lutherans who reject anti-Semitism casue they feel it's something Catholics would do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::* Who was talking about Prussian Officers? I was talking about Prussians, as in inhabitant of the then biggest state in Germany. As in: inhabitant of e.g. Braunschweig or Wilhelmshaven, two hotbeds of Nazi support. Cities in then Prussia.
::::::::::::::::* Surely there were Lutheran opposing in Hitler, see the "Bekennende Kirche" (Confessing Church), but you had the more numerous group of "Deutsche Christen". If there are Lutherans who blame it on the Catholics, then these probably try to close their eyes that Lutherans were as guilty of cooperating with Hitler, as was the Vatican.

:::::::::::On another note, it's interesting to comtemplate how socially progressive Germany elected a Catholic three decades before America ever did. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::: 30 years after Georg von Hertling, that would be Truman. Or 30 years after Fehrenbach. That would be eihter Truman or Eisenhower? --[[User:Order|Order]] 19 March, 17:30 AEST

== Fire in the Reichstag ==
This page is protected so you will have to edit it yourself. The circumstances of the fire in the Reichstag are still contested. Its not clear if the Nazis put it on fire themself or if Maarten van der Lubbe actually did it as the Nazis claimed. However the fire gave Hitler the opportunity to obtain dictatorial powers by an emergency law. You might want to say that this ended the Weimar Republic. But Hitler was already Chancellor at that point, and he wasn't president, yet. The statement that he put the Reichstag on fire to end the republic is way too simplistic. You either remove it, or give more background. Namely, that Hitler was already appointed chancellor, that the fire led to emergency laws which effectively made an end to parliamentary democracy, and that he later, when president Hindenburg died, also assumed the powers of the president. But the statement, as it is now, is simplistic can better be removed. --[[User:Order|Order]] 16:50, 15 March 2007 (AEST)

: ''Utilizing'' is a bit better than ''starting''. What about ''exploiting''? --[[User:Order|Order]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (AEST)
:okay [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 02:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Looks good to me. --[[User:Order|Order]] 17:50, 15 March 2007 (AEST)
:The definitive account of the Riechstag Fire is [http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0306808692] ''To the Bitter End: An Insider's Account of the Plot to Kill Hitler, 1933-1944'' by Hans Gisevius. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::

== Dutch hatred ==
I lived in the Netherlands for a substantial amount of time, and I know that the Dutch are not too fond of this guy. But this doesn't justify a subsection on "Dutch hatred". Hitler didn't care much about the Dutch, and the Dutch attitude towards him was probably one of his minor problems. there is no point to have a special section on the relationship with the Dutch. --[[User:Order|Order]] 16:50, 15 March 2007 (AEST)

:Well duh, the Dutch are Baptists pretty much,and Hitler & Nazism came from the Catholic territories of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. Just as I said, Nazi racism was always a tuff sell in the north. (And yes, some do consider Nederland a German state, albeit somewhat Anglicized, also).

:* Well duh, the Dutch are Calvinists, or Dutch reformed, with a huge Catholic minority (40% in the 1970s before secularization set in, 31% percent now.)
:* Indeed you said repeatedly that Nazis were a though sell in the North, but that doesn't mean that it was true. They were popular for example popular in Schleswig Holstein, the Nothernmost part of Germany. In 1932, one year before Hitler came to power, Hitler won 52% of the votes in this state (vs 37% at the national level). Or the county of Gifhorn, in the Hanover area: 68% for Hitler, one year before he came to power. That's why I told you to take a look on the map. Still, Hitler didn't do as well in Prussia than in other states. And you know why? Because he did poor in the Catholic parts of Prussia. Do some research, rather than listen to anecdotal evidence from people you happen to know.

: That definition of the Netherlands might do it well in a sports bar, where people are confuse "Dutch" and "Deutsch", but other than that it just nonsense. Sure the Netherlands used to be part of the Holy Roman Empire in the middle ages, but ever since their independence from Spain, they have been a separate entity with their own identity. --[[User:Order|Order]] 16:30, 20 March 2007 (AEST)

== Sozis ==
''Sozis'' is just the German slang for ''social democrats''. It doesn't belong in this article. The name of the party is SPD. And they were different from socialist and communists, who were represented by another party. Furthermore, Hitler was candidate for chancellor before that election, since he was the undisputed head of his party for years. There was nothing like a primary. And he didn't become Chancellor through an election, but he was appointed, about five week before that election. He then used these five weeks to pass an emergency law after the Reichtags fire. This law gave him the opportunity to imprison many opponents. The 1933 election cannot be considered as an open and fair election, anymore. The last fair election was 1932, when his party was backed by 33% of the electorate. --[[User:Order|Order]] 16:50, 15 March 2007 (AEST)

== Locked article version ==

This article is truly one of the worst at Conservapedia (not that Adolf deserves better). I counted no fewer than 16 errors in the current locked version, and many other statements that are distortions or oversimplifications of historical record. Particularly because AH was such a horrible person, it seems to me that an accurate article on him would be important here, but what we have is a 5th grade book report for history class. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 22:54, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Rant in final solution. ==

The statement in the section final solution about what Lucy Dawidowicz thinks about it is complete pointless. Its noting more than a red herring. --[[User:Order|Order]] 19 March 14:00 (AEST)
:Dawidowicz isn't qualified? and the Simon Wiesenthal Center who quotes her is suspect? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I didn't say that she wasn't qualified. But in a two sentence summary of the final solution, Lucy Dawidowicz opnion has no significance. If you would write a 10 volume histroy of the holocaust, you might want to spend a page on her and her opinons. You just put it here to discretit the Wiesenthal center, or make some other vague point, but not to tell people anything they need to know about the final solution. --[[User:Order|Order]] 19 March 14:00 (AEST)
:The mainspace reads, ''responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews, many disabled persons, and homosexuals''. This cite, [http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/holocaust.html] which hasn't been fully qualified, states, "''100,000 were arrested and 50,000 were serving prison terms... deaths of at least an estimated 15,000 ..."'' and gives a breakout in statisitcs ''* 10,000–25,000 homosexual men''". I am inclined to believe this may be a valid citation. So the idea that millions of homosexuals were exterminated simply is lacking evidence.
:: Nobody claims that there were millions of homosexuals killed. You are simply putting up a strawman. --[[User:Order|Order]] 19 March 14:00 (AEST)
*My God! Are you implying the mass genocide was over-stated? --[[User:TK|[[TK|TerryK]]([[User talk:TK|contact me]])]] 23:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yesterday someone said "homsexuals at the same rate as Jews", this would mean something like 2 1/2 to 4 million homosexuals, ''because they were homosexual'', in addition to all other races, groups, and classifications. Clearly a distortion -- and a pattern -- to create the aura of victimization for recruiting into contemporary identity politics. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Thats an issue of the person who said that yesterday. --[[User:Order|Order]] 19 March 14:00
:Then, I hope we can see the end of this attempted recruitment into contemporary [[identity politics]] with these distortions and exaggerations that some editors are working tirelessly to insert into several articles. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:33, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
*If you can unlock these items on a person by person basis, I did a paper in college on this topic, and would be happy to take a stab at it.--[[User:TK|[[TK|TerryK]]([[User talk:TK|contact me]])]] 23:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:I didn't lock it but I'll look into it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, now no worry, as I can unlock it, lol. Anyway, I don't know if we can leave it open, as I have reviewed some of the old edits...nasty business it is. Imagine old Adolf must be laughing he is causing such a ruckus 65 years past his death! --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
----
Yes there are some problems. Wikipedia does have at least two good articles, and this is one of them, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_versus_intentionalism . The "Final Solution to the Jewish Question in Europe" does not refer to the "Final Solution to the Jewish, Gay, Gypsy, Jehovah Witness and others Question in Europe". I will make the correction right here and now. Hitler's '''intent''', as the school of Intentionalism refers to, was to eradicate European Jews. Yes, indeed, others were systematically persecuted, rounded up, suffered, and murdered. But as to discussing the Holocaust, or Final Solution (and the appropriate subhead as well), let's not downplay it that Hitler intended to exterminate Jews.

The Minutes to the Wannsee Conference, where the Final Solution (or Holocaust) was planned, does not make any reference to homosexuals or other groups. So the issue of non-Jews must be dealt with in this article. However, what exists on the mainspace at this moment is clearly non-factual information. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps everyone is just getting too picky and technical? The point is, the bottom line is, anyone Herr Hitler took a dislike to was shipped off to the camps. Catholics, Lutherans, homosexuals, Jews, even the wine grower whose wine Eva or Himmler didn't care for, anyone and everyone who displeased someone in the Nazi upper echelons, was fair game. Hitler was charismatic in the same way Jim Jones was, and many, many others.....all were a cult unto themselves, a personality cult, run amok. I don't think we need to create issues where there are none, nor necessarily look for hidden meanings in quoting numbers. As a Christian, it makes me just as sick if one homosexual, Jew, Lutheran,or Catholic was gassed or worked to death, or if it was 100,000. No matter if they had accepted Jesus Christ or not, The Lord has commanded me to love them all, the same as if my own true brother, and judge them not, least the Lord judge me here and now, and strike me down hard, and that I shall (and everyone else should as well) endeavor to do. Certainly an article need not be exacting in numbers to convey to all the true Evil that he was. That is all we need do. --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::No one denies any of this. But I'd encourage some understanding of Dawidowicz and the Intentionalist school. To say the Final Solution, or more properly the Holocaust '''was not''' primarily intended to eradicate the Jews of Europe is not picky and technical--indeed denying that can be considered Holocasut denial. Let's nip this in bud right here.

::Yes, all "undesirables" and "asocials" were targets for enslavement and ultimately extermination, too. Let's write a clean historical record, and keep out efforts to build DNC coalition politics with false claims that alleged right-wingers and fascists, Republicans and nazis' all today are targeting the same victimized groups for extermination. That is precisely the kind of garbage that is rapidly destroying Wikipedia's credibility, and why sites like this have come into existence. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
*Well, hopefully you will find the changes on the page are more on target, focusing on who Hitler was......which, I think, is the whole point of a page labled with his name. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 10:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Help ==
The current version has so many factual errors, I give up fixing it. Has somebody any suggestion to get this right. --[[User:Order|Order]] 19 March 18:00

*I have done some inital changes, and have re-locked the page. I intend to re-order and perhaps change the titles of some of the secondary headers, Tuesday and Wednesday. Then we can see about opening it, allowing editing. I want to get some input from those of you posting here, and A.S. This just might be one of a few pages that might need to be kept locked, due to the passions it brings out. If you have ideas or contributions you think might help, please post them in a new header, and we can talk about it. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 09:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Plagarism==

The paragraphs before the Contents box is almost a word-for-word reprint of Elie Wiesel's essay on Hitler for Time Magazine in 1998. It needs to be pulled ASAP or properly sourced, if it can be.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:do you have link? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sure. [http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/hitler.html] --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*The citation was lost in constant editing, but the proper way to handle these things is to simply add the citation, or contact the Sysop who made the changes, either on their talk page, or via IM, Dave3172, FYI. There isn't anything, that isn't lewd vandilism, that requires imediate (read as instant) action, is there?--~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 22:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Terry, it looked like someone took Wiesel's essay and then added a couple of lines to make it look as if it was original. That's why I said it should be removed, or cited if possible.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, I understood what you said Dave. However since you stated where it was from, I was confused as to your comment ''"it should be sourced, if it can be"'', since you stated right here the source! Sorry for the lapse in not checking and making sure the attribution was there. Now, after all this, do you find the page more on target than it was before? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, I do. Although it looks like a bit of an info dump, it is sourced. My hesitancy was that in its original form, it looked like someone took Wiesel's essay and added stuff into it, hence my hesitancy in wondering if it could be sourced. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 07:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

*So, since other information, sourced, was woven in and out, and you knew, instantly recognized, the source as Elie Wiesel's essay on Hitler for Time Magazine, you still went and made the headline here calling it Plagiarism? You do know some of the sysops here would have warned you for that... lol. Since you hadn't managed to contribute anything nearly as concise, organized or on topic, what's your beef? I'm gonna drop this now, but like I said, in the future contact the person first, like a big boy, rather than running around saying someone is dishonest, okay? It's the Christian way. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 08:08, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Terry, next time, if you're going to use a source, don't add stuff to it. You can't source an article if you've added other material to it - but it still counts as plagarism. And frankly, I wouldn't call a multi-paragraph info-dump "concise." The main reason I don't write major things here is b/c the issues surrounding copyright here haven't been resolved. Trust me, if that is resolved I'll add a lot more. That said, in the future I will try to contact the individual in question first. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I have been editing, writing for over twenty years, and I haven't the foggiest notion of what you mean by "Info Dump". This isn't supposed to be the Readers Digest. And yes, I can cite sources, with quotations, and interweave other material, in following paragraphs. What isn't you don't comprehend, about my posting here I was working on the page? Is there a time limit, set in your own mind, that I have exceeded? I see lots of back-seat drivers, and plenty of people willing to argue on the talk pages, and darn little constructive ideas offered.........--~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 09:52, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Beer hall incident ==
This entry is just unreal. Sure Hitler and Ludendorf planned the coup in a Beer Hall, but weren't caught when planning, but during the actual coup attempt. And a lot of people got wounded and survived armed confrontation in the streets of Munich. [[User:Order|Order]] 20 March (11:40 AEST)
:As I recall, only Hitler & Ludendorf survived of the all the Party members walking down a narrow street with arms locked. Hitler & Ludendorf stood next to each other in the middle of the first rank. What this means is when the order was given by machine gunners atop the parliament building, they were ordered to shoot everyone ''but'' Hitler and Ludendorf.

:At the time Hitler was a relative unknown, but Ludendorf was a war hero, so they couldn't kill him. And Hitler surviving this close encounter with death (as also surviving WWI since he was at the front in the first 60 days of fighting) is what gave Hitler a popular mystique of being invincible, constantly survivng against all odds. This was revived after the July 20 plot. And ultimately in the end, Hitler took his own life. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

If you know some of the particular, why is you entry then so bad and misinfomred? [[User:Order|Order]] 20 March (15:40 AEST)
:Huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Your latest, already improved entry reads:

:''Hitler joined Erich Ludendorff in Munich. Ludendorff was planning a revolt against the provincial governor in a small beer hall. In the ensuing fight with the Army, Hitler and Ludendorff were the only two who escaped being shot.''

Compare this with what a British school project made of it [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERbeer.htm].

You will notice

* Your ''small beer hall'' had room for 3000 Bavarian officials.
* It was a prime minister of a state, not a governor of a province.
* The shooting took place the other day.
* No mention of tripping.
* Goering survived. A third person surviving?
* Ludendorff didn't escape.
* Hitler was caught a few days later.

And what even they fail to mention, is that the Bavarian PM did only pretend to collaborate, because that night he made an Radio announcement denying any support. At least 7 factual errors in 3 sentences. An achievement. [[User:Order|Order]] 20 March (16:50 AEST)

==Faulty information==
These three entries,
* ''German Wortkers Party, an anti-Semitic, nationalist group.''
*''Hitler escaped being shot, because he tripped and fell right before soldiers opened fire. ''
*''In 1937, a fire occurred in the Reichstag building''

all probably need a little closer scrutiny. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
**Rob, you are a Sysop...you can unlock the page and add the foot notes as well as any of us. I added the citation to the fire commentary, how many would you think are needed? Just let me know, or add your own. No one, especially me, took ownership of this page, other than my attempt to focus the article not on minute trivia, but on the man whose name heads the page. ''I will repeat once again, it is far easier to just use direct contact about these things.'' It stave's off "misunderstands" as to ones intent. ;-) ..--~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 22:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::You mean IM? I still haven't figured out how to use gmail's IM. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps you are being disingenius? :p It takes all of 2 minutes to download and install Yahoo, MSN or AIM. Yahoo even has a web-based IM procedure: https://login.yahoo.com/config/login_verify2?.src=pg&.done=http://messenger.yahoo.com/webmsgr/launcher.php?back=http://messenger.yahoo.com/ so you don't even have to install anything on your computer.
:Not really; I work out of a library here so I don't think I can install it permanently. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, that is why I gave you the link. The web-based IM client doesn't require any install. Oh well, it was just a thought, since you just seem to involved and busy here. I thought since I will be revising and checking several hundred articles, it would be a better way to keep you in the loop. But then, since you are checking most of the site everyday, it might not be a problem.....--~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==1933 Election==

This should be cleaned up to show that Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg in January of 1933 at the insistence of von Papen and others since the Nazis were a minority. Then in March, after the Reichstag Fire, Hitler called another election where the Nazis and DNVP achieved a majority. He didn't really "stand" for election to Chancellor - he had already assumed the office prior to the second election. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Criticism" Section ==

Shouldn't there be a "criticism" section added, for consistency's sake?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Where? On the main page? Or here, in Talk? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Roehm and Hitler ==

Ernst Roehm is an interesting figure in the rise of the Nazi. If we want to discuss him, I would suggest to do it when we get to the Roehm putsch, which happend when the Nazi where in power. In a move to consolidate his power Hitler had the entire top of the SA executed, among them Rhoem, leader of the SA, and a close friend of Hitler. [[User:Order|Order]] 24 March, 11:00 (AEST)

:Having a Landsberg section is to much. It was important, but not important enough to justify a subsection. The most important bit about it that he wrote Mein Kampf there. No it just looks that you want to slip in the unrelated facto that Hitler had a openly gay supporter (although he wasn't openly gay, it was a widely known secret, used in the onset to the Roehm putsch). Roehm, and his orientation are important when we get to describe how Hitler consolidated his power, after he came to power. [[User:Order| Order]] 24 March, 11:00 (AEST)

::The business about Rohm is extremely important, for this very reason--because of all the misinformation out there about Nazism & gays. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Roehm being gay, I agree with Order. However, I do question the direction the material is taking. ''This page is about Adolf Hitler'', while most of the additions have to do with WW II, or perhaps should be on a page titled "Nazi Germany" or added to the "Germany" page as history. I don't think we can make some intellectual argument that the entire history of the Nazi Party should fall under Hitler's personal page, nor should the history of WWII. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is all going to be important material to this article. Walter Langer, ''The Mind of Adolf Hitler'', 1972 cites Hermann Rauschning, who "reports that he has met two boys who claimed that they were Hitler's homosexual partners, but their testimony can hardly be taken at face value. More condemning," adds Langer, "would be the remarks dropped by [Albert] Foerster, the Danzig gauleiter, in conversation with Rauschning. Even here, however, the remarks deal only with Hitler's impotence as far as heterosexual relationships go, without actually implying that he indulges in homosexuality. It is probably true that Hitler calls Foerster 'Bubi,' which is a common nickname employed by homosexuals in addressing their partners. This alone is not adequate proof that he has actually indulged in homosexual practices with Foerster, who is known to be a homosexual" (Langer:178). However, writes Langer, "Even today, Hitler derives sexual pleasure from looking at men's bodies and associating with homosexuals" (Langer:179). Too, Hitler's greatest hero was Frederick the Great, a well-known homosexual (Garde:44). [http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html]

But there's even much better sources than these. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

* [[UUser:TK|TerryK]], Roehm is interesting in relation to Hitler, when it comes to the Roehm putsch. Because it shows that Hitler was so eager for power, that he even had close friends executed. In the Beer Hall Putsch it is just at its wrong place. But RobS really want's to put his statement that Hitler was friends with a gay (woohoo), and he can't wait for the appropiate place. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:34, 23 March 2007

::: I agree. It is too easy when dealing with major historical figures to try and cram every event that occured on their watch into their page. But the Night of the Long Knives was critical to Hitler's rise to power. And since Rohm' sexuality was critical to its initiation, it does deserve a mention in relation to that event.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::"While Adolf Hitler is today recognized as the central figure of Nazism, he was a less important player when the Nazi machine was first assembled. Its first leader was Ernst Roehm. Homosexual historian Frank Rector writes that "Hitler was, to a substantial extent, Roehm's protegé" (Rector:80). Roehm had been a captain in the German army. Hitler had been a mere corporal. After World War I, Roehm was highly placed in the underground nationalist movement that plotted to overthrow the Weimar government and worked to subvert it through assassinations and terrorism. In The Order of the Death's Head, author Heinz Hohne writes that Roehm met Hitler at a meeting of a socialist terrorist group called the Iron Fist and "saw in Hitler the demagogue he required to mobilize mass support for his secret army" (Hohne:20). Roehm, who had joined the German Worker's Party before Hitler, worked with him to take over the fledgling organization. With Roehm's backing, Hitler became the first president of the party in 1921 (ibid.:21) and changed its name to the National Socialist German Worker's Party. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: So you want conservapedia to become a place for homosexual history writing, rather than conventional history writing? [[User:Order|Order]] 11:44, 24 March 2007

: [[User:RobS|RobS]] Can you stop editing the main article. You don't like it when Hitlers gays friend is not mentioned, you don't like it, when it is properly put in context. You just want to have this litlle fact, and nothing more, that Roehm was gay in there. Why? [[User:Order|Order]] 11:44, 24 March 2007

::Indeed it is not a little fact, it is integral to what Hitler & Nazism is. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::A query here: are you, [[User:RobS|RobS]], implying that Hitler, et al and Nazism were, at their heart, a homosexual cult? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 21:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*'''You two walk away, cool down, and leave it alone for a day. Don't make me call the teacher!!''' ROFLMFAO! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The intial reference basically was cut and pasted from Wikipedia; now we see the problems with it. Other sources say Rohm was not Hitler's deputy, rather his boss, as early as 1921. The wiki enrtry says they met in 1923. It's been many, many years since I've directly dealt with this stuff, but I am intimately familiar with the primary sources, and will establish a definitive account. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What made Roehm critical to the early growth of the Nazis and the rise of Hitler was his connections to the Army. They controlled Bavaria and Roehm was able to use his influence to give Hitler and the Nazis a level of protection from the authorities. His being a homosexual was irrelevant at that point and time.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 21:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Adolf Hitler

2007-03-24T01:24:31Z

Cracker: /* Roehm and Hitler */

==Improvement Proposals==
*'''''Due to vandalism, please post ''MAJOR'' improvement proposals here, in this section. Page is now unlocked for registered users.'''''

----
I don't think "liberal" is a word most people would use in describing Adolph Hitler. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:12, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Going by Conservapedia's definition of "[[liberal]]", for example the points about gun control, same-sex marriage, amnesty for illegal aliens, foreign treaties, increased power for labor unions, etc., I think we can all agree that Adolf Hitler was undeniabley liberal in every way that matters.

:--[[User:Tooner440|Tooner440]] 01:09, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:: I don't mean to rain on your parade, but most of your claims are either partially or entirely wrong. Hitler did not promote same-sex marriage; in fact, the Nazis made an attempt to exterminate homosexuality[http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/homobg.html][http://www.holocaust-trc.org/homosx.htm][http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=395203][http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JLKUJH2DhsgC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PR9&sig=9gAKq3BpNPbebZqenWnNH7npmcE&dq=nazi+homosexuals#PPA14,M1][http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cYIlhr8ygHkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&sig=uzd8I5LpQJfXzrxukvDzW7B3Tmg&dq=nazi+homosexuals][http://www2.rz.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SWAST.HTM]. So, we can remove that point from your argument. As for the others, we all know that the Nazi immigration policies were entirely race-based; they may've been friendly towards "Aryans," but not so towards anyone else, so I'm confused as to where the unsourced, blanket claim that they provided "amnesty for illegal aliens" comes from; at best, that's partially (significantly so) incorrect. The claim that Hitler was friendly towards labor unions is a mistake, though I think I know how (through faulty reading) you arrived at that conclusion; while Hitler pandered to labor while a powerless politician, when he gained power, he actually abolished all labor unions except the German Labor Front, a wing of the Nazi Party (this being a Fascist, not "liberal" move, and one designed to ingratiate him with industry)[http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch16.htm][http://www2.dsu.nodak.edu/users/dmeier/Holocaust/hitler.html]. Finally, it should be noted that the Weimar Republic passed the first gun control laws in 1928[http://www.gunownersalliance.com/kopel.htm]; this certainly doesn't mean that Hitler was (or wasn't) a fan of gun control, but it really leaves you, I would say, grasping at straws to say he was in any way a "liberal."
::-- [[User:S. Ugarte|S. Ugarte]] 22:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Gun control is a phenomena of any dictatorship, regardless of political bent. Treaties have been signed by leaders on the left and right alike; they're not a "liberal" invention. And I'd hardly call beginning a continent-wide war and the attempted extermination of an entire people "liberal" qualities. The word is pointless here.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 01:15, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Its certainly not pointless! Just because Hiltler was evil that means he can't be called liberal? He above all other examples shows what liberalism takem to its extreme can do!!! -- [[User:Earth6000|Earth6000]] 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Hitler had a liberal stance on same sex marriage? And amnesty for illegal aliens? Goodness. I'm more galled, though, by the "in every way that matters". Sure, mass genocide isn't a terribly liberal idea, but hey, look at the big picture! The man banned handguns! [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 07:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Um aren't you forgetting the stuff he's famous for? For example, mass genocide? I think his views on marriage pale into insigificance! [[User:Kahlua bridge|Kahlua bridge]]

Also is there any research that shows Hiltler was possessed by satan or some sort of demon? I want to include that possibility in the article but I don't have a good source yet. Can anyone help? -- [[User:Earth6000|Earth6000]] 23:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: Unfortunately you can't explain someone's actions by 'possession'. If we're going to understand how a whole country could follow a man's actions that led to the extermination of 6million Jews we have to kind of think beyond 'it was a demon wot did it'. [[User:Kahlua bridge|Kahlua bridge]] 14:10, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

How can there be research showing Hitler was possessed by Satan or a "demon"? Regardless of whether this "research" exists, by Commandment 1 everything here has to be "true or verifiable". The existance of God, Satan or "demons" is faith-based, i.e. it is not possible to prove by a scientific method and has no place in an encyclopedia. This is not to dispute the veracity of these claims, I just do not see how something can be "verifiable" if we are talking about a matter of faith. You can believe it and it may well be true but to include it here is not readdressing Wikipedia-based bias, it's just plain wrong. --[[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]] 11:10, 13 March 2007 (GMT)

A liberal? I doubt it. A totalitarian fascist dictator would be a more accurate description. A left wing or right wing view of his politics is irrelevant to the fact that he was responsible for the deaths of millions of people - something which surely all people from all sides of the political spectrum find horrifying.

Politics is a grid, not a line. Liberals are "Government controls economy, leaves morality alone", Conservative is "Government grows morality, leaves economy alone", Libertarianism is "Government leaves morality and economy alone", and Fascism is "Government controls economy and morality". Hitler was a fascist. Of course, the real world has millions of political ideologies, but cut it down to the broad four, and Hitler was clearly a fascist. Trying to fit people, especially people with extreme viewpoints, into an either-or political equation is folly. -Momoka (I appear to be having issues signing my name. Fah.)

== RobS and Order playing ping pong on German history ==

: Adolf Hitler was not a liberal, not even by the list positions that define [[Liberal|liberal]]. He neuterd gays, killed trade unionists, gave mothers who had more than 4, 6 and 8 kids a medal of honour (rank 3 to 1), implemented a maximun of 10% for female students at universities, madeit illegal for women to pursue a professorship, he killed and starved foreigners, broke disarments treaties and increased military spending. This just show that you don't have to be liberal to be evil. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 2007, 22:22 (AEST)
::''implemented a maximun of 10% for female students at universities''
::How about "''implemented a sex based quota for female students at universities''"? [[User:RobS|RobS]]
::: I guess you just want to mock this site, don't you. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 2007, 12:00 (AEST)
::::Let's be clear and unambiguous as to what we are talking about. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: Calling a ''10% cap'' a ''quota'' is just plain wrong. They are different things. But since I assume that you know this, I conclude that you just want to slip in some outrageous claims, to make Conservaedia look like a project of a bunch of ignorants. It's called subtle vandalism. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 2007, 12:40 (AEST)
::Is this the definition, Liberal = good guy, non-liberal = bad guy? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::: No, look at the article on [[Liberal]] how conservapedia defines it. And there you find that liberal is defined as pro-gay, pro trade-union, pro-affirmative action, pro-gender equality, pro-foreign immigration, pro-disarmament, anti-militaristic. And he was obviously none of it. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 2007, 10:22 (AEST)
::::Another article that needs improvement, it is after all, a work in progress. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:21, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Do you suggest to change the definition of liberal, such that it also includes fascist dictators? I am puzzled at your eagerness to cast history of the 3rd Reich in terms of current US politics. Either its just a trap to provoke people to say something stupid, or you are just fairly naive about the nature of third Reich.--[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 2007, 12:40 (AEST)
::::::Actually I was just reading some of Hitler's enlightened reasoning. Seems his Socialist background gave us this piece of wisdom:

:::::::"'''''Science cannot lie, for it's always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does 10 in good faith. It's Christianity that's the liar.''''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:53, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: First, science and socialism are not the same. Edward Teller e.g. was a great scientist, but certainly no socialist. That Hitler was critical of organized religion, and especially of Christianity is no secret, especially the peaceful variant of it. But for any anti-christian quote you can find, there exists dozens of theistic quotes of him, as well. Is it so hard to understand that Hitler doesn't fit well in your limited liberal vs conservative, christian vs atheist world view that define current US politics.--[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 2007, 12:40 (AEST)

:::::::::(a) Science and "enlightened, rational" thinking, from which Socialism was born, certainly does need to be discussed here. (b) Yes, Hitler claimed Providence ordained him to his mission; however I think we can safely conclude his god was not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (c) What limited view? Let me state '''emphatically''', I reject the Left/Right Political Spectrum Theory. And like any [[theory]], it is lacking in facts. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: (a) Just because socialism was one of the outcomes of the enlightenment, it is not the only one. The American constitution for example is another. You give, probably unwilling, to much credit to socialism. Socialism pretended to be scientific, but that doesn't means that it was scientific, and certainly not that science is socialist.
:::::::::: (b) There are also many quote where he refers to the Christian God. Its not the Abrahamic God's fault that he was claimed by Hitler, nor is it your fault, if you follow the same God. Hilter also claimed Martin Luther, and many others. Just because Hitlers view of the Christian God doesn't coincide with yours, doesn't mean that he is a socialist (which again is something different from being a liberal).
:::::::::: (c) Indeed. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 2007, 15:00 (AEST)
:::::::::::(b)(cont)-- Hitler didn't claim any God that I know, other than himself. The divisions in Germany are not traditionally East-West; it is North-South, Lutheran-Catholic. Hitler was from a Southern German state, Austria. And the majority anti-Catholic Lutherans til this day in Germany view Hilter & Nazism as what may happen when (secularized) catholics get in control.
::::::::::::Austria wasn't a state of Germany, until Hitler's Anschluss. An it isn't a state now. And indeed there is a north-south divide, but hat doesn't coincide with the Catholic-Lutheran divide, which is more a North-West South-East divide, not even that would be correst. Westphalia has, and especially in the Weimar Republic one of the centers of political catholicism. And Adenauer, the first Chancellor after the war was Catholic, and not from the South either. The majority of Germans view Hitler an Nazism as what can happen if an ideology gets into control. Also the Lutherans. Ask some Germans.--[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 2007, 17:00 (AEST)
:::::::::::::You're using "state" it appears in the Anglo-Amrerican sense; Austria & Bavaria (Switzerland too) are southern German predominately Catholic states--more precisley Austria & Switzerland are predominatly Catholic nation-states, whereas Bavaria is a predominately Catholic state of the Federal Republic. All three states, together with the north German "Lander", share a common German culture. But the religious wars between Catholic and Lutheran are still deeply engrained in German concsiousness, trust me, even among Germans in the United States three generations removed from their immigrant great grandparants.
::::::::::::::* Given that this site has a US roots, it is only natural to use state for part of a federal republic. Especially, if you talk about Bavaria, which is a state, and Austria, which is a country. Switzerland is a separate category altogether, even though it has a German speaking majority, it was never a "German" state or country, it is just a German speaking country. Austria indeed considered it self a German country, and considered in the 18 hundreds to join Germany. And also after WW 1, there voices in Austria that it should join Germany.
::::::::::::::* The religious wars are something different again. You kind of forget about the Rhineland and Westphalia, very catholic areas. Especially in the Weimar Republic, when the Zentrum party, who was in government most of the time, was catholic and not southern German, but with a strong base in the Rhineland and around. --[[User:Order]]

:::::::::::::::Fine, but don't expect Germans to think of themselves in the same way you think of them. Blacfkforest too; most of the states that border Catholic France are Catholic too.
:::::::::::::::: Sure I don't expect them to think of themselves as I do. Afterall, there are 80 million Germans, other than me. Rhineland-Westpahlia, the biggest state even though it does not border France, is predominantly Catholic, too. --[[User:Order]]

:::::::::::::::Let me make an obeservation that shouldn't be too hard to figure out: of the nation-states of Europe, Germany is ''the most'' like American society. England is 90% Protestant with a State run Religion (i.e. no separation of Church and States); France & Poland are 97%+ Catholic, one highly secularized, the other not. Italy & Spain, virtually uniformly Catholic, whereas the Scandanavian and Low Countries are heavily Protestant. Germany, liket he US, is roughly 60/40 Protestant/Catholic, with the large Catholic minoroities constituting the single largest denomination in both countries. And the Protestant majorities are divided up among dozens of denominations. This is a big part of the unique relationship between germany and the United States. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::The Netherlands is by that account even more similar to the US than Germany. They even have a bible belt, something Germany hasn't. But what point do you try to make? --[[User:Order]]

:::::::::::::Albert Speer has pointed out, the real hard core racist Nazi's like Hitler and Eichmann came from the former territories of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, where Germans were a minority for a very longtime and held positions of privilege among people they looked down upon. With the collapse of their privileges in 1919 many left the former Austria-Hungry to reside within the territory of the old German Empire, and blamed the Jews for the collapse of both. But the racist attitudes were always a tuff sell among the Protestant North, which being secularized, embraced many Socialist doctrines. Even today, Angela Merkel, daughter of a Lutheran preacher who family was persecuted under the Communist East, embraces "market socialism", whatever that means. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:56, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::::*There were also core Nazis from Prussia. You might want to look at the election maps from that time.
::::::::::::::* Also to say that Germans were a minority in Austria-Hungary is a bit a funny view. Austria-Hungary was a patchwork of nations, and the German nation of Austria was the dominating one. Its like saying that the English were an oppressed minority in the British empire. And after the end of the Austrian-Hungarian empire, Austria just remained Austrian. Austria is within the bounds of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.
::::::::::::::* The racist attitudes were not to much a touch sell among Lutherans, mainly because Luther himself said very nasty things about the Jews. The a large part of the Lutherans, who later formed the "German Church", who were supporters of most that the Nazis did.
::::::::::::::*Angela Merkel is not supporting market socialism. What she supports is "soziale Marktwirtschaft", social market economy. And this has been the doctrine in the Federal Republic, ever since Erhard was minister of economy in the 50s.
::::::::::::::*It seems that 3rd generation German immigrants have sometimes a funny recollection of events and German culture. You got for example Octoberfests in to celebrate German heritage. The Oktoberfest is however a decidedly Bavarian event, and most German immigrants to the US will never have been at any "Oktoberfest". However their offspring does celebarte it. The most important fests in other parts of Germany are "Schuetzenfest", or "Kirmes", or "Karneval". --[[User:Order]]
:::::::::::::::Let's not confuse Prussian Officers with Nazi Party members, despite all the Hollywood garbage we've all been subjected to. Germans in Austria-Hungary were about 10 or 11% and mostly held all the Civil Service positions; Hitler's dad was a Customers Inspector. I know Lutherans who reject anti-Semitism casue they feel it's something Catholics would do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::* Who was talking about Prussian Officers? I was talking about Prussians, as in inhabitant of the then biggest state in Germany. As in: inhabitant of e.g. Braunschweig or Wilhelmshaven, two hotbeds of Nazi support. Cities in then Prussia.
::::::::::::::::* Surely there were Lutheran opposing in Hitler, see the "Bekennende Kirche" (Confessing Church), but you had the more numerous group of "Deutsche Christen". If there are Lutherans who blame it on the Catholics, then these probably try to close their eyes that Lutherans were as guilty of cooperating with Hitler, as was the Vatican.

:::::::::::On another note, it's interesting to comtemplate how socially progressive Germany elected a Catholic three decades before America ever did. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::: 30 years after Georg von Hertling, that would be Truman. Or 30 years after Fehrenbach. That would be eihter Truman or Eisenhower? --[[User:Order|Order]] 19 March, 17:30 AEST

== Fire in the Reichstag ==
This page is protected so you will have to edit it yourself. The circumstances of the fire in the Reichstag are still contested. Its not clear if the Nazis put it on fire themself or if Maarten van der Lubbe actually did it as the Nazis claimed. However the fire gave Hitler the opportunity to obtain dictatorial powers by an emergency law. You might want to say that this ended the Weimar Republic. But Hitler was already Chancellor at that point, and he wasn't president, yet. The statement that he put the Reichstag on fire to end the republic is way too simplistic. You either remove it, or give more background. Namely, that Hitler was already appointed chancellor, that the fire led to emergency laws which effectively made an end to parliamentary democracy, and that he later, when president Hindenburg died, also assumed the powers of the president. But the statement, as it is now, is simplistic can better be removed. --[[User:Order|Order]] 16:50, 15 March 2007 (AEST)

: ''Utilizing'' is a bit better than ''starting''. What about ''exploiting''? --[[User:Order|Order]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (AEST)
:okay [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 02:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Looks good to me. --[[User:Order|Order]] 17:50, 15 March 2007 (AEST)
:The definitive account of the Riechstag Fire is [http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0306808692] ''To the Bitter End: An Insider's Account of the Plot to Kill Hitler, 1933-1944'' by Hans Gisevius. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::

== Dutch hatred ==
I lived in the Netherlands for a substantial amount of time, and I know that the Dutch are not too fond of this guy. But this doesn't justify a subsection on "Dutch hatred". Hitler didn't care much about the Dutch, and the Dutch attitude towards him was probably one of his minor problems. there is no point to have a special section on the relationship with the Dutch. --[[User:Order|Order]] 16:50, 15 March 2007 (AEST)

:Well duh, the Dutch are Baptists pretty much,and Hitler & Nazism came from the Catholic territories of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. Just as I said, Nazi racism was always a tuff sell in the north. (And yes, some do consider Nederland a German state, albeit somewhat Anglicized, also).

:* Well duh, the Dutch are Calvinists, or Dutch reformed, with a huge Catholic minority (40% in the 1970s before secularization set in, 31% percent now.)
:* Indeed you said repeatedly that Nazis were a though sell in the North, but that doesn't mean that it was true. They were popular for example popular in Schleswig Holstein, the Nothernmost part of Germany. In 1932, one year before Hitler came to power, Hitler won 52% of the votes in this state (vs 37% at the national level). Or the county of Gifhorn, in the Hanover area: 68% for Hitler, one year before he came to power. That's why I told you to take a look on the map. Still, Hitler didn't do as well in Prussia than in other states. And you know why? Because he did poor in the Catholic parts of Prussia. Do some research, rather than listen to anecdotal evidence from people you happen to know.

: That definition of the Netherlands might do it well in a sports bar, where people are confuse "Dutch" and "Deutsch", but other than that it just nonsense. Sure the Netherlands used to be part of the Holy Roman Empire in the middle ages, but ever since their independence from Spain, they have been a separate entity with their own identity. --[[User:Order|Order]] 16:30, 20 March 2007 (AEST)

== Sozis ==
''Sozis'' is just the German slang for ''social democrats''. It doesn't belong in this article. The name of the party is SPD. And they were different from socialist and communists, who were represented by another party. Furthermore, Hitler was candidate for chancellor before that election, since he was the undisputed head of his party for years. There was nothing like a primary. And he didn't become Chancellor through an election, but he was appointed, about five week before that election. He then used these five weeks to pass an emergency law after the Reichtags fire. This law gave him the opportunity to imprison many opponents. The 1933 election cannot be considered as an open and fair election, anymore. The last fair election was 1932, when his party was backed by 33% of the electorate. --[[User:Order|Order]] 16:50, 15 March 2007 (AEST)

== Locked article version ==

This article is truly one of the worst at Conservapedia (not that Adolf deserves better). I counted no fewer than 16 errors in the current locked version, and many other statements that are distortions or oversimplifications of historical record. Particularly because AH was such a horrible person, it seems to me that an accurate article on him would be important here, but what we have is a 5th grade book report for history class. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 22:54, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Rant in final solution. ==

The statement in the section final solution about what Lucy Dawidowicz thinks about it is complete pointless. Its noting more than a red herring. --[[User:Order|Order]] 19 March 14:00 (AEST)
:Dawidowicz isn't qualified? and the Simon Wiesenthal Center who quotes her is suspect? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I didn't say that she wasn't qualified. But in a two sentence summary of the final solution, Lucy Dawidowicz opnion has no significance. If you would write a 10 volume histroy of the holocaust, you might want to spend a page on her and her opinons. You just put it here to discretit the Wiesenthal center, or make some other vague point, but not to tell people anything they need to know about the final solution. --[[User:Order|Order]] 19 March 14:00 (AEST)
:The mainspace reads, ''responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews, many disabled persons, and homosexuals''. This cite, [http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/holocaust.html] which hasn't been fully qualified, states, "''100,000 were arrested and 50,000 were serving prison terms... deaths of at least an estimated 15,000 ..."'' and gives a breakout in statisitcs ''* 10,000–25,000 homosexual men''". I am inclined to believe this may be a valid citation. So the idea that millions of homosexuals were exterminated simply is lacking evidence.
:: Nobody claims that there were millions of homosexuals killed. You are simply putting up a strawman. --[[User:Order|Order]] 19 March 14:00 (AEST)
*My God! Are you implying the mass genocide was over-stated? --[[User:TK|[[TK|TerryK]]([[User talk:TK|contact me]])]] 23:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yesterday someone said "homsexuals at the same rate as Jews", this would mean something like 2 1/2 to 4 million homosexuals, ''because they were homosexual'', in addition to all other races, groups, and classifications. Clearly a distortion -- and a pattern -- to create the aura of victimization for recruiting into contemporary identity politics. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Thats an issue of the person who said that yesterday. --[[User:Order|Order]] 19 March 14:00
:Then, I hope we can see the end of this attempted recruitment into contemporary [[identity politics]] with these distortions and exaggerations that some editors are working tirelessly to insert into several articles. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:33, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
*If you can unlock these items on a person by person basis, I did a paper in college on this topic, and would be happy to take a stab at it.--[[User:TK|[[TK|TerryK]]([[User talk:TK|contact me]])]] 23:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:I didn't lock it but I'll look into it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, now no worry, as I can unlock it, lol. Anyway, I don't know if we can leave it open, as I have reviewed some of the old edits...nasty business it is. Imagine old Adolf must be laughing he is causing such a ruckus 65 years past his death! --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
----
Yes there are some problems. Wikipedia does have at least two good articles, and this is one of them, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_versus_intentionalism . The "Final Solution to the Jewish Question in Europe" does not refer to the "Final Solution to the Jewish, Gay, Gypsy, Jehovah Witness and others Question in Europe". I will make the correction right here and now. Hitler's '''intent''', as the school of Intentionalism refers to, was to eradicate European Jews. Yes, indeed, others were systematically persecuted, rounded up, suffered, and murdered. But as to discussing the Holocaust, or Final Solution (and the appropriate subhead as well), let's not downplay it that Hitler intended to exterminate Jews.

The Minutes to the Wannsee Conference, where the Final Solution (or Holocaust) was planned, does not make any reference to homosexuals or other groups. So the issue of non-Jews must be dealt with in this article. However, what exists on the mainspace at this moment is clearly non-factual information. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps everyone is just getting too picky and technical? The point is, the bottom line is, anyone Herr Hitler took a dislike to was shipped off to the camps. Catholics, Lutherans, homosexuals, Jews, even the wine grower whose wine Eva or Himmler didn't care for, anyone and everyone who displeased someone in the Nazi upper echelons, was fair game. Hitler was charismatic in the same way Jim Jones was, and many, many others.....all were a cult unto themselves, a personality cult, run amok. I don't think we need to create issues where there are none, nor necessarily look for hidden meanings in quoting numbers. As a Christian, it makes me just as sick if one homosexual, Jew, Lutheran,or Catholic was gassed or worked to death, or if it was 100,000. No matter if they had accepted Jesus Christ or not, The Lord has commanded me to love them all, the same as if my own true brother, and judge them not, least the Lord judge me here and now, and strike me down hard, and that I shall (and everyone else should as well) endeavor to do. Certainly an article need not be exacting in numbers to convey to all the true Evil that he was. That is all we need do. --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::No one denies any of this. But I'd encourage some understanding of Dawidowicz and the Intentionalist school. To say the Final Solution, or more properly the Holocaust '''was not''' primarily intended to eradicate the Jews of Europe is not picky and technical--indeed denying that can be considered Holocasut denial. Let's nip this in bud right here.

::Yes, all "undesirables" and "asocials" were targets for enslavement and ultimately extermination, too. Let's write a clean historical record, and keep out efforts to build DNC coalition politics with false claims that alleged right-wingers and fascists, Republicans and nazis' all today are targeting the same victimized groups for extermination. That is precisely the kind of garbage that is rapidly destroying Wikipedia's credibility, and why sites like this have come into existence. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
*Well, hopefully you will find the changes on the page are more on target, focusing on who Hitler was......which, I think, is the whole point of a page labled with his name. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 10:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Help ==
The current version has so many factual errors, I give up fixing it. Has somebody any suggestion to get this right. --[[User:Order|Order]] 19 March 18:00

*I have done some inital changes, and have re-locked the page. I intend to re-order and perhaps change the titles of some of the secondary headers, Tuesday and Wednesday. Then we can see about opening it, allowing editing. I want to get some input from those of you posting here, and A.S. This just might be one of a few pages that might need to be kept locked, due to the passions it brings out. If you have ideas or contributions you think might help, please post them in a new header, and we can talk about it. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 09:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Plagarism==

The paragraphs before the Contents box is almost a word-for-word reprint of Elie Wiesel's essay on Hitler for Time Magazine in 1998. It needs to be pulled ASAP or properly sourced, if it can be.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:do you have link? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sure. [http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/hitler.html] --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*The citation was lost in constant editing, but the proper way to handle these things is to simply add the citation, or contact the Sysop who made the changes, either on their talk page, or via IM, Dave3172, FYI. There isn't anything, that isn't lewd vandilism, that requires imediate (read as instant) action, is there?--~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 22:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Terry, it looked like someone took Wiesel's essay and then added a couple of lines to make it look as if it was original. That's why I said it should be removed, or cited if possible.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, I understood what you said Dave. However since you stated where it was from, I was confused as to your comment ''"it should be sourced, if it can be"'', since you stated right here the source! Sorry for the lapse in not checking and making sure the attribution was there. Now, after all this, do you find the page more on target than it was before? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, I do. Although it looks like a bit of an info dump, it is sourced. My hesitancy was that in its original form, it looked like someone took Wiesel's essay and added stuff into it, hence my hesitancy in wondering if it could be sourced. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 07:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

*So, since other information, sourced, was woven in and out, and you knew, instantly recognized, the source as Elie Wiesel's essay on Hitler for Time Magazine, you still went and made the headline here calling it Plagiarism? You do know some of the sysops here would have warned you for that... lol. Since you hadn't managed to contribute anything nearly as concise, organized or on topic, what's your beef? I'm gonna drop this now, but like I said, in the future contact the person first, like a big boy, rather than running around saying someone is dishonest, okay? It's the Christian way. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 08:08, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Terry, next time, if you're going to use a source, don't add stuff to it. You can't source an article if you've added other material to it - but it still counts as plagarism. And frankly, I wouldn't call a multi-paragraph info-dump "concise." The main reason I don't write major things here is b/c the issues surrounding copyright here haven't been resolved. Trust me, if that is resolved I'll add a lot more. That said, in the future I will try to contact the individual in question first. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I have been editing, writing for over twenty years, and I haven't the foggiest notion of what you mean by "Info Dump". This isn't supposed to be the Readers Digest. And yes, I can cite sources, with quotations, and interweave other material, in following paragraphs. What isn't you don't comprehend, about my posting here I was working on the page? Is there a time limit, set in your own mind, that I have exceeded? I see lots of back-seat drivers, and plenty of people willing to argue on the talk pages, and darn little constructive ideas offered.........--~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 09:52, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Beer hall incident ==
This entry is just unreal. Sure Hitler and Ludendorf planned the coup in a Beer Hall, but weren't caught when planning, but during the actual coup attempt. And a lot of people got wounded and survived armed confrontation in the streets of Munich. [[User:Order|Order]] 20 March (11:40 AEST)
:As I recall, only Hitler & Ludendorf survived of the all the Party members walking down a narrow street with arms locked. Hitler & Ludendorf stood next to each other in the middle of the first rank. What this means is when the order was given by machine gunners atop the parliament building, they were ordered to shoot everyone ''but'' Hitler and Ludendorf.

:At the time Hitler was a relative unknown, but Ludendorf was a war hero, so they couldn't kill him. And Hitler surviving this close encounter with death (as also surviving WWI since he was at the front in the first 60 days of fighting) is what gave Hitler a popular mystique of being invincible, constantly survivng against all odds. This was revived after the July 20 plot. And ultimately in the end, Hitler took his own life. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

If you know some of the particular, why is you entry then so bad and misinfomred? [[User:Order|Order]] 20 March (15:40 AEST)
:Huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Your latest, already improved entry reads:

:''Hitler joined Erich Ludendorff in Munich. Ludendorff was planning a revolt against the provincial governor in a small beer hall. In the ensuing fight with the Army, Hitler and Ludendorff were the only two who escaped being shot.''

Compare this with what a British school project made of it [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERbeer.htm].

You will notice

* Your ''small beer hall'' had room for 3000 Bavarian officials.
* It was a prime minister of a state, not a governor of a province.
* The shooting took place the other day.
* No mention of tripping.
* Goering survived. A third person surviving?
* Ludendorff didn't escape.
* Hitler was caught a few days later.

And what even they fail to mention, is that the Bavarian PM did only pretend to collaborate, because that night he made an Radio announcement denying any support. At least 7 factual errors in 3 sentences. An achievement. [[User:Order|Order]] 20 March (16:50 AEST)

==Faulty information==
These three entries,
* ''German Wortkers Party, an anti-Semitic, nationalist group.''
*''Hitler escaped being shot, because he tripped and fell right before soldiers opened fire. ''
*''In 1937, a fire occurred in the Reichstag building''

all probably need a little closer scrutiny. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
**Rob, you are a Sysop...you can unlock the page and add the foot notes as well as any of us. I added the citation to the fire commentary, how many would you think are needed? Just let me know, or add your own. No one, especially me, took ownership of this page, other than my attempt to focus the article not on minute trivia, but on the man whose name heads the page. ''I will repeat once again, it is far easier to just use direct contact about these things.'' It stave's off "misunderstands" as to ones intent. ;-) ..--~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 22:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::You mean IM? I still haven't figured out how to use gmail's IM. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps you are being disingenius? :p It takes all of 2 minutes to download and install Yahoo, MSN or AIM. Yahoo even has a web-based IM procedure: https://login.yahoo.com/config/login_verify2?.src=pg&.done=http://messenger.yahoo.com/webmsgr/launcher.php?back=http://messenger.yahoo.com/ so you don't even have to install anything on your computer.
:Not really; I work out of a library here so I don't think I can install it permanently. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, that is why I gave you the link. The web-based IM client doesn't require any install. Oh well, it was just a thought, since you just seem to involved and busy here. I thought since I will be revising and checking several hundred articles, it would be a better way to keep you in the loop. But then, since you are checking most of the site everyday, it might not be a problem.....--~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==1933 Election==

This should be cleaned up to show that Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg in January of 1933 at the insistence of von Papen and others since the Nazis were a minority. Then in March, after the Reichstag Fire, Hitler called another election where the Nazis and DNVP achieved a majority. He didn't really "stand" for election to Chancellor - he had already assumed the office prior to the second election. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Criticism" Section ==

Shouldn't there be a "criticism" section added, for consistency's sake?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Where? On the main page? Or here, in Talk? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Roehm and Hitler ==

Ernst Roehm is an interesting figure in the rise of the Nazi. If we want to discuss him, I would suggest to do it when we get to the Roehm putsch, which happend when the Nazi where in power. In a move to consolidate his power Hitler had the entire top of the SA executed, among them Rhoem, leader of the SA, and a close friend of Hitler. [[User:Order|Order]] 24 March, 11:00 (AEST)

:Having a Landsberg section is to much. It was important, but not important enough to justify a subsection. The most important bit about it that he wrote Mein Kampf there. No it just looks that you want to slip in the unrelated facto that Hitler had a openly gay supporter (although he wasn't openly gay, it was a widely known secret, used in the onset to the Roehm putsch). Roehm, and his orientation are important when we get to describe how Hitler consolidated his power, after he came to power. [[User:Order| Order]] 24 March, 11:00 (AEST)

::The business about Rohm is extremely important, for this very reason--because of all the misinformation out there about Nazism & gays. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Roehm being gay, I agree with Order. However, I do question the direction the material is taking. ''This page is about Adolf Hitler'', while most of the additions have to do with WW II, or perhaps should be on a page titled "Nazi Germany" or added to the "Germany" page as history. I don't think we can make some intellectual argument that the entire history of the Nazi Party should fall under Hitler's personal page, nor should the history of WWII. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is all going to be important material to this article. Walter Langer, ''The Mind of Adolf Hitler'', 1972 cites Hermann Rauschning, who "reports that he has met two boys who claimed that they were Hitler's homosexual partners, but their testimony can hardly be taken at face value. More condemning," adds Langer, "would be the remarks dropped by [Albert] Foerster, the Danzig gauleiter, in conversation with Rauschning. Even here, however, the remarks deal only with Hitler's impotence as far as heterosexual relationships go, without actually implying that he indulges in homosexuality. It is probably true that Hitler calls Foerster 'Bubi,' which is a common nickname employed by homosexuals in addressing their partners. This alone is not adequate proof that he has actually indulged in homosexual practices with Foerster, who is known to be a homosexual" (Langer:178). However, writes Langer, "Even today, Hitler derives sexual pleasure from looking at men's bodies and associating with homosexuals" (Langer:179). Too, Hitler's greatest hero was Frederick the Great, a well-known homosexual (Garde:44). [http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html]

But there's even much better sources than these. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

* [[UUser:TK|TerryK]], Roehm is interesting in relation to Hitler, when it comes to the Roehm putsch. Because it shows that Hitler was so eager for power, that he even had close friends executed. In the Beer Hall Putsch it is just at its wrong place. But RobS really want's to put his statement that Hitler was friends with a gay (woohoo), and he can't wait for the appropiate place. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:34, 23 March 2007

::: I agree. It is too easy when dealing with major historical figures to try and cram every event that occured on their watch into their page. But the Night of the Long Knives was critical to Hitler's rise to power. And since Rohm' sexuality was critical to its initiation, it does deserve a mention in relation to that event.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::"While Adolf Hitler is today recognized as the central figure of Nazism, he was a less important player when the Nazi machine was first assembled. Its first leader was Ernst Roehm. Homosexual historian Frank Rector writes that "Hitler was, to a substantial extent, Roehm's protegé" (Rector:80). Roehm had been a captain in the German army. Hitler had been a mere corporal. After World War I, Roehm was highly placed in the underground nationalist movement that plotted to overthrow the Weimar government and worked to subvert it through assassinations and terrorism. In The Order of the Death's Head, author Heinz Hohne writes that Roehm met Hitler at a meeting of a socialist terrorist group called the Iron Fist and "saw in Hitler the demagogue he required to mobilize mass support for his secret army" (Hohne:20). Roehm, who had joined the German Worker's Party before Hitler, worked with him to take over the fledgling organization. With Roehm's backing, Hitler became the first president of the party in 1921 (ibid.:21) and changed its name to the National Socialist German Worker's Party. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: So you want conservapedia to become a place for homosexual history writing, rather than conventional history writing? [[User:Order|Order]] 11:44, 24 March 2007

: [[User:RobS|RobS]] Can you stop editing the main article. You don't like it when Hitlers gays friend is not mentioned, you don't like it, when it is properly put in context. You just want to have this litlle fact, and nothing more, that Roehm was gay in there. Why? [[User:Order|Order]] 11:44, 24 March 2007

::Indeed it is not a little fact, it is integral to what Hitler & Nazism is. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::A query here: are you, [[User:RobS|RobS]], implying that Hitler, et al and Nazism were, at their heart, a homosexual cult?

*'''You two walk away, cool down, and leave it alone for a day. Don't make me call the teacher!!''' ROFLMFAO! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The intial reference basically was cut and pasted from Wikipedia; now we see the problems with it. Other sources say Rohm was not Hitler's deputy, rather his boss, as early as 1921. The wiki enrtry says they met in 1923. It's been many, many years since I've directly dealt with this stuff, but I am intimately familiar with the primary sources, and will establish a definitive account. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What made Roehm critical to the early growth of the Nazis and the rise of Hitler was his connections to the Army. They controlled Bavaria and Roehm was able to use his influence to give Hitler and the Nazis a level of protection from the authorities. His being a homosexual was irrelevant at that point and time.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 21:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:CWilson

2007-03-24T00:06:15Z

Cracker: /* I will recommend you to be a Sysop to the director of this site */

== [[Divorce]] ==

Please stop. The encyclopedia is supposed to have an NPOV, and not to condem people to hell. It's not a blog. In addition, you must understand that, for Christians, the influence Mosaic law has been removed to some extent. I don't have a quote at hand, but it's there. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Conservapedia is not a place to present Biblical data as undeniable fact, as much as I might agree with much of it. That's what personal websites are for. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::You may put in as much Biblical data as you wish, but please retain an NPOV, and don't present it as the only valid perspective, even if you believe it is. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Your newest version was somewhat better. Thank you. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Actually, the point is ''not to have'' a liberal bias, not ''to have'' a conservative bias. The two are different concepts. It's an understandable mistake, though, especially for the casual peruser of the encyclopedia :). [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:12, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Thanks for correcting my grammatical error. I don't know what my deal is today… [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:23, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Incest'''

The incest article is up for deletion. Surely a fellow quoter of the Bible is as mad as I am!--[[User:Meekrok|Meekrok]] 14:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
== Earth ==

Your uncle is not a dependable primary source, but I'm sure he's a fine individual. If you want to back up your viewpoints, they're different enough that they deserve a real citation.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, neutrality does not mean stating inane, insupportable opinions.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Magellan sailed around the world. What has supposedly changed since then?? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Good article! ==

I'm still in shock that the group exists, but good article on the [[Flat Earth Society]].--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not the one putting wiki things up. --[[User:John|John]] 20:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Ah, I see what happened. I rolled back the "mulatto" thing but didn't realize it also put wikipedia things up. --[[User:John|John]] 20:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
"Mulatto" is considered offensive. In America, at least, most people would say he's African American. A sociologist could define this in a much more complicated way, but calling him African American wouldn't offend most people. --[[User:John|John]] 21:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

----
Excellent articles, CWilson! Keep up the good work![[User:TylerD.|TylerD.]]

No problem, glad you approve. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 19:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==President Articles==
Sounds good! I've always been interested in presidents, so this should be a fun projetc. [[User:Bobtexas|Bobtexas]] 16:33 PM, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

:Thank you for your kind words of support.
:"Pleasant words are as an honeycomb, sweet to the soul, and health to the bones." (Proverbs 16:24)

:"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me." (Psaum 23:4)
:[[User:JC|JC]] 07:20, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Not allowed to de-Biblify the Bible!==
if you'll look at the [[Bible]] aarticle I done, you'll see the structure and layout that I would like to see for all the books of the Bible. Basically just telling the reader what it's all about. For Genesis, the same thing should apply, but the things that have been made controversial, such as the Creation, the Flood, etc, if we started to explain those within the article then the result would be that it would lose scope and flow. I prefer separate articles on these subjects, where a lot of detail can be devoted to just that. You'll see how Genesis will look when I'm done...give it under five hours! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creation stuff==
I looked at what you had placed in from Genesis, and I had seen something recently (I can't remember when) in which someone took each line from Genesis 1 and added some relevant material which explained the science/evidence supporting that particular verse. I think the same thing should be added here. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:47, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==I am so humbled!==
Maybe I should have done [[Genesis]] the way you did [[Leviticus]]. Good job! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:19, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks for your note ==

CWilson, I thank you for the thorough note you left on my user wall. I regret that I was not able to answer, due to the fact that I was temporarily banned for disagreeing with [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. Such is life.

I would never insult your faith, nor would I try to argue against your own personal beliefs. I respect your choice to take all of your knowledge from the Bible, and I think it is a fine way to structure one's personal and private religion faith. You seem to accept that there are challenges that are out there to biblical literalism, challenges which you have consciously chosen to discount, ignore, or disbelieve. Again, this is a valid personal choice of yours.

I draw the line, however, with forcing the idea on others that your worldview, which you conceded is limited, is complete. While you are willing to end your own inquiry at a certain point, it is unacceptable to demand as a result that all others end their own inquiries at that point, and specifically, you cannot expect others to take as fact what you take merely on ''faith''. Faith is personal and private; facts are not. Facts are objective. Holding your faith as objectively true demeans my own choice about where to end my inquiry, extends beyond your actual knowledge on the subject, and compromises the private nature of your faith.

I accept that you are willing to trust your "trusted friend" the Bible over scientific sources that seem to discount its literal truth. But it is your choice to do so. Shouldn't you allow others to make the same choice, though? And if you admittedly don't know the other side of the story - the scientific side - do you think you should be holding your own private faith as objective fact? You need to admit that your beliefs are based only on faith (which again, is a valid source of personal belief) and stop trying to argue for their objective factuality absent actual knowledge to that effect.

I hope I made the distinction between personal faith and objective truth plain. Again, feel free to accept your view of young earth creationism on faith. Just don't claim that it's fact unless you know objectively that it is.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 09:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bad Idea ==

Sockpuppets meant to harrass ([[User:John Ashcroft]] and [[User:Foggot1]]) don't really help your case. It is meant to discourage, not "stop" outright. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:By no means do I mean to assert myself as superior to you. I'm in High School, and (though I am getting a 4.0) by no means have any degrees. It works to dissuade the extremely obvious vandal-names, not stop them outright. It's a Wiki; this is never possible. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:24, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for the compliment. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Ask User Aschlafly to become an Admin. We need good admins. ==

Ask [[User:Aschlafly]] to become an Admin. We need good admins. I think you would make a good one. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

==Debate==
<quotebox> I would say, although I am no expert, that the large majority of CONSERVATIVE Christians are YECs. We aren't counting loosey goosey "Christians" such as Unitarians and the like. '''And this is a Conservative Christian site''', so yes, I would say that YEC is the majority and goes along with what a lot of the people believe here. I don't see any surpression of views here, though, except attempted supression of unpopular religious ideas and biblical literalism by some of the more liberal on this site. Why can't you people just let us YECs have our beliefs?--CWilson 21:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT) </quotebox> (emphasis mine)

We're having a disucssion here and I'd be interested in your input. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:What_exactly_is_Conservapedia%3F] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== I will recommend you to be a Sysop to the director of this site ==

Sincerely, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:You deserve it, --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:You'll get the sysop. Relax. I saw the back & forth betwixt you and [[User:Sid_3050| Sid]]. When you see something that you feel attacks you, try this trick: Re read the post OUT LOUD. You'll hear what is being said a lot better. You'll also notice what (if anything) you yourself are "adding" to the post. The written word is an imperfect medium of communication for the simple reason that our own state of mind can vastly color what is being read. Take care and when you get the sysopship use it with a light touch until you get to know what it is you're doing. Sincerely, --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 20:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Accusation of attack ==

I replied to you on my talk page and will keep my replies there since I find the "My replies on your page, yours on mine" system confusing for the reader. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:(added reply) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Loch Ness Monster

2007-03-23T23:38:50Z

Cracker: /* This statement need attributions if it is true. I personally doubt there has been a survey */

== This statement need attributions if it is true. I personally doubt there has been a survey ==

It is considered by most to be a legendary hoax.{{fact}} [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:33, 22 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

TWO WORDS: "Tree fiddy" --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Slavery

2007-03-23T23:24:43Z

Cracker: /* Arguments for Slavery */

Why is there no reference to Biblical slavery apart from the captivity of the Jews in Egypt? I know that the enslavement of others by the Jews is controversial (in that the Bible doesn't seem to "condemn" the practice, but I'm sure there are good reasons why either I'm wrong in that or for God's overlooking the practice.

In any event, it is a debate I often have with moral relativists and I was hoping to find something about it here in my own (Christan) people.

: I agree completely. I have posted several Biblical references. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 01:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

"ancient Egypt, where Hebrews were slaves."

There's absolutely no historical evidence for this outside of Exodus.

*The book of Philemon is a record of Paul sending a slave back to his master "no longer as a slave but more than a slave-- a beloved brother." (Philemon 1: 16) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Abomination ==

Can't anyone fix this page? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Is this a joke? ==
I mean. Nothing is cited. And the whole thing is a big, fallacious argument in favor of slavery. - [[User:Moriarty]]
*Did you not see my note, about your post? If you think you are up to it, fix it! That is what a Wiki is for. --~ [[User:TK|SysopTK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I started by deleting the parts about slaves having free housing, food and health care. As an administrator you might want to delete things like that a little quicker because they make this website look alot like some of the white supremist sites. Hopefully, not what you want.
-Gasmonkey

== Recent Removal of Bible passages ==

MountainDew, could you please explain the justification for deleting the quotes from the Bible regarding slavery that were recently added by Spoon.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 06:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The presence of verses in the bible which appear to support slavery in the most direct interpretation is an embarassment to Christianity, but ignoring them is dishonest and will not make them disappear. I think we should keep them, but see if we can find some anti-slavery NT quotes too. - BornAgainBrit

*And you feel, either of you, that biblical quotes are so important in an encyclopedia, explaining slavery to contemporary users, how? Contrary to what you seem to think, this is not the Bible Encyclopedia, but the Conservapedia. MountainDew is a Sysop here, like myself, and is charged with editing and keeping entries on track, and fair. Maybe you guys should spend at least some time researching the slave trade, and maybe contemporary slavery practices, like the White Slave Trade, and that would be most helpful to this page. :-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 15:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: My question for MountainDew was because he ''only'' removed the Bible passages which appeared to justify the slave trade and kept in only those passages which appeared to condemn it. If he had removed all of the passages I would not have had a problem. You said yourself that the job of a SYSOP is to be fair, that edit was not. For me the Bible has nothing to do with my opinions on the slave trade (in case I need to say it - it is repugnant to me), but exactly because he is a SYSOP I assumed that they Bible entries were wanted here.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, ''unlike some users'', we are concerned with the article as a whole, not just matters of religion. Since the Bible does not support slavery, but merely recognizes conditions as they were at the time, it would be unfair to use the Bible to justify any form of salvery. What was that bit about rendering unto Caeser? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 17:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: As I tried to imply, I do not see a reason for there to be ''any'' Bible passages in this article. But if there are any, then they should show how it was from both sides of the argument, i.e. the article should be fair - look at [[User_talk:MountainDew#Spoon|this]] exchange regarding [[User:Spoon]]'s posts - cherry-picking what you want or don't want should not be an option and I wanted to question [[User:MountainDew]]'s employing of this tactic. I'd remove all passages but I assume that they'd be reverted. I agree with you that the Bible cannot be read with a 21st century morality. My vote is for the creation of a new article on "Slavery in the Bible" if anyone wants one. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
*I see where you are coming from, however I am loath to keep making pages just for religious zealots (and their anti-religion counterparts), for every article in the Conservapedia. Since 99% of the humans on this planet are not in favor of slavery, I don't see a need to "balance" such things. Slavery is against the wishes of God, and most all of his children, to put it in a religious parlance. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Fair point, well made. Can we remove the Bible passages from the article? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*I think we can remove anything that represents the Bible and/or God is in favor of Slavery, and leave the Biblical support against slavery. As I said, there really isn't a legitimate argument in favor of slavery, so no need to have a "balance". And if someone is in favor of it, they need to find another site. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

#Balance or not, those arguments are amoung the most liked by anti-christian debaters. Im sure you have seen how much they love to point to one verse or another of the OT and declare 'God is a brutal oppressor!' You can ignore them on the grounds that noone today agrees with them, but they still remain right there, printed in every copy of the old testament. And they ''were'' used in support of slavery, once. Really, what type of Christian chooses to just ignore a verse because it is unpopular? The appropriate response is not to remove these quotes, but to write an argument that Christianity does not support slavery. Optionally, moving them to a 'slavery in the bible' page may be a good idea too. - Suricou

*Slavery, what it is, and it's history, is not a biblical discussion! This is not the Religiouspedia. It is the Conservapedia, one where, '''when it is appropriate''', will not discount religious or conservative thought. There isn't a valid argument in favor of slavery that I can think of, so the point of including thoughts that are pro-slavery here would be what? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::But if it's not a Biblical discussion, why are you so against either removing the section on "slavery in the Bible" or adding to it those references which seem to support the notion of slavery? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 19:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*(Faints dead away) Why am I against? Aaarrrrgh! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please answer my question. You said that slavery is not a Biblical issue (and I wholeheartedly agree) yet you support having ''some'' references to slavery in the Bible in this article? Those are two contradictory positions. That is my problem and that is what I am asking you to explain. Put it another way: If you are going to have the facts about "Slavery in the Bible" in this article, then have ''all'' of the facts. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 20:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*You don't understand that some of us are actually working, and I was in a meeting. Now, I am done. Your mistake is thinking there are contradictory positions, or that for purposes of this article, there needs to be. I submit there isn't a valid intellectual or moral argument in favor of slavery, therefore one doesn't need to present arguments from the Bible that might seem to endorse it, since all Biblical Scholars I have read have said it doesn't. Therefore biblical quotes that make it clear slavery isn't "right" can and should be included. Am I being clear enough?

::I didn't understand why your previous response didn't answer my question, not that you didn't respond. Basically the passages from the Bible has no place in here unless you put in ''all'' the passages from the Bible. But enough. I'm done arguing about this.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 07:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*You just don't want to get the response is all. A closed mind isn't pretty. If one is free from having to present "another side", as there isn't a logical or moral argument in favor of slavery, then we don't have to present all quotes from the Bible, especially those that laymen misunderstand, and biblical scholars assure us don't mean what most think they do. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 08:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::It is not about the position vis a vis the morality or otherwise of slavery. That is most definitely not in question. It's a bigger problem, and what I've been driving at all along. If we don't need the Bible to help our argument against slavery (and i'm pretty sure we don't) then there is no place for "Slavery in the Bible" to be part of this article. '''But''' if you '''are''' going to have bible passages then you are duty bound to present '''all''' of the sources if this is going to be a complete, accurate section (which I still maintain has no place in this article). It's about academic rigour - you can't just cite things you like from a document and ignore things you don't. This is '''very much''' independent of the argument for or against slavery (as I've stated earlier, there is no argument), it's a matter of principle. "The whole Truth and nothing but the Truth" eh? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 14:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, okay, I've got it. Only when using scripture must one apply academic rigor. And of course encyclopedias in the UK would include *ALL* passages, and never edit for length, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Arguments for Slavery==

I've certainly seen evidence that ancient slavery was qualitatively different from American slavery, not least because a) slaves could readily achieve manumission b) slavery was not racially specific c) slavery was accepted practice, and without controversy. However, the fact that the Bible addresses (and regulates) slavery is an example of God's wisdom and propriety, because He forbids bad or evil slave-owner activity. Furthermore, confusing ancient slavery and the contemporary consensus on slavery is not accurate, and doesn't represent the Truth well. Finally, ancient slavery was much more like indentured servitude (which is not an inherently evil practice, and might be seen as similar to outsourcing or sweat shopping) and shouldn't be confused with the percieved excesses of Confederate American practice. [http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-2/431/431_08_Racism.shtml] For these reasons, I think the Biblical Record on this issue should be embraced. There is no shame in God's Truth, only freedom. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*I think there is some confusion as to what Slavery was in the US South, then. The Slave Trade of the 1700's was racially specific only by the fact that the traders found a bountiful supply of people in Africa to take. It wasn't that they set out to capture only Black people, they were opportunists. Arguing who was "better" to their slaves isn't exactly admirable. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] spake thus: '''"There is no shame in God's Truth, only freedom."''' Unless, of course, one is a slave. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I am joking here. Paul readily identifies himself as Jesus' slave more than oncest. I believe there is no shame in that. Forgive me if my comment above made light of your observation or opinion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Slavery

2007-03-23T23:21:24Z

Cracker: /* Arguments for Slavery */

Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

2007-03-23T23:10:01Z

Cracker: New page: I know the pages is brand-dee new and all but a cite or two would be nice. --~~~~

I know the pages is brand-dee new and all but a cite or two would be nice. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-03-23T22:52:26Z

Cracker: /* Creationists */

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

=two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that—if corroborated by experiment could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
Granville Sewell, "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000). (HTML)
Mathematician Granville Sewell explains that Michael Behe's arguments against neo-Darwinism from irreducible complexity are supported by mathematics and the quantitative sciences, especially when applied to the problem of the origin of new genetic information. Sewell notes that there are "a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who ...are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences." Sewell compares the genetic code of life to a computer program--a comparison also made by computer gurus such as Bill Gates and evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins. He notes that experience teaches that software depends on many separate functionally-coordinated elements. For this reason "[m]ajor improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself." Since individual changes to part of a genetic program typically confer no functional advantage (in isolation from many other necessary changes to other portions of the genetic code), Sewell argues, that improvements to a genetic program require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Undirected mutation and selection will not suffice to produce the necessary information.
Four science articles from W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse, eds., DEBATING DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2004) (hereinafter DEBATING DESIGN)

Dembksi, W.A., The logical underpinnings of intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp.
311-330.

In this article, Dembski outlines his method of design detection. In it he proposes a rigorous way of identifying the effects of intelligent causation and distinguishing them from the effects of undirected natural causes and material mechanisms. Dembski shows how the presence of specified complexity or “complex specified information” provides a reliable marker or indicator of prior intelligent activity. He also responds to a common criticism made against his method of design detection, namely that design inferences constitute “an argument from ignorance.”
Bradley, W. L., Information, Entropy, and the Origin of Life, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 331-
351.

Walter Bradley is a mechanical engineer and polymer scientist. In the mid-1980's he co-authored what supporters consider a seminal critique of origin of life studies in the book The Mystery of Life’s Origins. Bradley and his co-authors also developed a case for the theory of intelligent design based upon the information content and “low-configurational entropy” of living systems. In this chapter he updates that work. He clarifies the distinction between configurational and thermal entropy, and shows why materialistic theories of chemical evolution have not explained the configurational entropy present in living systems—a feature of living systems that Bradley takes to be strong evidence of intelligent design.
Behe, M., Irreducible complexity: obstacle to Darwinian evolution, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 352-370.

In this essay Behe briefly explains the concept of irreducible complexity and reviews why he thinks it poses a severe problem for the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection. In addition, he responds to several criticisms of his argument for intelligent design from irreducible complexity and several misconceptions about how the theory of intelligent design applies to biochemistry. In particular he discusses several putative counterexamples that some scientists have advanced against his claim that irreducibly complex biochemical systems demonstrate intelligent design. Behe turns the table on these counterexamples, arguing that these examples actually underscore the barrier that irreducible complexity poses to Darwinian explanations, and, if anything, show the need for intelligent design.
Meyer, S. C., The Cambrian information explosion: evidence for intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 371-391.

Meyer argues for design on the basis of the Cambrian explosion, the geologically sudden appearance of new animal body plans during the Cambrian period. Meyer notes that this episode in the history of life represents a dramatic and discontinuous increase in the complex specified information of the biological world. He argues that neither the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations nor alternative self-organizational mechanisms are sufficient to produce such an increase in information in the time allowed by the fossil evidence. Instead, he suggests that such increases in specified complex information are invariably associated with conscious and rational activity—that is, with intelligent design.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
MERE CREATION: SCIENCE, FAITH & INTELLIGENT DESIGN (William A. Dembski ed., 1998).

This book contains fifteen scientific and philosophical essays supportive of the theory of intelligent design written by Ph.D.-level scientists and philosophers. The book was edited by William Dembski, who holds two Ph.D.’s, one in mathematics from the University of Chicago, and one in philosophy from the University of Illinois.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationists==

::Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science '''can''' be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of ''inferable truth'' with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I guess I'm the first one here, so I'll drop the f-bomb: '''''falsifiability'''''. By explaining your "truth" that way, you prove how it's not science.-18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Where is your God, AmesG? God is the only Truth, science just uncovers what God wants to reveal. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So much for God not being the author of confusion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-03-23T22:34:47Z

Cracker: /* Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid */

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

=two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that—if corroborated by experiment could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
Granville Sewell, "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000). (HTML)
Mathematician Granville Sewell explains that Michael Behe's arguments against neo-Darwinism from irreducible complexity are supported by mathematics and the quantitative sciences, especially when applied to the problem of the origin of new genetic information. Sewell notes that there are "a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who ...are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences." Sewell compares the genetic code of life to a computer program--a comparison also made by computer gurus such as Bill Gates and evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins. He notes that experience teaches that software depends on many separate functionally-coordinated elements. For this reason "[m]ajor improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself." Since individual changes to part of a genetic program typically confer no functional advantage (in isolation from many other necessary changes to other portions of the genetic code), Sewell argues, that improvements to a genetic program require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Undirected mutation and selection will not suffice to produce the necessary information.
Four science articles from W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse, eds., DEBATING DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2004) (hereinafter DEBATING DESIGN)

Dembksi, W.A., The logical underpinnings of intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp.
311-330.

In this article, Dembski outlines his method of design detection. In it he proposes a rigorous way of identifying the effects of intelligent causation and distinguishing them from the effects of undirected natural causes and material mechanisms. Dembski shows how the presence of specified complexity or “complex specified information” provides a reliable marker or indicator of prior intelligent activity. He also responds to a common criticism made against his method of design detection, namely that design inferences constitute “an argument from ignorance.”
Bradley, W. L., Information, Entropy, and the Origin of Life, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 331-
351.

Walter Bradley is a mechanical engineer and polymer scientist. In the mid-1980's he co-authored what supporters consider a seminal critique of origin of life studies in the book The Mystery of Life’s Origins. Bradley and his co-authors also developed a case for the theory of intelligent design based upon the information content and “low-configurational entropy” of living systems. In this chapter he updates that work. He clarifies the distinction between configurational and thermal entropy, and shows why materialistic theories of chemical evolution have not explained the configurational entropy present in living systems—a feature of living systems that Bradley takes to be strong evidence of intelligent design.
Behe, M., Irreducible complexity: obstacle to Darwinian evolution, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 352-370.

In this essay Behe briefly explains the concept of irreducible complexity and reviews why he thinks it poses a severe problem for the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection. In addition, he responds to several criticisms of his argument for intelligent design from irreducible complexity and several misconceptions about how the theory of intelligent design applies to biochemistry. In particular he discusses several putative counterexamples that some scientists have advanced against his claim that irreducibly complex biochemical systems demonstrate intelligent design. Behe turns the table on these counterexamples, arguing that these examples actually underscore the barrier that irreducible complexity poses to Darwinian explanations, and, if anything, show the need for intelligent design.
Meyer, S. C., The Cambrian information explosion: evidence for intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 371-391.

Meyer argues for design on the basis of the Cambrian explosion, the geologically sudden appearance of new animal body plans during the Cambrian period. Meyer notes that this episode in the history of life represents a dramatic and discontinuous increase in the complex specified information of the biological world. He argues that neither the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations nor alternative self-organizational mechanisms are sufficient to produce such an increase in information in the time allowed by the fossil evidence. Instead, he suggests that such increases in specified complex information are invariably associated with conscious and rational activity—that is, with intelligent design.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
MERE CREATION: SCIENCE, FAITH & INTELLIGENT DESIGN (William A. Dembski ed., 1998).

This book contains fifteen scientific and philosophical essays supportive of the theory of intelligent design written by Ph.D.-level scientists and philosophers. The book was edited by William Dembski, who holds two Ph.D.’s, one in mathematics from the University of Chicago, and one in philosophy from the University of Illinois.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science '''can''' be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-03-23T21:12:42Z

Cracker: /* why aren't you counting this? */

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

=two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that—if corroborated by experiment could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
Granville Sewell, "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000). (HTML)
Mathematician Granville Sewell explains that Michael Behe's arguments against neo-Darwinism from irreducible complexity are supported by mathematics and the quantitative sciences, especially when applied to the problem of the origin of new genetic information. Sewell notes that there are "a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who ...are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences." Sewell compares the genetic code of life to a computer program--a comparison also made by computer gurus such as Bill Gates and evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins. He notes that experience teaches that software depends on many separate functionally-coordinated elements. For this reason "[m]ajor improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself." Since individual changes to part of a genetic program typically confer no functional advantage (in isolation from many other necessary changes to other portions of the genetic code), Sewell argues, that improvements to a genetic program require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Undirected mutation and selection will not suffice to produce the necessary information.
Four science articles from W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse, eds., DEBATING DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2004) (hereinafter DEBATING DESIGN)

Dembksi, W.A., The logical underpinnings of intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp.
311-330.

In this article, Dembski outlines his method of design detection. In it he proposes a rigorous way of identifying the effects of intelligent causation and distinguishing them from the effects of undirected natural causes and material mechanisms. Dembski shows how the presence of specified complexity or “complex specified information” provides a reliable marker or indicator of prior intelligent activity. He also responds to a common criticism made against his method of design detection, namely that design inferences constitute “an argument from ignorance.”
Bradley, W. L., Information, Entropy, and the Origin of Life, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 331-
351.

Walter Bradley is a mechanical engineer and polymer scientist. In the mid-1980's he co-authored what supporters consider a seminal critique of origin of life studies in the book The Mystery of Life’s Origins. Bradley and his co-authors also developed a case for the theory of intelligent design based upon the information content and “low-configurational entropy” of living systems. In this chapter he updates that work. He clarifies the distinction between configurational and thermal entropy, and shows why materialistic theories of chemical evolution have not explained the configurational entropy present in living systems—a feature of living systems that Bradley takes to be strong evidence of intelligent design.
Behe, M., Irreducible complexity: obstacle to Darwinian evolution, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 352-370.

In this essay Behe briefly explains the concept of irreducible complexity and reviews why he thinks it poses a severe problem for the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection. In addition, he responds to several criticisms of his argument for intelligent design from irreducible complexity and several misconceptions about how the theory of intelligent design applies to biochemistry. In particular he discusses several putative counterexamples that some scientists have advanced against his claim that irreducibly complex biochemical systems demonstrate intelligent design. Behe turns the table on these counterexamples, arguing that these examples actually underscore the barrier that irreducible complexity poses to Darwinian explanations, and, if anything, show the need for intelligent design.
Meyer, S. C., The Cambrian information explosion: evidence for intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 371-391.

Meyer argues for design on the basis of the Cambrian explosion, the geologically sudden appearance of new animal body plans during the Cambrian period. Meyer notes that this episode in the history of life represents a dramatic and discontinuous increase in the complex specified information of the biological world. He argues that neither the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations nor alternative self-organizational mechanisms are sufficient to produce such an increase in information in the time allowed by the fossil evidence. Instead, he suggests that such increases in specified complex information are invariably associated with conscious and rational activity—that is, with intelligent design.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
MERE CREATION: SCIENCE, FAITH & INTELLIGENT DESIGN (William A. Dembski ed., 1998).

This book contains fifteen scientific and philosophical essays supportive of the theory of intelligent design written by Ph.D.-level scientists and philosophers. The book was edited by William Dembski, who holds two Ph.D.’s, one in mathematics from the University of Chicago, and one in philosophy from the University of Illinois.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:DunsScotus

2007-03-23T21:08:34Z

Cracker: /* On the Punishment of the Damned */

I hope you can provide a good citation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Post-Diluvian_Diasporas&diff=57626&oldid=57611 this] claim. Otherwise, it will get removed pretty quickly. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:20, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:The transport of animal and plant species by large scale weather phenomena is well established. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::If so, then it should be easy for you to find a citation. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::already did [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Squid and such like. ==

"Interesting" edits Duns, but I rather suspect that you may be over-egging it. I don't get the impression that leg-pulling is taken to lightly here.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:British_cons, as church father [[Martin Luther]] once said, "here I stand, I can do no other!" I am not going to be browbeat or intimidated into recanting my conservative principles. Again, as national father and influential conservative [[Barry Goldwater]] once said, "extremism in the defense of virtue is no vice." I support God and Country, and that's all I need to know.
::Yes, I see. It's rather a shame there is no discussion topic along the lines of "Who was the more liberal: Genghis Khan or Atilla the Hun" as I imagine you could profitably contribute. I'm surprised that I've not seen you on the Flat Earth Society article.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Easy answer, Cons. Atilla was significantly more liberal (or anti-conservative, as the case may be) because he ran his organization on a communist model (significant redistribution of income, etc.) and also actively worked to destroy the Roman empire through pillaging and sexual immorality. Khan was a proud general and father of millions (literally) who ushered in a new age of prosperity for his citizens/subjects.[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I would have expected no less than you would be to the right of Atilla the Hun. errrr literally.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Cons, how can you embrace figures like [[Margaret Thatcher]] when you express such a dislike for muscular conservatism? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::While many people did indeed make unfortunate comparisons between Margret thatcher and other, more militant, historical I never saw them. There is a clear difference between British Conservatism and, for example, militarism.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm glad, Cons, because Ms. Thatcher hardly treated the Falklands as Ghenghis did the Uzbekistani steppes. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Errr. No, she didn't. Do you feel that was an error?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::A certain degree of rigor should be expected in dealings with other nation states, but Ms. Thatcher was simply acting to restore British territory to the crown, and as such, did not need to overreact. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Right. Got the smiting about right then?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On PalmD001's Man-Crush on Me ==

You can decide whether that is good or bad. Your submissions are interesting enough that I don't want to miss anything, espicially the subtext, but maybe I'm crazy. Whom gods would destroy (oops, God)...[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 15:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I am also watching him. Too many people on this site don't seem to take it seriously, although Duns is not afraid to speak the truth and present the facts which we can all see in the Bible. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he is always consistent. Im just not sure whether it is Emersonian consistency, or something perhaps a little more complex. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Excellent...fiat lux, and keep it coming.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm...a tangled web indeed...Im enjoying this more than I'd even hoped. Follow that rainbow, hermano.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Are you a homosexual, Palmd001, and if then, shouldn't that be hermani? If so, I'd be uncomfortable if you were posting on my talk page. I prefer to associate with clean living Christians, not debauched secularists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry, my friend, if I were a Sodomite you wouldn't be my type. I'm not checking out your butt.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Then why are you watching me, Pald001? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::And while I am not an expert in bigotry, I am an expert in Spanish. "Hermano" is Spanish for "Brother" regardless of the sexual proclivities of the speaker. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, thanks for the useful Spanish lesson. Much appreciated. Unlike our Lord, I'm not one for speaking in tongues.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, perhaps the reason you're such a spanish expert is that you're really a Moor or perhaps a terrorist from [basque_country]. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]]

Please play nice, Duns is one of the most interesting folks here. Or at least, the smartest. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

[[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]], such ad hominem attacks have no place in discussion. Anyone with a little Spanish knowledge would know that hermaño is Spanish for brother regardless. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You're right [[User:ColinR|ColinR]], I'm sorry. I actually don't know any Spanish, I really only know American and a few phrases here and there.

:::No problem, and if your comment was made in jest, which I'm assuming it probably was, just add something at the end to clarify it as such, such as a smiley. And I apologize for my Spanish comment, in retrospect, it was too harsh and unnecessary. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On the Punishment of the Damned ==

The Lord already watches everything I do, Palmd001, I have nothing to answer for that I will not be held accountable for on the Day of Judgment. Look to your own house, Palmd001, if you think your secularist medical degree will have any pull with The Lord, our God. TouchedbyaBear, thank you for your support. It is important that true believers stick together, and together, we will laugh at the sinners in their lake of fire. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Laughing at sinners in their lake of fire seems like a pretty horrible view for a Christian to take. I thought Jesus taught to love everyone, and if you loved everyone, you should feel sorry for those burning in hell not jubilation. Then again, what do I know? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:11, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Colin, no less a church father as [[Tertulian]] explains that the the saved will delight in the torment of the damned. Besides, if you were a good Christian, you'd know that the damned no longer have any chance of salvation, having thrown away the precious gift of God's sacrifice for them.

:::"However there are other spectacles--that last eternal day of judgment, ignored by nations, derided by them, when the accumulation of the years and all the many things which they produced will be burned in a single fire. What a broad spectacle then appears! How I will be lost in admiration! How I will laugh! How I will rejoice! I will be full of exaltation then as I see so many great kings who by public report were accepted into heaven groaning in the deepest darkness with Jove himself and alongside those very men who testified on their behalf! They will include governors of provinces who persecuted the name of our Lord burning in flames more fierce that those with which they proudly raged against the Christians! And those wise philosophers who earlier convinced their disciples that God was irrelevant and who claimed either that there is no such thing as a soul or that our souls would not return to their original bodies will be ashamed as they burn in the conflagration with those very disciples. And the poets will be there, shaking with fear, not in front of the tribunal of Rhadamanthus or Minos, but of the Christ they did not anticipate! Then it will be easier to hear the tragic actors, because their voices will be more resonant in their own calamity (better voices since they will be screaming in greater terror). The actors will then be easier to recognize, for the fire will make them much more agile. Then the charioteer will be on show, all red in a wheel of fire, and the athletes will be visible, thrown, not in the gymnasium, but in the fire, unless I have no wish to look at their bodies then, so that I can more readily cast an insatiable gaze on those who raged against our Lord. `This is the man,' I will say, `the son of a workman or a prostitute, the destroyer of the sabbath, the Samaritan possessed by the devil. He is the man whom you brought from Judas, the man who was beaten with a reed and with fists, reviled with spit, who was given gall and vinegar to drink. He is the man whom his disciples took away in secret, so that it could be said that he was resurrected or whom the gardener took away, so that the crowd of visitors would not harm his lettuces.' What praetor or consul or quaestor or priest will from his own generosity grant you the sight of such things or the exultation in them? And yet we already have these things to a certain extent through faith, represented to us by the imagining spirit. Besides, what sorts of things has the eye not seen or the ear not heard and what sorts of things have not arisen in the human heart (1. Cor. 2, 9)? I believe these are more pleasing than the race track and the circus and both enclosures" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Like I said, what do I know? I guess all the times I was told about Christianity being a religion of peace and love, they really meant reveling in the suffering of others. And as for the damned, I thought that Puritan idea died out long ago, otherwise what good is God's forgiveness? Unless you are referring to the damned as those who blasphemed, the only unforgivable sin in the Bible. Regardless, delighting in suffering of others still seems so contrary to everything Jesus ever said. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::ColinR, you are absolutely right that Jesus said to be sympathetic and understanding towards ''sinners,'' but [[Tertulian]] is discussing the attitude of the believers towards the ''damned,'' so activities of this sort will only occur after the Last Judgment, when the Lord sorts the quick and the dead, and separates everyone for eternal reward or eternal punishment. You are correct, though, until then, we must be supportive (though firm) of our wayward brethren so they may join in our enjoyable condemnation of the damned in the last days. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Don't forget the marshmallows.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Palmd001, there's no evidence that marshmallows or buffalo wings or other worldly foodstuffs will be available in heaven. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Since I won't be there it won't matter much, but I really do feel bad for you guys.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll pray for you in the hopes that you'll change your mind, Palmd001. Nobody who accepts the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior will be consigned to hell. You can save yourself at any time.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Unless you blaspheme. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Damn that blasphemy clause.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:One can save oneself? Hmmm, I'll bet that's news to the godhead. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Ann Coulter

2007-03-23T18:27:00Z

Cracker: /* Category */

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.

[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)

: 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)

::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.

::: 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)

==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/>

== 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?

User talk:Gays r people

2007-03-23T18:01:26Z

Cracker:

I can't agree with blocking this username. I don't think it's ''per se'' offensive or against the site's intent, unless bigotry is the site's intent.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: I didn't impose the block, but I completely support it. The user name is inappropriate--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: When I made the block I was torn because though the name is inappropriate, it could have been a serious user. I couldn't figure out how to block the username but not the IP. Is there any way to do that? Might be useful to know for future reference.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 10:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::If you uncheck the box that says block account creation from this IP or something like that. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 10:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Sweet, I hope his IP gets unblocked.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Done--[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 10:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: What makes it inappropriate? Let's say what we mean, and mean what we say. But not blocking the IP is a super idea. -[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The user name implies that we think that gays "r" not people.--[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 10:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Does it? I don't think that logically follows. -[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::It doesn't, and having a screenname on the site which says that gays are, in fact, people, poses no threat to them. If anything, it proves that they are willing to tolerate a diversity of views, are skeptical of content-based speech restrictions, and are interested in an open discussion of ideas. Given even a cursory exploration of this website, it's clear that the creators aren't really interested in any of these three things, so their choice to ban the name should come as no surprise.--[[User:Bflan|Bflan]] 10:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Any references to [[sex]] or sexuality are unacceptable here.
:::"I will wash mine hands in innocency: so will I compass thine altar, O LORD:" (Psalm 26:6)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 12:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Why do we have a large section on anal sex in the homosexuality article then? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::[[Homosexuality]] is neither [[sex]] or sexuality.
:::"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)
::As the holy scriptures tell us ''it is abomination.''
::[[User:JC|JC]] 12:11, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Hatred against one's fellow man is also an abomination. And homosexuality is not a choice. Listen to anyone other than Pat Roberston.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Who said anything about hatred?
::"Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins. "(Proverbs 10:12)
:Body parts just shouldn't be used in a manner God didn't intend.
:[[User:JC|JC]] 12:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, fine. You're homophobic and it's not going to change. But surely you agree that it's not the business of the state to enforce God's will.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::This still doesn't address why we have a glaring paragraph on anal sex in a wiki that is supposed to be family friendly. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Mmmm! Yes: The Lord does seem to work in mysterious ways.
::::"And they were all amazed, and they glorified God, and were filled with fear, saying, We have seen strange things to day." (Luke 5:26)
:::[[User:JC|JC]] 12:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Look, anyone can toss around Bible quotes 'til they're blue in the face, but what does that have to do with this discussion here?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Scriptures provide all answers therefore there is no need for discussion.
::"How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?" (Proverbs 1:22)
:[[User:JC|JC]] 13:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I call parody (but a good one). [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Afraid I get the bragging rights for that one; called it within his first dozen or so edits :P [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''''Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.''''' [[Abraham Lincoln| Abraham]]
:::::--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Wasn't that Confuscious? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Confuscious, Lincoln or Raymond MAssey, I can never keep those three straight. Ummm, Speaking of Straight, I wonder if StraightsRpeople will get a block when that user name is created.? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Yes, StraightsRpeople will be blocked if that user name is created. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 13:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Good to know these things. Thanks --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Santorum Claus

2007-03-23T17:54:10Z

Cracker:

Warning: this is a serious encyclopedic resource. Your IP address will be blocked unless you explain your name and refrain from inappropriate entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Welcome, play nice, sorry you weren't able to win your seat. Cheers! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Gays r people

2007-03-23T17:33:52Z

Cracker:

User talk:Gays r people

2007-03-23T17:26:30Z

Cracker:

Conservapedia:Proposed Dispute Resolution Process

2007-03-23T04:27:18Z

Cracker: Page moved to discussion

Conservapedia talk:Proposed Dispute Resolution Process

2007-03-23T04:26:43Z

Cracker: Moved from main page to discussion

==Original Discussion from Aschlafly's Talk Page==
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; background-color: #DEE6ED; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #6699CC;">
==Dispute Resolution Procedure==

I think the best way to handle disputes and choose a logo is for me to step aside and allow a panel of the students who helped found this site decide these matters. None of these individuals are related to me and I have disagreed with some of them in the past. They don't have any ax to grind. They deserve a key role in deciding direction here.

They will first pick a logo, taking into the account the recent revelation that the defacing of the leading choice may have been by the designer himself. Next they will resolve the dispute over [[The Theory of Evolution]] page. I don't know what or how they will decide but I am confident that this is the most fair way to resolve this. I agree beforehand to abide by their decision and trust everyone else here will also. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*I think that sounds like an excellent plan. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:40, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
**Seems like the Arbitration committee. I hope that each party involved will be able to state their arguments and opinions, and citations they wish to use, etc. Also, will the homeschoolers who founded the site be able to make decisions based on the Commandments, rather than their own personal biases? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, they'll be as unbiased as anyone. Perhaps a separate page should be set up for arguments. Feel free to move stuff from this page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
</div>

==Discussion==
===Support===

No comment here is good news.

Really, these decisions are best left to the students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Support.''' I'm tired of all the wrangling over the Evolution page, and some sort of binding arbitration is necessary when even sysops don't agree. Hopefully we can all put aside our differences and agree to go with what the students say. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:'''Response:'''Not necessarily opposed to the idea itself (it can be reworked), but regardless of what we know the students to be (hard-working, dedicated, etc.) having a bunch of high-school age editors making vital decisions instantly obliterates any credibility we may have had amongst non-Conservapedians. As editors, SYSOPS, and Bureaucrats, they are awesome. Since we want to draw more people in (this ''is'' meant to be a truthful, accurate encyclopedia), this is not a good thing to be doing (that is, destroying credibility in the eyes of non-Conservapedias). Of course the homeschoolers need to exert responsibility over the running of this site, but them being the higher authority is not compatible with the goal of creating an encyclopedia as stated on official pages. Just my $0.02, feel free to comment. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:'''Support''' (I'm going to assume here that students' decisions will not affect their grades one way or the other.) --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 00:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

===Oppose===

==Alternative Suggestions==

*I suggest leaving the main header here, and moving the discussion to the discussion page, eh? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 00:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal

2007-03-23T03:51:04Z

Cracker: /* Cites */

This site is a joke. Compare to wikipedia which has an intelligent hisotry and dicussion. This site has the same level of intellect as George W.

This page has been certified as ART by BAR CORPORATION. It can be found in our archive under the moniker "cert. art #996" in the "Narrative Fiction" category. Congratulations!

prohibiting prayer in school is not a liberal objective. Mandatory prayer over a loud speaker, however, should be prohibited. Talking to God does not require infringing on other children's right not to have to engage in such activities.

How is gun control liberal? I mean like, doesn't sound conservetive? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::The Constitution allows us to own guns, liberals want to confiscate all our guns in spite of the Constitution saying that is illegal. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, I've been intrigued and annoyed at the one-dimensionality of the political spectrum in the United States. I can't honestly quarrel with Aschlafly's list. If this were Wikipedia I'd want to see a source for it... and of course it has a conservative spin ("protection of obscure endangered species")... but it wouldn't surprise me if you could pull that list, or something very like it from election-year national Democratic Party platforms.

:But isn't it weird? These positions have very little to do with each other. Years ago I was trying to explain American politics to friends from the Netherlands and they found it baffling. They didn't see at all why someone who was for gun control would necessarily be expected to support legalized abortion, why someone who supported legalized abortion would necessarily be expected to support environmental protection, or why someone who supported environmental protection would necessarily be expected to oppose prayer in schools.

:I don't know where this one-dimensional polarization comes from. Perhaps the two-party system leads to political leaders trying to sort political positions into neat packages and sell the public on an "us-versus-them" situation.

:I always thought Jimmy Carter got a bad rap, and that part of the reason was that he actually ''voiced moderate positions,'' and that he did ''not'' fit neatly into a one-dimensional political spectrum. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:The two-party system and its polarisation are the cause of almost all that is currently wrong in US politics. It has created an environment where only the extremists have any chance of getting to the top - a moderate, or any sensible person, will succeed only in incuring the wrath of both liberals ''and'' conservatives. - Suricou
::But that's assuming liberalism and conservativism lie at polar opposites. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:34, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== European Liberals ==

This part near the end of the artical is totally wrong: "Note, that liberal in the European context refers to moderate and center-right parties, often with a pro-business stance."

Best example is the UK Liberal Democrats, they are Left. How can Liberal views like wealth distribution be mixed up with a "center-right" stand.

This is what happens when you giving editing rights to just one, presumably American person. --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Sort order of priorities ==
How about sorting the points in the artical in to some more meaningful way. Maybe you could even break off core belief's, like wealth distribution from current issues like abortion. --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Parochial definition ==

I have long had a real problem with the way that this word is defined in America.

Yes, I know this is Conservapedia and we are all about American usage. But the way this particular word is defined in America seems, in some ways, perverse. I wonder if this definition ought to be a little broader. I am prompted to say this because of the line in the article that says '"Liberal" today means the disfavoring of individual responsibility in favor of collectivism or egalitarianism'. That is almost the opposite of my understanding of the word. What about John Stuart Mill and the freedom of the individual? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, for purposes of this article, I'd suggest: slap a qualification on it: "In the present-day United States, the word liberal means..."

:Then start another section or something. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:P. S. Don't you just love it that the traditional dead-white-European-male Harold Bloom, "Western canon" educational curriculum is known as the (wait for it...) '''Liberal Arts?''' (rimshot) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:24, 3 March 2007 (EST)

==Vandalism?==

The last three listed "characteristics" of liberalism seem to be sarcastic caricatures of conservative positions. I'm especially suspicious because the evolution reference seems redundant, and it also directly states that creationism is not science. I think I'm going to remove the last three. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Aliens? ==

Do Liberals really attempt to achieve amnesty for illegal aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Some do. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:So does George W. Bush. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

But are they not aware that aliens are sometimes really dangerous? It is O.K not to hate every foreigner, ... but aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:If my ancestors had had your attitude, we'd all be speaking Navaho today. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:Or you'd just be speaking your butchered version of English, moron. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::Are you advocating genocide? Or are you saying a genocide wouldn't have happened? [[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why were my changings reverted? ==

I made some changings to the article, by adding some more information. But they were reverted without any reason. I think the main reason why this project was started is because they used to revert imortant contributions to articles in wikipedia. So there should not be removement of important facts that are added. Or do I get something wrong? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The "reversion" key does not allow explanation. Let me explain here. Your additions were not factual enough. Saying liberals want "reform" is meaningless. You said they want more wealth for the poor. No one is against that either. The point of this entry is to describe how liberals distinguish themselves in their beliefs. No one favors harming the environment either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:36, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:: The "reform" comes from "American Heritage Dictionary". Of course no one is against more wealth for the poor. But the liberals are tending to take a lot of money from the rich to achieve that. And of course no one favours harming the environment. But most just do not really care. Look who is driving the hybrids. Most of them are liberals. No American but Japanese cars. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Foreign Treaties are liberal? ==

First off, treaties by their nature are foreign since we sign them with other countries. So that is redundant. Secondly, many conservative presidents have signed treaties, so how can they be a "liberal" goal? Thirdly, conservative presidents have signed disarmament treaties, or has everyone forgotten Reagan and Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty in 1988? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, President George W. Bush has made it clear he's not going to obey any treaties that might endanger America, so he's not as liberal as SOME presidents. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:30, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::I believe that any President is bound by the Constitution to honor treaties that have been ratified by the Senate. To do otherwise could well lead to a breakdown of constitutional principles such as separation of powers.[[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 01:27, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::President Bush has also made it clear he is also not bound by the "separation of powers" if it might endanger America. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:31, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== References for the "typical" liberal positions? ==

Please add references for each position and maybe try tor sort it. I would do it if i would be competent on the american political system and culture; sadly i am not. Maybe one could sort it into the categories "economic beliefs in international trade", "economic beliefs regarding financing public services" and "relation between state and citizen". So something like "funding abortions from tax money" is a combination of "health system funded by taxes" and the belief "abortion is a personal health decision by the women" (i am not judging about either of the claims; my opinion is that the state should do everything to decrease the reasons for abortion. It is a shame for any industrialized nation that pregant women see economic causes as a pressure to commit an abortion.).

So clarify the fundamental opinions by references.

== Reference to socialism ==

It used to say that many views of liberals are similar to socialism. This just shows little knowledge of socialism, and the context it operated in. Socialist regimes were often bad for the environment, let criminals and gays in disappear in gulags, were very restrictive on immigration (see guest workers in East Germany), were critical of evolution, oppressed independent trade unions (Solidarnosc in Poland), engaged in the arms race, were militaristic, supported para military organizations, and some even were outright opposed to abortion (Romania). Also issues such as welfare didn't apply, since these countries didn't know this concept.[[User:Order|Order]] 13:45 (AEST)

== Increased taxes? ==

I find it interesting that "increased taxes" is listed among the goals of liberalism. Granted, there is among liberals a generally greater emphasis on social programs geared towards helping the less-fortunate members of society. Since those programs cost money to operate, there is perhaps a tendency towards taxes higher than we would otherwise see without those programs in place. But it seems a bit of a stretch to say that liberals are focused on raising taxes for the sake of raising taxes. Why is "increased taxes" listed?

: Welcome, and please sign your entries with the signature button at the top. Increasing taxes is a way of increasing government power and equalizing wealth, regardless of whether the money is really needed for government services. Liberals support increasing taxes even when there is a budget surplus. Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes." That's a pretty bold statement. John F. Kennedy, for example, called for one of the biggest tax cuts in history in 1963. See http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9387&st=Kennedy&st1=tax.--[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 19:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Provide an example saying conservatives '''never''' raise taxes then Aschlafly. It's easy to say something and then say "prove me wrong". If you're going to make a claim like "Liberals never, ''ever'' call for cutting taxes" it's up to you to prove it, not someone else to disprove it. Take a look at your court system if you want to see this in action. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 06:40, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Re: Increased Taxes ==

I didn't notice the signature item earlier. I'll be sure to use it from now on.--[[User:Blr|Blr]] 01:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandments? ==

Doesn’t this list break some or all of the following commandments?

1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain.
6. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.

:*Agree. I'm new here but I've already noticed that people don't seem to cite their sources...

So - if this breaks the commandments - shouldn't' it be deleted?

The commandments state: "Edits which violate these rules will be deleted. Users who violate the rules repeatedly will be blocked."

So should not most of this be deleted? It's almost all all unsubstantiated, unverified opinion, and the commandments don't allow for discussion - they just say edits which violate these rules will be deleted.

[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal outside of the US ==

You cannot call liberals outside of the US ''socialists''. Neither are ''socialists'' abroad liberal. In many countries, the ''Liberals'' are either moderates or right-wing. Examples are the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria. The Australian PM, from the Liberal Party, is one of the staunchest supporters of President Bush. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:11 (AEST)

: For ''liberal'' parties in Europe check [http://www.alde.eu/], for socialist parties check [http://www.pes.org/]. These are different organizations, different parties. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:41 (AEST)
:::Yes, that is one definition of liberal. But, as conservapedia aims to maintain a pro american stance the American definition of liberal is important too. The British Labour Party (who fit the US definition of liberal) are socialists as are many other european parties.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 08:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Does Pro-American mean Anti-World (or "ignore that US-people are less than 5% of the world and that there is a world outside"?) If you write about liberals outside the USA, you have to see what liberals outside the USA are. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== So why were MY changes deleted? ==

Regarding the taxes issue: In the discussion above, [[User:Blr|Blr]] had a good point. Liberals do not support increasing taxes for the sake of increasing taxes. They support expansive government and social support programs (welfare, Medicare, etc.) that require funding. This creates an increased tendency to raise taxes, but does not mean that liberals necessarily ''want'' to. Additionally, in the above discussion, the justification for keeping the statement on the page was a comment by Mr. Schlafly, stating "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagree." I did provide an example, and then changed the page; my change was erased within 1 minute. If this site wants to be unbiased, it ought to follow its own first commandment: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." The support for the increased taxes claim was negated using a strong counterexample. So how does the claim remain "true and verifiable"? With its support gone, the claim is just opinion and does not belong in an encyclopedia. --[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 09:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree. As noted above, this page seems to violate three of the site's commandments. Given that there are only seven of them that's quite good going. [[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Incidentally ==

It is impressive how you make no attempt whatsoever to make this a respectable encyclopedia. I would have thought you people would keep your bias more subtle than this but apparently not given that you seem to think "support of gun control" and
"taxpayer funding of abortion" are the two views which are most synonymous with the liberal cause. I imagine that seeing as you are all true patriots and believe in freedom of speech and democracy, this post will probably last a little less than the amount of time it took me to write it, but at least I got it off my chest.

: Spanky, did you completely make up your entry about [[Peter Singer]]? Is that a liberal thing to do?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Links? ==

I was quite a bit disturbed to find that most issues here don't link to their corresponding articles. I created an account to try to make them links and found that the page is protected without even using the template to say that the page is protected. --[[User:Chuck SMITH|Chuck SMITH]] 06:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== False Statement ==

The statement that Liberals wish to prevent prayer in schools is false. Liberals wish to prevent '''organised''' prayer in '''public''' schools. [[User:Nirgal|Nirgal]] 13:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why can't this page be edited? ==

It seems to me that this "conservative" effort is little more than a means for some to vent their frustration with the Wikipedia audience. If this were meant to be comparable in scope and superior in quality then more due diligence would be done so that pages were considered accurate, not just conservative. In evaluating the liberal page, it seems that a concerted effort has been made to infuse conservative bias into the definition of the topic. That, to me, is the very definition of propaganda. Unless editors choose to make edits that reflect the truth,and not just conservative spin, this site will become irrelevant. [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 12:19, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yeah, that's the feeling I've been getting too. I think it's just that certain people here don't like being proven wrong, so when someone like me attempts to put up factual statements (or at least remove false ones), those certain people (or maybe person) lock the article. You can see the "discussion" about increased taxes above. I'm still waiting for my changes to be incorporated into the article. Good luck in removing the propaganda. --[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 09:36, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Giving to the poor ==

I am surprised to see "distributing wealth from the rich to the poor" listed as a "liberal" belief -- seems to me this is (or ought to be) a Christian belief, as Jesus himself says to the rich man "sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven" (Mark 10:21).

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Sounds like you are trying to say Jesus is a Democrat? Hardly. Besides, I think you are taking that Bibical statement out of context. Just an FYI. Also, aren't the liberals the ones behind the "warming climate hoax"? [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::No, I don't think that Jesus Christ endorses any political party. But His teaching has consistently been that it is the obigation of the wealthy (and indeed, of everyone) to give to the poor, as well as to minister to the sick, visit those in prison, and otherwise render comfort to their fellow men. See Mark 12:41-44, Matthew 25:36, and many other passages. The way in which any given political party, or person interprets or applies those teachings is up to them; it just seemed to me odd that this idea, phrased this way, would be attributed to "Liberals". [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::You appear to be tarring alot of things with the same brush, Miles. That is a gross generalisation of liberalism. Also, given that it is unclear whether climate change is because of human activity how can you say "warming climate hoax"?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I thought it had been proven to be a hoax, sorry if I am wrong. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Alternate defintion of liberal ==

Currently we have an alternate definition of liberal that is "anything that is not conservative" while we have a definition of [[conservative]] that is "one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue." This strongly implies that liberals do not adhere to personal responsibility and moral virtue. Isn't that needlessly inflammatory? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Beliefs ==

I am not sure that you guys understand what liberal means. Here is a list of things that are not liberal on the list you provide:
support of gun control,
taxpayer funding of abortion,
support of gun control,
distributing wealth from the rich to the poor,
government programs to rehabilitate criminals,
increased taxpayer funding of public school,
taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care,
increased taxes,
support of government programs such as welfare,
teaching of evolution (this isn't a set belief by liberals or conservatives, generally though liberals favor the teaching of evolution, however, this should not be added as a set belief)

The problem with this list is that you say it is the beliefs of liberals. However, these are the beliefs of Democrats and not liberals. You guys are making a common error that many citizens make. The error is using liberal as a synonym of Democrat. Democrats though are not true liberals. Democrats are economically conservative. The party that is a true liberal by definition would be the Libertarian Party. Essentially what a true liberal wants is no government at all. In a truly liberal society there would be total anarchy. Liberals want people to be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people. Increased taxes is conservative economic issue which Democrats would, yes, be in favor of, but liberals would not be in favor of it. Gun control is another issue that is wanted by some Democrats, however, this too is a conservative belief. Surely this site should know what its beliefs are if it considers it to be a conservative site. This site could be considered a liberal point of view due to the economic views expressed on this site. However, really this site should not consider itself to be liberal or conservative, but rather a Republican view. The website should be www.Republicapedia.com. I don't see how you people can consider yourself conservative when you don't know what conservatism is. Republicans are the biggest bunch of liberals I know.

Minors under 16 years use this site. So I feel that this site should be as accurate as possible and not lie to the innocent children viewing this site.
--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 00:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I must admit that I would have thought the same thing - but not being an American citizen - I assumed the word had acquired a different meaning over there. Presumably this explains why none of the entries actually links to anything to source the apparently unsubstantiated opinions expressed here.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:It would help to have some subheadings in this article - the bulletpointed list could be put in a section entitled 'Liberalism in America' or suchlike, and have another section on the libertarian/right-leaning definition more commonly used in Europe etc. --[[User:Rafa|Rafa]] 17:52, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlock Page ==

Could you please unlock this page so that people can edit it. {{unsigned|Liberalmedia}}
: [[Conservapedia:Request Unprotection]] is thataway. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 12:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Nonsense ==

This article is a study in overstatement, overgeneralization, and innuendo. Since it violates the first of the Conservapedia Commandments, I propose it for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:Those things are ok sometimes depending on who wrote them. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:19, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberals and Saddam ==
::The portion about being supportive of Saddam is particularly egregious.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

This article is unfair to the many liberals who oppose any dictatorship. The piece about liberals is just there to infume them. Lets be fair, because we wouldn't like it either if the article on ''conservative'' said that conservatives have no problems with human right violations and murder, such as in Chile under Pinochet or Burma now, as long as the regime works with them. [[User:Order]]

:This is an undeniable fact. In 2003, so-called liberals were ''the only'' group who (a) identified themselves as liberals and (b) opposed Iraqi human rights and democracy. No one else shared thier views. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually it's a steaming pile of, er, lies. --[[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Rob, get your head out of the sand. Every American is in favor of Democracy, for the love of God, get that into your head. Liberals, like me, were opposed to the war because it was poorly planned, poorly committed, we knew it'd be poorly executed, and it was inconsistent with previous stated U.S. policy (see the [[Powell Doctrine]] which I'm sure isn't up yet, since it's a liberal topic). We knew it would end in a quagmire. Liberals would line up 'cross the board in support of spreading democracy if we thought it would be easy in and easy out, but we weren't deluded into thinking it was. You were.
::Ooooh, and guess who was right?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RobS| RobS]], it may be that liberals are not in favorite of human rights, lets not forget that the only conservative who had some courage and decency to take a stand against torture was McCain. So do you want the article on conservatives to say: ''As the discussion around Abu Graib and torture legislation has shown, conservatives do not believe in human rights, and would like to torture at will, and for no good reason, and all the reason that we had to invade Iraq to bring democracy and freedom, was obviously a sham'' just because a few vocal and irresponsible conservatives don't get that these practices are plain wrong, who hardly represent the mainstream conservative position. You should allow both sides to have their share of lunatics on the fringe, but we shouldn't make it part of how we define the mainstream. [[User:Order| Order]] 23 March. 11:50 (AEST)

:: Let's not forget the "Torture Memo," [[user:Order]. I submit one final question to you, [[user:RobS| comrade]]: based on what we now know about how the war should have been executed, should have been planned, what the troops should have gotten before the war in the way of training and armor...
:: ...who really supports the troops? Hint: '''not''' the Bush administration.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:57, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::AmesG: So your psychic powers told you it was poorly planned, etc., and that's why you went about disrupting public support for the War. The Powell Doctrine is a restatement of Clausewitz, adding "overwhelming use of force", etc. But (a) the Powell Doctrine only referes to conventional type Cold War conflicts with large standing miltiary establishment, fixed targets, etc, and does not address the problems of '''modern 21st century warfare'''. Further, the business about "exit strategy" was always controversial, because it only applies to what Clausewitz refers to as "A War of Limited Aims".[http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/VomKriege2/BK8ch05.html]
:::Order: That discussion is already in the mainspace at [[Abu Ghraib]]. Arundati Roy, ''et al'', are self identified comrades with murderers and [[terrorist]]s. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I don't need psychic powers to tell me that a war without an exit plan is poorly planned. And it's not me that misinterpreted the type of conflict awaiting in Iraq: the government has consistently treated it like a Cold War style conflict, so conceding your point, your own argument bites you. Seriously, that this war was bungled from the start was never an issue. No exit plan = poorly planned. And Powell thought it applied; that's why he quit.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 21:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Liberals in europe ==
I saw that you changed that liberal in europe from "center to right wing" to "so-called center and right wing". Tell us what is "so-called" center and right wing about the liberal parties in Germany, austria or the VVD in the Netherlands? They are centre or right wig.[[Order]]
:This refers to the Left/Right Spectrum Theory, as we have discovered in the most recent example--Iraq, is totally devoid in understanding politcal groups, coalitions, parties, groupings, ideologies, or loyalties. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Gun Control ==

Liberals don't want gun control. I would like to see sources that state otherwise. Liberals are all about individual freedoms and gun control takes away from their freedoms. Just because Democrats want gun control doesn't mean that liberals want gun control. This is the definition given by dictionary.com [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal]
:''favorable to or in accord with concepts of '''maximum individual freedom possible''', esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. ''--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 23:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Cites==

The citation to http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php would, IMO, be a '''conservative''' economic goal. That is, limited governmental interaction within the markets.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:*Hey, Cracker. I understand why you think that it is a conservative economic goal. The reason why you think this is that Republicans are wanting these same economic goals. However, the mistake you are making is that any goal on the Republican party's platform must be a conservative view. However, this is not true. Economic liberalism is wanting essentially no governmental interference on economic policy. Also, if you check out wikipedia (Sorry) they will state how economic liberalism is the Republican's ideology on economic matters.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)] Any view that is against government controls is a liberal view. Any view that gives more power to the government is a conservative view.

::Yes. We're in agreement...I think the original citer saw "economic-liberalism" and ''assumed'' it MUST be a politcally liberal idea!

::The current crop of "conservatives" seem to forget they're for SMALL government and less economic regulation. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:51, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal

2007-03-23T03:16:58Z

Cracker: /* Gun Control */

Talk:Jack Chick

2007-03-23T03:01:27Z

Cracker: New page: Love him, hate him...those tracts were ALWAYS the bestest. --~~~~

Love him, hate him...those tracts were ALWAYS the bestest. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:01, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?

2007-03-23T02:58:57Z

Cracker: /* Silliness */

==Theory 1==

Well, I would venture to say that we have not seen the far off ones yet. We can only see the light that has reached the Earth so far. This means that the currently-visible stars are "only" several thousand lightyears away. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 17:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Empircally false. Basic parallax data gets us that there are stars at least 7000 years away and more sophisticated techniques force other stars to be even farther away. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:59, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Perhaps, the Universe really is billions of years old. Perhaps the Genisis account is merely refering to the creation etc. from the perspective of the Earth. Perhaps God is, say, eternal. Couldn't matter and the elements be eternal too? {{Unsigned|Brigham's Homeboy}}

:That's very close to the white-hole cosmology of Russell Humphreys (see below). According to it, the ''fringes'' of the universe are billions of years old, but the ''near-center'' of the universe--where we are--is much younger. In short, time did not flow uniformly throughout the universe--and until relatively recently, in our region, time did not flow at all.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Theory 2==
When God created the universe, he also created a complete ray of light extending between the star and the Earth. The light that we see ''now'' was created only a few thousand years ago. It looks as if it came from the star, but it really didn't; it was created in mid-air, or mid-space as it were, a few thousand light-years away. The light that started travelling from the star itself at its instant of creation will not reach us for millions of years (or perhaps never if the Earth does not last that long).

<
* = star
- = ray of light
O = Earth
> = where the light we see today was when the Universe was created

BEFORE CREATION:
[Void]
AFTER CREATION of star, Earth, ''and'' complete ray of light all at the same instant
*------------------------------------------------->----O

A few thousand years after Creation (today)
*----------------------------------------------------->O

As opposed to:
AFTER CREATION:
* O

Millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------- O

Millions and millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------------------------------- O

Millions and millions and millions of years later (finally can see star)
*------------------------------------------------------O

The language of the Bible, "Let there be light," even can be read as supporting this.

This theory is absolutely ridiculous. The stars we see in the sky are millions of light years away, and we can see them because the earth has existed for far longer than a few thousand years. Astronomers can tell roughly how old a star is, and they know that the ones you see at night are older than a few thousand years.

No, I do not believe this. (But I can't prove it's not true.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:27, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Dpbsmith: This is the essence of why this is religion not science, it can't be proven/disproven... [[User:Jesput|Jespur]]

: Jesput, the same is true for science. Science cannot prove anything at all. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: This is a variant of omphalism and essentially asserts that God has deliberately deceived humans. I don't think most people would want to believe in a deceptive deity and in any event, it would contradict the verse in Isaiah that says that God is truth. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:01, 10 March 2007 (EST)

If God is trying to fake us out, He certainly did His best to make it a CONVINCING fake. Just check out those scientists who've been fooled into thinking an entire galaxy was ripped in two several billion years ago. <ref> [http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070302_galaxy_rip.html Galaxy Ripped to Shreds]</ref>{{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

: I'm sorry, this is a nice theory, but JoshuaZ is right, it's a type of omphalism, and assumes that God deliberately tricked us. At some point, [[Occam's Razor]] has to kick in here. But wow, this light argument sure does rip YEC to shreds.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::The theory does not insinuate that God is deceptive. In Genesis, he talks to Abraham about his descendants and how they will be as numerous as the stars in the sky. What if God made the stars like that, not to deceive humans in any way, but to use them for His own purpose, such as using them as a metaphor? (By the way, how is making rays of light any form of deception? How are we being "tricked" by this creation?) --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Rays of light carry information; they're records of past events. If light was really created in transit, then we've witnessed the death of stars which never actually existed in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Descartes approached a similar problem in his meditations. The way out of it was to say that since God is good, God would not do something to intentionally deceive our senses and thus we can trust them. I believe that it is valid to continue that to say that it is reasonable to trust our extended senses that this planet is a several billion years old. Otherwise (as Descartes would say), God is a deceiver and then would not be the most perfect being that can be imagined. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Fraid that's the logical conclusion. Then again, [[theory of evolution|a lot of things on this site]] are quite disconnected from logic.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory 3 ==

C is not actually constant. All measurements on Earth indicate that it is, but beyond our Solar System it could easily be faster, slower, moving through wormholes to appear faster, etc. Hubble's Law says that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it moves away due to universal expansion, so why couldn't light be similarly expanded with distance? So many of our assumptions about the universe rely on our belief that things happen the same way everywhere - a huge leap of faith for a scientist. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 13:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't know whether you knew, but the official definition of the [[meter]] now assumes that C is constant. The meter is defined in terms of C! Someone needs to set up some periodic re-measurements of the orange-red line from the spectrum of [[krypton]]-86 that provided the most recent definition of the meter: 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of this radiation. If that number starts to rise, then we know that C is slowing, as [[Barry Setterfield]] has stated.

:I have another variation on this theory, however: what if C were originally much faster, is now the speed at which we now find it, and is not going to change anymore? Except that I have an [[Occam's razor]] problem with that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't dispute at all that the meter is based upon C, but it hardly matters whether it is or not. Either C is constant or it isn't, no matter what units you use. Rather than C slowing since time began, I was thinking more the velocity of C being a function of its distance away from us. Also, your theory satisfies Occam's razor equally well or better than the Big Bang does, so I see no problem with it logically. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 03:28, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

This hypothosis sounds awkwardly non-falsifyable. It is proposed that light used to travel faster than it does today, but conveniently stoped slowing down before measurement became possible. How can it be determined either way? Also, this would not be a slight slowdown... its going to require light travel a lot faster. The most distant objects known are ten billion light-years away<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1432321.stm</ref>. So, even assuming light slowed from its super-speed to todays speed in a single instant as soon as civilisation emerged, thats going to require it used to travel about 1.67 million times as fast as today to achieve the 6000-year target figure. Im not a physicist, but I dont think thats even remotely possible. A little variation, perhaps, but a factor that huge... it would require adjusting too many other figures to keep the formulae valid. Permiativity of free space, planks constant, a lot of very fundamental things. -- Suricou

:The basic problem with any variable-c model is that the entire observational record is exactly consistent with constant c. So we're left with two types of model; the one Terry mentions, where c changed in an unobservable way in the distant past, and the one Daniel mentions, where c is different in other parts of the Universe, but these differences manage to leave every observation we make exactly as we would expect if no such change had happened. That essentially leaves us with two different ways of saying "sure, the Universe ''looks'' old, but because of an unobservable, untestable effect, it really isn't." Which may be ''true'', but it'll never be good science. May as well propose that we all live in the Matrix and be done with it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== White-hole Cosmology ==
The universe began as a white hole. Initially, as matter expanded into it, time did not flow--because the very space-time continuum had four dimensions of space and none of time. Eventually, time began to flow at the outer fringes of the expanding ball of matter, and this region of timeliness worked its way back to the center. So the earth really is six thousand or so years old--by clocks on the earth, which are the only clocks that need to matter to us. By any clock on the outer fringes, the cosmos might well be twenty billion years old. The light impinges on us now because it was always impinging on the border of the region of timelessness until that region shrank away to nothing.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/White_hole_cosmology White hole cosmology] by [[CreationWiki]]</ref>--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:15, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Not bad, what about the four-day simultaneous harmonic Time Cube?<ref>[http://timecube.com/ Time Cube] by Doctor Gene Ray</ref> {{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

:Cute. Very cute. And incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:36, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:Falsified by the distinct absence of massive blueshifting of distant light sources. I highly doubt anybody's even attempted to formalize this as a solution to Einstein's field equations, either, which would be a prerequisite for it to be considered a coherent proposition at all. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I dug out a few of Humphrey's papers defending this model and reached two basic conclusions. One, as I suspected, there ''is'' no model, merely handwaving. Two, he doesn't actually understand GR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Silliness ==
Physics has had for many years more-than-adequate explanations. All of these verbal acrobatics into non-falsifiable theories to try to get around physical fact are humorus. Wouldn't it be easier for those who deny physics to just say "I accept physics, and God is mysterious and powerful enough to make it happen."?
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Proverbs 25:2

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 22:58, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

God

2007-03-22T23:36:57Z

Cracker: added cite, grammar

The term '''god''' is applied to a deitic being that is worshiped as part of a theistic belief system. Monotheistic religions are the most common and include [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], [[Islam]], and [[Bahá'í]].

==Biblical God==
God is the creator of the universe.<ref>[http://wikible.org/en/Genesis_1:1 Genesis 1:1] "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (NASB)</ref> Christianity has understood that God is a trinity comprised of three distinct persons in the [[Father]], the [[Jesus Christ|Son]], and the [[Holy Spirit]], all with a single essence, namely God. His [[creation]] of man is described in the [[Book of Genesis]] in the [[Bible]]. It is written in the Bible that belief and trust in God, namely [[Jesus Christ]], (as one's personal lord and savior) is a necessary condition to go to [[heaven]] (rather than [[hell]]) in the afterlife.

Attributes of the biblical God include [[omnipotence]] (the ability to do anything), [[omniscience]] (knowing everything), [[omnipresence]] (everywhere present at once), and [[omnibenevolence]] (all-good). The Bible makes mention that God eternally punishes the wicked in [[hell]] and eternally rewards the righteous in [[heaven]].<ref>http://etext.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html</ref>

While the Bible does refer to other "gods" (lowercase ''g''), it is in a condemning way. The Bible is written in such a way that it never asks the question (which god is correct?), because it assumes that there is One God. Some textual examples of this are the following:

:''"Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me,"'' --Isaiah 46:9 (NASB)

==Notes==

It is claimed that [[Christianity]], [[Islam]], and [[Judaism]] worship the same God in different ways. This claim is regarded by some as a way to convert Jews and Christians to Islam, since it supports the idea that [[Abrahamic religions|Abrahamic religion]] has "grown" from Judaism to Christianity to Islam.<ref>http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm</ref> However, many are skeptical of this idea.<ref>http://www.letusreason.org/Islam6.htm</ref>

Regardless of the lack of historical data regarding the origins of any of these three religions, the mythological links between them are clear. It is a tenet of the Jewish religion that all Jews descended from Abraham (indeed, in order to convert to Judaism one must complete a ritualized 'adoption' ritual into the house of Israel); as Jesus is regarded as Jewish, the growth of Christianity as an offshoot of the Jewish religion is clear. In a similar fashion, Muslims claim to be descended from Abraham by way of Ishmael.

==References==
<references/>

==Sources==

* Cruden, A., ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' (Lutterworth, 1930)
* ''The Holy Bible'' (King James Version)
* ''The New English Bible'' (Oxford & Cambridge University Presses, 1970)
* ''The New Jerusalem Bible'' (Darton, Longman & Todd, 1990)
* Peake, A.S., ''Commentary on the Bible'' (Nelson, 1962)
* Young, R., ''Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible'' (Lutterworth, 1939)

[[Category:Religion]]

Bill Clinton

2007-03-22T20:14:24Z

Cracker: cleaned up spelling, added cite templates

[[Image:billclinton.jpg|thumb|right|300px|United States President Bill Clinton]]
'''William''' "Bill" '''Jefferson Clinton''' served as the 42nd [[President of the United States of America]] from 1993-2001, following [[George H. W. Bush]] and preceding [[George W. Bush]].

== Early Life ==

Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946 AD in Hope, Arkansas. His father, William Jefferson Blythe Jr. died in a car accident while his mother was pregnant with him. Clinton's mother later married Roger Clinton, and the four year-old William was given his stepfather's name.[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html]

Clinton was active in high school, participating in various student government organizations as well as playing the saxophone. Roger Clinton, however, made Bill's family life unpleasant by repeatedly abusing Clinton's mother and her children.{{fact}} Bill Clinton would eventually stand up to his stepfather in high school, forcing him to stop beating his mother and kicking him out of the house. {{fact}} After Roger Clinton underwent alcohol rehabilitation, he would eventually rejoin the family.

Clinton attended [[Georgetown University]], then [[Oxford University]] after receiving a [[Rhodes Scholarship]], and finally earned a Juris Doctorate from [[Yale University]] in 1973 AD. At Yale he met [[Hillary Rodham]], whom he would later marry [http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html].

== Early Political Career and Whitewater Scandal ==

After returning to live in Arkansas, Clinton was elected [[Attorney General]] of Arkansas in 1976 AD. Two years later, he was elected Governor of Arkansas, becoming the youngest governor in the country as a 32 year-old. Though defeated in 1980 AD, Clinton won back the governorship in 1982 AD and held it until becoming President in 1992 AD. His close personal business partnerships with James McDougall in a failed Savings and Loan scam lead to investigation of the [[Whitewater]] scandal.

== Presidency and Impeachment==

Despite never winning a majority of the popular vote during either of his elections, President Clinton enjoyed good public approval ratings during parts of his second term.<ref>[http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm]</ref> Clinton won in 1992 with 43% of the popular vote versus President [[George H. W. Bush's]] 37%, capitalizing on public discontent with a weak economy and public displeasure with Bush's proposed tax increases, and Ross Perot, a popular third candidate. In his first two years in office, 1993 through 1994, Clinton was unable to "reform" health-care in the United States with a [[socialism| socialized]] health-care plan. It was a tough sell in the wake of the collapse of Soviet Bloc only a few years earlier. His approach consisted of appointing a planning committee with secret members to reshape this important sector of the economy.{{fact}} The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] successfully sued to force disclosure of the committee financing, expenses and membership. The program ultimately became so unpopular after two years the Democratically controlled Congress shielded its members records by never bringing it to floor for a vote.

In 1994, voters expressed their high disapproval of Clinton by giving a victory to Republicans in Congress. This event was tagged the "Republican Revolution," and began a series of showdowns with the Republican-led Congress.{{fact}} These showdowns were epitomized by the budget conflict with then-Speaker of the House [[Newt Gingrich]] in 1995. Gingrich refused to pass Clinton's budget proposal, and the latter threatened to shut down the government as Reagan had done in the 1980s. Clinton did not back down, however, and eventually had his budget passed [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/commentprint082800d.html]. This showdown backfired for the Republicans, as it reinvigorated Clinton's flagging approval ratings, which would remain above 60% for most of his presidency[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Clinton_approval_rating.JPG].

Clinton was reelected in 1996 with 49.2% of the popular vote against Republican candidate ([[Robert Dole | Bob Dole]]), who won 41%, and "populist" candidate, [[H. Ross Perot]], who won 8%. Clinton spent a lot of the remainder of his presidency combating scandals. {{fact}} The special prosecutor's report was not released until well into Clinton's second term, and brought the issue of Clinton giving false testimony in a civil lawsuit while President to light which resulted in his impeachment and disbarment from the legal profession.{{fact}} The main charge was that he lied about a sexual relationship with an employee in an attempt to avoid paying damages to another employee for sexual harassment. After a brief trial, the Senate failed to make clear what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/impeachment/</ref>

Clinton became the second sitting president to be impeached by the US House of Representatives. During his second term Clinton committed perjury in connection to the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.{{fact}} Accused of receiving [[fellatio]] from an intern in the Oval Office, his [[semen]] having stained her blue dress, he found guilty of perjury because of his claim that "I did not have [[sex]] with that woman". However, the US Senate voted not to remove him from office, although he later lost his law license in Arkansas. His term also saw an increase in terrorism directed at the United States. {{fact}} These incidents included the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the Alfred P. Murrah building bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995, the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. {{fact}} Clinton responded by striking back at [[al Qaeda]], the organization responsible for the attacks. {{fact}} He launched cruise missile strikes aimed to kill al Qaeda's leader [[Osama bin Laden]] [http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/], and began planning to invade [[Afghanistan]] in order to capture bin Laden and overthrow the [[Taliban]] government[http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml].

Clinton also signed into law the [[Violence Against Women Act]], which opened the federal courts to claims of domestic disputes between men and women, which had always been handled under state rather than federal law. {{fact}} A key provision of this law was later ruled unconstitutional in [[United States v. Morrison]].<ref>http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-5.ZS.html</ref>

Clinton devoted much time during his two terms to the peace process in Northern Ireland. {{fact}} He made interventions including 3 trips to Ireland during periods of stagnation in negotiations which coincided in major breakthroughs which ensured the province didn't slide back to the violence of the 70's and 80's. {{fact}}

== After the Presidency ==

Clinton has spent much of time since leaving office working for charitable causes such as support and fund-raising for the victims of AIDS and the Asian tsunami.

Bill Clinton's wife, [[Hillary_Rodham_Clinton|Hillary Clinton]], was elected Senator to New York in 2000. Reelected in 2006, she is now running for president in 2008.

Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff was John Podesta between 1998-2001.

== References ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Clinton, Bill}}
[[Category:Biographies]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

Talk:Anita Bryant

2007-03-22T15:24:53Z

Cracker: sig

Let's talk about this sentence before we get all hot about it...okay? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 11:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Anita Bryant

2007-03-22T15:24:34Z

Cracker: New page: Let's talk about this sentence before we get all hot about it...okay?

Let's talk about this sentence before we get all hot about it...okay?

Talk:Gender

2007-03-22T05:53:45Z

Cracker:

Sex and gender are not equal terms. Sex refers to the anantomical features, gender refers to more to the "social construction" of a person. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 02:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The two paragraphs are contradictory. The first says that gender is a biological term, and the second says that it is not. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:47, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:It could also go into linguistic nuances, but I'm sure it'll get fleshed out over time. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 01:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:ElvisFan

2007-03-22T00:42:05Z

Cracker: New page: Please do not vandalize any more pages as you did with North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Thank you. --~~~~

Please do not vandalize any more pages as you did with North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Thank you. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 20:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

2007-03-22T00:40:00Z

Cracker: Undo revision 55816 by Special:Contributions/ElvisFan (User talk:ElvisFan)

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a military alliance formed in 1949 by the United States, non-communist western European nations, and Canada. Its initial goals were to contain and respond to the threat of communism in Europe and Asia after World War II. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, and Communism, the organization's activities shifted to the global theater, without a central military objective. In the 1990's NATO's only military actions was the controversial Kosovo War. Critics of NATO pointed to the Kosovo War as a sign that NATO had lost its relevance as an organization and should be abolished. However, in 2001, after the attacks on the World Trade Center's and the Pentagon, NATO once again found a common goal and purpose, fighting terrorism. As former Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar, "Jihadism has replaced Communism, as Communism replaced Nazism". NATO has taken on the role of fighting terrorism, or Jihadism, as the organization's propose in the 21st century. Proof of this commitment can be seen in NATO recent or current involvement in Afghanistan, Darfur, Iraq (training troops), and the Mediterranean Sea.

== NATO member countries include: ==

*Belgium
*Bulgaria
*Canada
*Czech Republic
*Denmark
*Estonia
*France
*Germany
*Greece
*Hungary
*Iceland
*Italy
*Latvia
*Lithuania
*Luxembourg
*The Netherlands
*Norway
*Poland
*Portugal
*Romania
*Slovakia
*Slovenia
*Spain
*Turkey
*[[United Kingdom]]
*[[United States]]

==Current NATO operations==

Current NATO operations include the UN mandated '''Stabilization and Reconstruction Force''' in Afghanistan, the training of Iraqi Armed Forces, and '''Operation Active Endeavor''' (a counter terrorism efforts in which NATO members and partner nations are patrolling the Mediterranean Sea).

'''Related Links'''

[http://www.nato.int/home.htm: NATO's Official Website]

Democratic Party

2007-03-22T00:00:56Z

Cracker: /* History */ wikify

The Democratic Party, also occasionally called the "Democrat Party" by George W. Bush[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061030-4.html] and some other conservatives, is one of the two major political [[parties]] in the [[United States of America]]. It is generally seen as being on the political left of center, while the rival [[Republican Party]] is positioned to the right of center.

Like the Republicans, the Democrats are currently selecting their candidate for the 2008 AD presidential election; the front-runners in the contest are Senator [[Hillary Clinton]] of [[New York]] and Senator [[Barack Obama]] of [[Illinois]]. The most recent president that was a Democrat was [[Bill Clinton]], who served from 1993 to 2001. In his second term he was impeached by the Republican controlled House of Representatives for lying under oath in a civil case that ended in a large out of court settlement, a reproach from the presiding judge, and his disbarment from the Arkansas Bar, however the Senate failed to clarify what is meant by "high crimes and misdeamenors".

==History==
The Democratic Party was founded in 1792 AD by [[Thomas Jefferson]] as a congressional caucus to fight for the [[Bill of Rights]] and to oppose the elitist [[Federalist Party]]. Ironically in view of the party's image as the "party of the common man", Jefferson was a member of the landed gentry and a slave owner.

In 1798 AD, the party was officially named the "Democratic-Republican Party", and in 1800 AD Jefferson was elected as the first Democrat [[President of the United States]]. Jefferson served two terms as president with distinction, and was succeeded by another Democrat, [[James Madison]], in 1808 AD. Madison strengthened America's armed forces and helped to reaffirm American independence by defeating the [[United Kingdom]] in the [[War of 1812]]. James Monroe, another Democratic-Republican, was elected president in 1816 ADand led the nation through a time commonly known as "The Era of Good Feeling". In this period, the party dominated American politics with little opposition.

[[Franklin Roosevelt]], president during the [[Great Depression]] and [[Second World War]], was a Democrat, as was his successor, [[Harry Truman]].

==Policies and criticism==

It should be noted that the views of individual Democrats sometimes diverge from the party's official stance as expressed in its national platform. Naturally, the same is true of individual Republicans.

===Economic policy===
In the field of economic policy, Democrats tend to favor higher taxes, higher government spending and a relatively high minimum wage. While they defend these policies as compassionate and socially responsible, people in favor of liberal economics reply that they depress economic growth and stifle enterprise and job creation. It should be noted, however, that the last known national budgetary surplus occurred during the administration of a Democrat president.

The Democratic Party has historically had ties to [[union|organized labor]]. The [[National Education Association]],<ref>http://www.nea.org/index.html</ref> the largest union of public school teachers, is a backbone of the party, supplying the largest number of delegates to its national conventions.{{fact}}

===Foreign and military policy===
According to its platform, the Democratic Party has the objective of strengthening America. Conservatives, however, argue that the Democrats' policies have the effect of giving comfort to the enemies of the United States and of weakening its position in the [[War on Terror]]. Highly partisan conservatives have claimed that the Democratic national leadership tends to be ambivalent about terrorism<ref>http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=22045</ref> and insufficiently patriotic.<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/01/smn.19.html</ref>

===Other Policies===
Democrats frequently support [[a woman's right to choose]], [[gun control]], [[homosexual civil rights|homosexual marriage]] and the seperation of church and state. The Democratic party also supports the environment which leads to reduction of pollution and a benefit to wildlife.

==Religion==
[[Evangelical]] Christians tend to be associated with the Republican Party. However, both historically and at the present day, [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] voters have had a tendency to identify with the Democratic Party, and a number of Democrat office-holders, such as Senator [[Jim Webb]] of Virginia, are Catholics. On the other hand, several gereral ideals of the Democratic Party's platform - most notably, the party's overall support for the legality of [[abortion]] - are contrary to the position of the [[Catholic Church]].

==References==
<references/>

==Reference==

<references/> {{fact}}

[[Category:Politics]]

User talk:PKBear

2007-03-21T22:49:14Z

Cracker: New page: Hi, I hope you're having fun. Just a note to ask you if you could remember to "sign" you posts with either four tildes <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> or the handy-dandy sign button above to the rig...

Hi, I hope you're having fun.
Just a note to ask you if you could remember to "sign" you posts with either four tildes <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> or the handy-dandy sign button above to the right of the slashed "W". Thanks --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:The Catholicizer

2007-03-21T22:16:51Z

Cracker: New page: ==Thanks== Thank you for fixing that link...Feel free to leave a message on my talk page to alert me of broken or missing links. --~~~~

==Thanks==

Thank you for fixing that link...Feel free to leave a message on my [[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] page to alert me of broken or missing links. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Scopes Trial

2007-03-21T16:54:32Z

Cracker: /* Gore? */

This is so atrociously biased that I need not say more than this.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 16:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

there has in fact been a lot of dialouge left out, quote mining if you will. [[User:Albyiscool|Albyiscool]] 12:02, 21 March

== Gore? ==
It might be nice if there were some explanation for how Gore's loss is relevant here. I'm not necessarily saying it's not, I don't know either way, but the leap from TN views on evolution (which needs a cite) to Gore losing is a big one and it's not clear why that should be here.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
: I deleted it, Asch keeps restoring it :-/ --[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::Andy, the Gore line is shockingly irrelevant.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: It's completely relevant to the aftermath section, it is factual, it is not widely known, and it is undisputed. We report, the reader decides. Do not censor factual material that comply with our rules. This is not Wikipedia, where factual material disliked by liberals is censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Andy, can you actually show a correlation between Al Gore, evolution and losing the state in 2000? He represented TN in the Congress for close to 16 years. Did something change that you're privy to that validates the sentence being here?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: How is Al Gore's loss relevant to the Scopes Trial? They DID both take place in Tennessee and relate to overall Tennessee politics. I could link you to good scholarly articles on Tennessee politics so you could paste ''a full treatment of the entirety of Tennessee politics'' in the "aftermath" discussion, if you want.
:::: I have no problem with your statement about Al Gore, it just doesn't belong here. Practice good editing and put it in the [[Al Gore]] article. And I won't bring up the other problems with this article.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Yes, I wonder how many voters in Tennessee in 2000 said to themselves before pulling the lever, '''"Wow, I have the chance to help elect a Tennessean to the Presidency...if only he wasn't a Godless Evolutionist!"''' Certianly it belongs on the Tennessee page, the Gore page, the 2000 election page but here?

:::::Then again, the [[User:Aschlafly|Boss]] says it stays so it stays. If though, this is the tip o' the iceberg of "might makes right" then there might be porblems larger than this in [[Conservapedia| Conservapedialand.]]

==Is there a cite==

Is there a citation for the sentence '''"The textbook also featured the fraudulent Piltdown Man."'''?
I believe the only use of Piltdown Man was in an affidavit by an (or two) "expert" witness. Piltdown was only "discovered" in 1912, the Hunter's ''Civic Biology'' text was published in 1914.
:::--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 01:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==End of Trial==

My understanding has always been that the judge considered the whole Darrow/Byran exchange pointless and called it to a halt. So rather than Darrow ducking out, the judge stopped it b/f he could be examined by Bryan.

Also, this whole article needs to be re-examined. The bias is overwhelming.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Your understanding is based on the erroneous liberal spin. In fact, everyone was stunned (including the NY Times) that Darrow reneged on his deal to take the stand.

: Everything in the content page is well-supported. There is enormous liberal misinformation about the trial that has misled everyone who fails to look at the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Andy, with all due respect, I can't agree with you. I've read in multiple places that Raulston cut off Bryan's questioning and didn't allow the cross-exam. He decided the whole sequence wasn't germane to the trial. So Darrow didn't "chicken out" Further, Darrow called for a guilty verdict not to "save his own skin" but so he could appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

::Again, my issue isn't with the fawning pro-Bryan tone. It's with the blatant mis-statement of fact. It should be corrected.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Here is Darrow asking for a guilty verdict. [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day8.htm]
:::: I am frank to say, while we think it is wrong, and we ought to have been permitted to put in our evidence, the court felt otherwise, as he had a right to hold. We cannot argue to you gentlemen under the instructions given by the court--we cannot even explain to you that we think you should return a verdict of not guilty. We do not see how you could. We do not ask it. We think we will save our point and take it to the higher court and settle whether the law is good, and also whether he should have permitted the evidence. I guess that is plain enough.
::: I am not sure that Darrow's motives can be deduced from this. I guess that you are questioning the sentence, "To save his own skin, Darrow handed over his client!" It is certainly very rare to ask for a guilty verdict like this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree; it is rare. But if you look at what Darrow says towards the end: "We think we will save our point and take it to the higher court and settle whether the law is good, and also whether he should have permitted the evidence." Darrow is asking for a guilty verdict so he can appeal it. Hardly the act of a "chicken."--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Natural disaster

2007-03-21T16:18:28Z

Cracker: /* Please Stop the Ridicule */

WOW. Um, I know we got a bias an all, but I think this is a bit much. I don't think God slings tornadoes around when he gets peeved.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 11:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Not sure how you could know that, but okay. If everything is from God, how can it be a "Natural" disaster. As a young Christian, taking the language back is very important to me. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::Glad that you agree. Christian language is important.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 11:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Christian language is important, but understanding actual scientific causation is probably more important to your ultimate educational goals :-/ -[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Your version of the article is a disgrace. It's not 'simply called' act of god. That's the ver nature of 'natural disasters'.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 11:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

If God exists, wouldn't it be God's work that defines natural? Wouldn't everything God does be natural? [[User:What|What]]
::I just don't think that God is such an immanent being that everything that happens can be attributed to him. I really doubt that God himself is personally responsible for every natural disaster that occurs and they are all conscious decisions that he makes. Rather, I believe they are a part of the mechanics that control how the world in which God made functions.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 11:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Truly our God is an awesome God. If HE chooses to hurl tornadoes, HE surely can. When we look past HIS works, like Hurricane Katrina and that monsoon in Sri Lanka, we don't learn from HIM. Calling something a "Natural Disaster" takes away the force of GOD's perfect love.[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::God created systems that do the work for him, if you believe in him. Saying he does everything directly is like saying the President makes your plumbing work.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::God's perfect love is to kill thousands of people with a super storm? I'm sorry but I don't subscribe to that belief.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 11:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::By that logic, GOD is a so-called natural disaster. I don't think you should say that. Youm could be banned.[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::So you also don't 'buy' Noah? I thought it's a general agreement here to take the bible literally? Or am I mistaken?--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 11:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::What the...!? Flesh that out so it makes sense. Aaaaand go! Also don't threaten me.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Wasn't threatening, or didn't mean for it to be interpreted that way. But if everything comes from GOD, then it must be evidence of HIS perfect love. I know in my heart that even the soldiers who die in Iraq, fighting the muslims, are part of HIS ultimate plan. A natural disaster must be an act of GOD--a hurricane, a tornado, dinosaurs, wars and blessings. It is all part of the plan. Saying anything is natural is like going into a parking lot full of shopping carts and saying they must have gotten there by chance. Yes, at that particular second they are, but they were created by people, and thus by GOD so their placement is part of GOD's perfect will. We Christians must retalliate when so-called atheists and others try to steal the language from us. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:First of all, the US is fighting the Iraqi insurgents. NOT the Muslims. There's a biiiiiig difference. You should look up the distinction somewhere else, perhaps on [www.wikipedia.com|Wikipedia]? Second of all, again, the distinction is between the original cause and the ultimate cause. God, to you, is the original cause, but he is not the ultimate cause, even if disasters are in his plan. Again, it's like saying the President makes your water run.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Never mind that your interpretation of "God's Will" basically absolves anyone of taking repsonsibility for their actions. "Sure I punched that guy in the face and took his car. But it's all part of God's plan." --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Would GOD allow it otherwise? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:51, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::So if you do poorly on your homework, not your fault. Good point, Dave.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
The only problem is your beliefs rely on God to be an immanent being. What if I believe God to be a transcendent being?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 11:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

This is the best example I can think of right now. Lets say I design a computer program to create and manage a society of people, ala simcity. In the background of this program, I have it set to roll a set of ten dice every second. Each time the program rolls ten dice of the same number, the program randomly selects 2 coordinates on the map. At one coordinate, the computer creates a tornado, which follows a straight path to the other coordinate, at which point, it disappears. Now, I have created the system in question. However, the individual tornado itself is not direct action on my part, but rather a natural phenomenon of the system that I created. If I were to die while the computer system was running, it would still have tornadoes, despite my not being alive anymore. Thats basically how I think the world functions. God made it, then sat back and watched.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Why should he just sit back and watch? While your scenario is possible (technically) it's not convincing.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::Why else? Too see what they create?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Please Stop the Ridicule==
I did not come here to debate and be ridiculed for my belief. Please do not ridicule Christians with stronger faith than some others. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I can't help debating you. It's all part of God's Will...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Showing you logical fallacies is no insulting you. It's a common problem that even the admins of this site don't understand.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Claiming 'stronger faith than some others' could itself be considered attacking the belief of those others. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::So claiming a strong faith attacks others, or threatens them? I thought Conservapedia was a place for Christians to come and be welcomed, not derided for their faith. I don't have time to create logical enthymemes for you, but GOD is the reason for everything, noy just what some people want HIM to promote. Some people use GOD like a slogan to be hayled out hen they see fit. I think GOD has a place in everyting around us. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You didn't just claim a strong faith, you claimed that it was stronger than others. The obvious implication was that those others are those Christians who happen to disagree with you on this point. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Still: God caused the great flood, why shouldn't he cause a hurrican?--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: I am unconvinced by angry tirades. Only logic works well.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:03, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::I wasn't the one threatening you. Concerning logic: What about the flood? You never answered that one.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The "tirade" thing was directed at Flippin, not you, Sherm, sorry for the confusion. But, I would say that he didn't cause the flood, but that's because I'm not a biblical literalist, and I don't think that Noah actually saved all life on Earth. But, if you believe in God, certainly some acts are acts of God. But it goes too far to say that everything happening in the world is an act of God. Certainly they're in accord with his plan, but not directly caused.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::[[User:Flippin|Flippin]], please note that [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] tends to have "a chip on his shoulder" and is ready to argue (on ALL points). And [[User:AmesG|AmesG]], Gee, give us all a break, dude. (Though I '''did''' like the analogy of the President being my plumber, [turn on the light switch to get the hot water on], though I'd rather him do the gardening.) ANYWAY...

::::"Stuff happens," to paraphrase the vulgar bumper-sticker: We don't know if there even is a "why" when stuff happens; we can know what leads ''up'' to stuff happening, we can see inside tornadoes and project with a fair degree of accuracy where they're going to go next but the philosophical '''reasons why''' tornadoes happen will be argued until the end of time.

::::I believe it error to conclude that just because we can know what happens to create a tornado we can dispense with God and any plan He might have with regard to that tornado.

::::MOO --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 12:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Free Will==

My problem is this. If God is immanent like Flip believes him to be, then he has a hand in everything we do. Thus, we do not have free will, because everything we do is an Act of God. If we don't have free will, then what is the point of our existence? Why did God create us if not to see what would happen if you gave a creation free will?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:This means solve the problems of hundreds of years of philosophy. We have proof in the bible that god interfers with life on earth. The question here is how far his influence reaches.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:10, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::ABSOLUTELY! Thank you sherm [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::If there's a legitimate question on that point, then it's hardly an atheist term, is it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I can understand God interfering to guide the course of humanity. I can also see him interfering to correct grave injustices. But I can't seem him interfering in the everyday lives of humanity. Also, if you subscribe to Judaism, they believe that after the second destruction of the Temple, God left the earth and became a transcendent being, rather than an immanent one.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::If there is no free will how can we sin?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Scopes Trial

2007-03-21T05:34:45Z

Cracker: /* Gore? */

This is so atrociously biased that I need not say more than this.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 16:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Gore? ==
It might be nice if there were some explanation for how Gore's loss is relevant here. I'm not necessarily saying it's not, I don't know either way, but the leap from TN views on evolution (which needs a cite) to Gore losing is a big one and it's not clear why that should be here.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Is there a cite==

Is there a citation for the sentence '''"The textbook also featured the fraudulent Piltdown Man."'''?
I believe the only use of Piltdown Man was in an affidavit by an (or two) "expert" witness. Piltdown was only "discovered" in 1912, the Hunter's ''Civic Biology'' text was published in 1914.
:::--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 01:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==End of Trial==

My understanding has always been that the judge considered the whole Darrow/Byran exchange pointless and called it to a halt. So rather than Darrow ducking out, the judge stopped it b/f he could be examined by Bryan.

Also, this whole article needs to be re-examined. The bias is overwhelming.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Your understanding is based on the erroneous liberal spin. In fact, everyone was stunned (including the NY Times) that Darrow reneged on his deal to take the stand.

: Everything in the content page is well-supported. There is enormous liberal misinformation about the trial that has misled everyone who fails to look at the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Andy, with all due respect, I can't agree with you. I've read in multiple places that Raulston cut off Bryan's questioning and didn't allow the cross-exam. He decided the whole sequence wasn't germane to the trial. So Darrow didn't "chicken out" Further, Darrow called for a guilty verdict not to "save his own skin" but so he could appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

::Again, my issue isn't with the fawning pro-Bryan tone. It's with the blatant mis-statement of fact. It should be corrected.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Here is Darrow asking for a guilty verdict. [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day8.htm]
:::: I am frank to say, while we think it is wrong, and we ought to have been permitted to put in our evidence, the court felt otherwise, as he had a right to hold. We cannot argue to you gentlemen under the instructions given by the court--we cannot even explain to you that we think you should return a verdict of not guilty. We do not see how you could. We do not ask it. We think we will save our point and take it to the higher court and settle whether the law is good, and also whether he should have permitted the evidence. I guess that is plain enough.
::: I am not sure that Darrow's motives can be deduced from this. I guess that you are questioning the sentence, "To save his own skin, Darrow handed over his client!" It is certainly very rare to ask for a guilty verdict like this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree; it is rare. But if you look at what Darrow says towards the end: "We think we will save our point and take it to the higher court and settle whether the law is good, and also whether he should have permitted the evidence." Darrow is asking for a guilty verdict so he can appeal it. Hardly the act of a "chicken."--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

France

2007-03-21T05:15:28Z

Cracker: Undo revision 53653 by Special:Contributions/Jo 27e (User talk:Jo 27e) "in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue." Ain't no Franco mexican war in1454

{{stub}}
[[Image:map_of_france.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|Map of France]]
France is a country in Western Europe.

At its height, the French Empire rivaled the British Empire, with colonies in every corner of the world. It continues to be a strong presence in academia and has been the birthplace of countless renowned scholars. It remains a powerhouse in the [[European Union]], often at odds with the [[United Kingdom]] on issues of EU policy. The capital city is Paris, often called the "City of Lights" due to its renown for a center of learning and philosophy.

It was a founding member of the European Coal and Steel treaty which led to the EEC and EU. It greatly assisted then-Great Britain's North American colonies both militarily and financially in their effort to gain independence, and established universal legal codes in much of the non-Anglo-Saxon west. It has made a number of philosophical contributions to the world, including Descartes and Sartre, existentialism and post modernism. Its own colonial behavior and the treatment of non-French soldiers has been criticized. Racial distinctions were made between “French soldiers” and “Soldiers of France”. It maintains the vestiges of [[Imperialism]] with the CFA (African France) in much of west and central Africa.It gifted the Statue of Liberty to the USA in celebration of its independence, echoing the French aid given to the colonies during the American Revolutionary War.

In March of 2003 A.D., France did not participate in the alliance that attacked [[Iraq]], with its ostensible aim to remove the [[Baathist]] regime, suspected of hiding weapons of mass destruction. This prompted backlash and a criticism from some Americans, causing them to question whether France's status as a U.S. ally had been undermined.
==Gaul==
Back during the time of the [[Roman Republic]], France was a territory called Gaul. It was home to many fierce Saxon tribes. [[Julius Caesar]] personally led the invasion. Eventually the Empire crumbled.
==Frankland under Clovis==
France is named after the Franks, a Saxon tribe who established Soissons, the capital. A Frank called [[Clovis]] united the Franks and established Frankland
==Weak monarchs==
Clovis's successors grew to be lazy and weak.

[[Category:Countries]]

Talk:Rudy Giuliani

2007-03-21T05:02:17Z

Cracker: /* Military service */

This article appears to be in clear violation of the 6th commandment. The majority of the article is unsourced opinion. He is a lawyer. For this site's sake, shouldn't more care be taken to avoid libel? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:24, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

* I quite agree. I have removed the unsourced material, personal opinion, and added a complete, fair and ''accurate'' page. --[[User:TK|Terry]] 21:35, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

----

== User Mageoflulz/Eljoe ==

Just added "cross-dressing" to the list of Giuliani's hobbies. He should be removed as a user. I have reverted it. --Terry 01:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*User Mageoflutz just removed the post above....doesn't seem to understand the history is saved, even if he deletes it, lol. --[[User:TK|Terry]] 02:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Same user, vandalized the page, using user name: Eljoe, to read:'''

Personal

Giuliani's sexuality is often a topic in the press and at times his sexuality is questioned. The Catholic Church annuled Giuliani's first marriage between he and his then wife, Regina Peruggi, because Giuliani discovered that they were in fact second cousins. While he and his second wife Donna Hanover were separated he moved out of Gracie Mansion and moved in with two gay friends. Guiuliani has appeared several times dressed as a woman at public events. He appeared in drag in an episode of "Queer As Folk." He also wore a blond wig and pink dress for the 1997 Inner Circle dinner in New York. He then appeared again on national television on "Saturday Night Live" cross dressing. [http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2001/10/19/3]

:*User as Eljoe, just reposted the paragraph above. Reverted it. --[[User:TK|TK]] 02:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::*User Eljoe reposted the above paragraph once again. --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply''' Giuliani's cross dressing is of importance to voters that might plan on choosing him as the next President, particularly if family values and moral behavior are important to you. I cited my addition as well. What is the problem with this?

:::* Why would you revert the post about how Giuliani married his second cousin? It is a fact that he married his second cousin. TK you should stop trying to make this site less credible. Correct information should not be deleted.

*This is an encyclopedia, not the gossip columns. Ronald Reagan, Bush 41, and many others have dressed in drag for comedy skits, same as Giuliani, and it is not important to their record of public service. You will be banned soon, so warm up your other logins. LOL--[[User:TK|TK]] 03:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::We put facts, not opinions, not judgements, not gossip on these pages. TK, I copied your message to Aschlafly on to the Conservapedia:Abuse page. It'll be replied to faster there. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

None of what I added is gossip. It is a fact he was married to his second cousin. It is a fact he moved in with two of his gay friends. It is a fact he appeared on television dressed in women's clothes. And how one presents himself to the public and the world is incredibly important when serving public office.

::*Myk, I had already added a section on Andrews page. ;-) --[[User:TK|TK]] 04:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I know... don't bother Andrew with all that... he's got enough to deal with. Hold up on the edits here for a sec... I'm going to reformat it. Not mucking with content, just making it encyclopedic. We edit conflicted and I lost it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Removed section ==

Removed line "he was hailed around the world as "America's Mayor,"" this is an unverifiable fact. It may be a quote from a single newspaper article but hardly a consscensous from around the world.

*Please do not edit if you are unaware of the facts. Please also sign your posts. He has been hailed as "America's Mayor" in almost every publication, newspapers, all major networks, including Fox and CNN. A person would have to be disingenuous or have lived in a total vacuum not to be aware of that. --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Formating==
Now it looks more like an encyclopedia article and the format is at least similar to the McCain article. It's still slightly POVish... Giuliani does have some political warts, after all but it's looking much better. Nice job with the content, TK. If you want to help, I'm going to try to do some of the other Republican candidates tomorrow (this is conservapedia after all) before moving on to the Democrats (full disclosure.. I'm a Democrat). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*'' "full disclosure.. I'm a Democrat"''... Well, good luck with your choices, lol. --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:27, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Comedy Skits ==

"This is an encyclopedia, not the gossip columns. Ronald Reagan, Bush 41, and many others have dressed in drag for comedy skits, same as Giuliani, and it is not important to their record of public service."

::I was thinking about that comment and I have to agree that this is suppose to be an encylopedia and encyclopedias do not focus on one aspect of a person's life so it would not be appropriate to limit topics on Giuliani to simply his "record of public service". So in the same way it is important to understand Reagan in the context of the Cold War it is within the scope of an encyclopedia to include the fact that he was an actor and liked jelly beans. So I am suggesting a Giuliani topic that would be "Comedy Skits" would that be more acceptable?

*It isn't germain at all. However since you seem hell-bent on trying to get it in, I have no problem with it, as I just re-edited it. To me, it makes him look better than if you had just agreed to leave it out. Please sign your responses! It saves the aggravation of skipping back to history to see who you are. --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== The entry is way too one-sided ==

This entry reads like a campaign brochure for Giuliani. I'm going to track down and reinsert some of the inappropriate edits that has made this so distorted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Rather than do that why not simply add some balancing material. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
*Goodness! Perhaps if you would respond to your email, or IM's sent to you, Andrew, stuff like this could be avoided, and there wouldn't be a need for you to publicly complain.....I'm a Newt man, and for the life of me, I don't see this article as pro or con Rudy. Could you be more specific? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

This is from wikipedia but would balance the entry. Alot about hie leadership after 9/11 is mentioned but this is a fair criticism:

Aftermath of Ground Zero recovery effort

In February 2007, the International Association of Fire Fighters issued a letter accusing Giuliani of "egregious acts" against the 343 fireman who had died in the September 11th attacks. The letter asserted that Giuliani rushed to conclude the recovery effort once gold and silver had been recovered from World Trade Center vaults and thereby prevented the remains of many victims from being recovered: "Mayor Giuliani's actions meant that fire fighters and citizens who perished would either remain buried at Ground Zero forever, with no closure for families, or be removed like garbage and deposited at the Fresh Kills Landfill," it said, adding: "Hundreds remained entombed in Ground Zero when Giuliani gave up on them." --- Eljoe

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/09/giuliani.firefighters.ap/index.html

*User Aschlafly has posted that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source of information here, nor is it acceptable to cite it for work here. The complaints of a very few Firemen, as to if the Recovery effort was ended too soon, isn't a valid criticism, as it was predictable that there would always be some percentage that would think as they do, even if the Recovery effort lasted two years. PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS! --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Agree on the point in general about not using wikipedia, but the International Association of Fire Fighters is not a very small group of firemen. And I'll tell you, here in New York, this is a big deal. People are still finding remains down there. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 21:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes if you follow the CNN link the International Association of Fire Fighters is 280,000 members. It is a significant viewpoint of Giuliani's handling of 9/11--[[User:Eljoe|Eljoe]] 21:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*If one lives anywhere but NY, it isn't. 280,000 members for a "International" organization, isn't very large, gentlemen. If you are hell bent on adding that stuff, get the other side as well, and enter it in the same paragraph. Fair & Balanced like. I am not looking to paint him as Evil, and neither should anyone engaged in this project. For every story, there are at least two sides. On Fox News, I saw the story, the complaints about ending the Recovery effort. Do some research on major disasters, and see if NYC's recovery effort took less or more time than those...let's see you bring in what those who decided to end recovery say about those "charges". Then we will have something worth the space, and useful to those doing research. :p --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 22:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::That's what journalists do, not encyclopedists. For a man whose reputation is due in large part to his dealing with 9/11, criticism from first responders is a significant deal. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*No, encyclopedia's have an obligation to state facts. Charges by some group, any group, are not "facts". To my knowledge, what that fire fighters group is saying has not been proven factual by any board of inquiry or government body, correct? Are you suggesting that any and all allegations, made by anyone or any group should be included, that it is right to include such items, on the page of any person in this Conservapedia? Should, for example, the page about Ronald Reagan include speculation about his family? Should a page about Ted Kennedy include the speculations and charges of others about that girl who drowned when his car went off the road? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 23:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::There are two issues here. One is that a very large union of firefighters is criticizing Giuliani on behalf of its members who served under him during the 9/11 terror attacks. That is news because it will impact his campaign and already did when he wasn't invited / didn't show up to address this union at an event where every major candidate was president. And yes, they are still finding remains in the ruin which verifies the claims of the firemen. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*So, now you are saying opposite of what you said above. Encyclopedia's are not newspapers. I understand Andrew's additions, as they are indeed factual, and germain but the fire fighters not inviting him to address them, which is why he didn't attend, and their feelings about the recovery effort is something to include, since he is a candidate, however it should be balanced with his side as well. Otherwise the entry just becomes a vehicle for people who dislike him to include all manner of things, and I think my comment about what is "fair game" is valid. Look in any other written encyclopedia, and see if opponents remarks are printed with some rebuttal included..... --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 23:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::How did I contradict myself? Encyclopedia's report facts, but I'm not going to investigate. To the best of my knowledge Giuliani's campaign had no comment on the subject. If you would like to balance the story by finding Giuliani's response to it, that will be a fine addition. But I don't feel compelled to include it. An association of firefighters is openly criticizing a presidential candidate over the very issue which is the foundation of his candidacy. That is a key constituency for him. If I had a dog in that hunt I'd be looking at something to balance it, but I don't. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, for a guy without a dog in the hunt, you are pretty worked up, and post lots of words, about including what you did, lol. It's all good. But I do wish you would be more concerned with a balanced presentation, no matter what your personal interest is. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 00:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::In case you didn't notice, I didn't actually add anything to the article. I just look it over to make sure it's got a source and that it looks pretty like. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

*No, I apologize, Mike, I didn't really check that well. I think the lines I added balance out the article. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Military service ==

The fact that Giuliani received a deferrment is notable. The fact that he never served in the military is not. It could be justified in an electability section, but not in his early life section. Was he also not a Boy Scout? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The fact he did not serve in Vietnam is relevant to his "Early Career" particularly given the timiming.--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 00:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Eljoe2, if you remove only a partial quote, as you did the portion about the fireman's union, you will earn yourself a time-out. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 00:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*'''It is neither notable, or unique, nor important to giving a description of his life. Hundreds of thousands received deferments from the draft for attending school or being in certain professions. This was something that was done by the Selective Service Administration. His draft lottery number in particular, isn't relevant. Not having served in the military (as I did) isn't something shameful or unique either. If you wish to skewer Rudy, do so the right way, by posting germain factual information about his public record as Mayor or a U.S. Attorney.''' --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 00:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

As a person who is seeking the Presidency, the Commander in Chief of America's military, it is of significance to include in an encyclopedia that persons history of involvement or lack of involvement during in that military, particularly during a time of war.--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 00:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And people can figure out for themselves that he didn't serve by the fact that it is never mentioned that he ''did'' serve. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The quote I removed was from someone working on his campaign staff in regards to the Firefighters Union and John Kerry, that seems 1)Biased because of the source and 2) More fitting for John Kerry's entry. It should be removed.--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 00:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

If I recall correctly Dick Cheney had "other priorities" during the Vietnam War, getting multiple deferments in the process. Just an observation that may be taken into account here. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 00:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*Since the Union has a clear record of endorsing Democratic Party candidates, and in this case, endorsing Kerry way before he had locked up the primaries, their prior actions do indeed go to a pre-disposed bias, no? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 00:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So Eljoe made a good point anyway... the source was from the Giuliani campaign. Note that the Union supports Democratic candidates, which it does, and leave the analysis portion out of it. And '''unlock the article.''' Just because people disagree with you is not a good reason to protect an article.[[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*'''Since the Union has a clear record of endorsing Democratic Party candidates, and in this case, endorsing Kerry way before he had locked up the primaries, their prior actions do indeed go to a pre-disposed bias, no? And it was quoted in Bloomberg as Rudy's response to the Union's open letter, therefore it is part of the record. Showing only the Union's charges, without allowing the other side's response, isn't fair, it isn't balanced. My IM is listed in the box of my talk page, feel free to use it. Until all the constant reverts, and removing of partial quotes ends, either someone is being suspended, or it will stay locked for tonight.''' --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 00:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, it is not clear that the Union has a record of endorsing democrats, the artcle provides the single example. In addition the linked reference actually then describes the political makeup as "About 42 percent of IAFF members are Republican, 40 percent Democratic and the rest independent, according to union spokesman Jeff Zack." --[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 00:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Dude, you are abusing your power as a sysop. I have presented multiple compromises and alternative ways to phrase it to present a neutral POV. I'm not going to IM you because I'm not going to give you my IM address. You seem to feel the need to bold your comments as if this will make them more important. It won't. And how can the constant reverts and edits change if it's locked? This is a wiki. If conservapedia turns into a top-down power structure, it will paint a very bad picture of conservatives. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==IRC==
Just a note: We have an IRC channel set up on irc.freenode.net #conservapedia to allow real time...discussions. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 01:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Margaret Thatcher

2007-03-21T04:48:26Z

Cracker: Undo revision 53631 by Special:Contributions/Silent Majority (User talk:Silent Majority)

'''Margaret Hilda Roberts Thatcher''' (born October 13, 1925) became the leader of the Conservatives in [[The United Kingdom]] in February 1975. She was opposed to socialism and out-of-control union power which had brought down the previous Conservative government in 1974. She ran on these issues which resulted in her being elected as Prime Minister in May 1975 with the Conservatives sweeping into power.

She sold many of the nationalized industries back to private investors and made tax cuts. Thatcher stood up against the powerful Labour Party unions, thus encouraging the British coal and newspaper industries by breaking the power of the unions who had a stranglehold over these industries. Due to her strong standards and her leadership style, she became known as the "Iron Lady," a term originally coined as an insult by the communist [[Soviet Union]], but one she adopted with glee. Another famous statement of hers is that "the lady is not for turning" Thatcher was always a strong supporter of the the United States, and was a good friend of President [[Ronald Reagan]], uniting with him in actions against the Communists. She led Britain to victory against [[Argentina]] in a 1982 war over ownership of the [[Falkland Islands]], and though the United States was allied with both countries, and did initially try to broker a negotiated settlement, when that failed, the U.S. supported Britain and not Argentina with vital intelligence information. Thatcher won three elections between 1979 and decision not to stand for a second party vote in 1990, when it became apparent she wouldn't have the needed votes. Margaret Thatcher was the longest serving Prime Minister for more than 150 years, and alongside Winston Churchill, many consider her to be one of the two most important British political leaders of the twentieth century.

[[Time Magazine]] wrote of Lady Thatcher: ''"She was the catalyst who set in motion a series of interconnected events that gave a revolutionary twist to the century's last two decades and helped mankind end the millennium on a note of hope and confidence. The triumph of capitalism, the almost universal acceptance of the market as indispensable to prosperity, the collapse of Soviet imperialism, the downsizing of the state on nearly every continent and in almost every country in the world — Margaret Thatcher played a part in all those transformations, and it is not easy to see how any would have occurred without her. Champion of free minds and markets, she helped topple the welfare state and make the world safer for capitalism"'' [http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/thatcher.html]

==Career prior to 1979==

Lady Thatcher attended St Hilda's College, [[Oxford University|Oxford]], where she read chemistry. After graduating, she worked for a time as a research chemist before going to tbe Bar and practising as a [[tax]] lawyer, an indication of her interest in financial matters. She married Dennis Thatcher, a successful business man, whom she met at a Conservative Party meeting. They had 2 children, twins [[Mark Thatcher|Mark]] and [[Carol Thatcher|Carol]].

Under the premiership of [[Edward Heath]] (1970-1974), Thatcher served as Secretary of State for Education. After the Conservatives were defeated in the elections of February and October 1974, Thatcher challenged the more liberal Heath for the leadership of the party. When she went into Heath's office to tell him her decision, he did not even bother to look up. "You'll lose," he said. "Good day to you." [http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/thatcher.html]

Though at the time she was a relatively untested figure (and many in the party were wary of choosing a woman leader), she defeated both Heath and her other male rivals in the contest in February 1975.

In the 1970s, her strongly conservative, pro-capitalist stance resonated with a new mood among the British electorate, many of whom had become dissatisfied with the post-[[World War II]] liberal consensus (the "post-war consensus", sometimes also called "Butskellism"). Thatcher and the Conservatives offered a clear alternative vision for an increasingly aspirational society. Sir [[Keith Joseph]] was the primary intellectual force behind these theories that later became known as ''Thatcherism.

==Prime Ministership==

Her chief goals in power were to reverse Britain's economic decline and to reduce the range of the state as well as standing taller on the international stage. She found a soul-mate in Ronald Reagan, elected in 1980 but whom she had met in 1975. Thatcher started by increasing interest rates to drive down inflation which hit the manufacturing sector and caused unemployment to rise sharply and there was a deep recession in the early 1980s blamed on her Government's economic policy. This led to her famous quote: 'the lady is not for turning', and she refused a policy u-turn and, despite an open letter from 364 economists, taxes were increased in the middle of a recession. Although unemployment did not reach 3 million till 1982, a year earlier British cities burned as thousands took to the streets to demonstrate their frustration. Inflation was going down though, allowing interest rates to fall, but as the economy started to recover Argentina invaded the Falklands. Thatcher responded with a naval task force and with help from General Pinochet and, more covertly, [[Ronald Reagan]] the British forces swiftly recaptured the islands. The resulting wave of patriotic enthusiasm as well as her right to buy policy for council homes, and a uselessly divided opposition, meant she got a landslide victory in the June 1983 general election.

The big theme of her second term was reducing the power of the trade unions with a series of measures that a number of unions reacted to with industrial action. In particular the National Union of Mineworkers led by Arthur Scargill. The Tories had prepared for the strike by building up coal reserves and the deploying well paid police units fitted out with new riot gear brought in after the disturbances of 1981 who taunted the strikers by waving fivers at them. The miners responded with bricks and very ugly scenes developed on picket lines that split the country. Scargill's failure to hold a ballot for the strike undermined public support and the striker's chant of 'vote with your feet' calling miners to join the strike was turned on them as more and more returned to work over the year of the strike.

In the middle of the strike, on October 12 1984, the IRA exploded a bomb during the Conservative Party conference in Brighton. Thatcher escaped injury but five people died in the attack and Margaret Tebbit was left paralyzed, the conference went on as normal. Thatcher's political and economic philosophy emphasised free markets and since gaining power she had experimented in selling off nationalised industries starting with the National Freight company, most of the large utilities followed. Thatcher supported Reagan's policies of deterrence against the Soviets and US forces stationed nuclear cruise missiles at British bases, arousing mass protests by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. She supported the US bombing raid on [[Libya]] from bases in Britain in 1986 and, by refusing to side with a European consortium, in backing a the Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation of the USA over a British company Westland. Michael Heseltine resigned in protest at her style of leadership over this. In 1984 she visited [[China]] and signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration with [[Deng Xiaoping]] that agreed the handover of [[Hong Kong]] in 1997. Also that year at the Fontainebleau summit Thatcher argued that the UK paid far more to the EEC than it received in spending and negotiated a budget rebate using the argument that ‘We want our money back’. In 1985, the University of Oxford voted to refuse her an honorary degree in protest against her cuts in funding for education.

In 1987 she became the first Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to win three consecutive general elections since [[Lord Liverpool]] (1812-1827). In the late 1980's Thatcher began to be concerned by environmental policy and in 1988 she made a major speech accepting the problems of global warming, ozone depletion and acid rain. More memorably, at Bruges, she made a speech in which she outlined her opposition to proposals from the European Communities for a federal structure and increasing centralisation of decision-making believing that the role of the EC should be limited to ensuring free trade and effective competition. She was specifically against Economic and Monetary Union, through which a single currency would replace national currencies, and for which the EC was making preparations. In 1989 the economy high interest rates were imposed to stop an unsustainable boom. At the Madrid European summit, Nigel Lawson and Geoffrey Howe forced Thatcher to agree the circumstances in which she would join the Exchange Rate Mechanism, a preparation for monetary union. She took revenge on both by demoting Howe and listening more to her adviser Sir Alan Walters on economic matters. Lawson resigned that October and in November, a so-called ‘stalking horse candidate Sir Anthony Meyer challenged Thatcher for the leadership of the Conservative Party. In 1989 a new system of local government finance to replace the rates was introduced for Scotland in 1989 and for England and Wales in 1990. Called the 'Community Charge' but known as the Poll Tax was applied at the same amount to every individual resident with only limited discounts. Widespread opposition culminated in a huge demonstration in London on March 31 that turned into the largest outbreak of public disorder central London had seen in a century which was followed by millions of people refusing to pay the tax. This along with her government's handling of the economy, her perceived arrogance and a general feeling that she would never retire, made her politically vulnerable. Geoffrey Howe resigned on November 1 and condemned Thatcher's policy on the European Communities then openly invited 'others to consider their own response'. Michael Heseltine's response was a leadership challenge which resulted in a narrow failure, by two votes, for Thatcher to win automatic re-election. After consulting with cabinet colleagues she found a vast majority thought that she could not win on the second ballot. On November 22nd Thatcher announced that she would not be a candidate in the second ballot. She supported John Major as her successor, and retired from Parliament at the 1992 election.

After leaving the House of Commons, she was created '''Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven''' and entered the House of Lords and more controversially, Denis Thatcher was given a Baronetcy which ensured that their son, Mark, would inherit the title. Leaving power rather depressed her, and aside from writing her memoirs, her role as 'backseat driver' in the Major administration was not well received. She publicly endorsed William Hague for the Conservative leadership in 1997. She made many speaking engagements around the world including very vocal support of former dictator General Pinochet that the new Labour administration extradited to Spain on charges of torturing political opponents. In March 2002 she suffered a mild stroke, and she was told by her doctors to make no more public speeches on health grounds, nevertheless she insisted on attending the funeral of her old friend and political soul-mate, Ronald Reagan, in 2004 against her Doctor's orders. Baroness Thatcher is still seen at Tory party gatherings and has endorsed party leaders such as William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith.

[http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/thatcher.html][http://www.fandmpublications.co.uk/pages/margaretbiography1.htm][http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page126.asp]

==Quick Facts==
Born: 13 October 1925 in Grantham, Lincolnshire

First entered Parliament: 8 October 1959

Elected as Prime Minister in May 1975

Age she became PM: 53 years, 204 days

Maiden Speech: 5 February 1960 during the second reading of her Private Member's Bill

Total time as PM: 11 years, 209 days

Nickname: "The Iron Lady"

Education: Kesteven and Grantham Girls' School and Somerville College, Oxford

Before Thatcher became an MP, she worked as a research chemist for British Xylonite and then Lyons & Company, where she helped develop methods for preserving ice cream.

Family: Margaret Thatcher is the younger of two daughters. She married Sir Dennis Thatcher, and has one son and one daughter

Interests: Music, art, opera and reading

[http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page126.asp][http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/thatcher.html]

==Husband==
Denis Thatcher, ''as the first male PM spouse in history'', was always likely to be the centre of media attention - and he didn't disappoint.

When she met him, Baroness Thatcher remarked that "it was clear to me at once that Denis was an exceptional man - he had a certain style and dash." Described as a man of integrity, humour and common sense, he had a strong business background and fought with the Royal Artillery during the war.

It was said that Denis was in 'the Thatcher party not the Tory party'. He once famously remarked, recalling the words of Mark Twain, that: "it's better to keep my mouth shut and be thought a fool rather than open it and remove all doubt."

When he died in 2003 his wife paid tribute to the man she loved by saying: "Being PM is a lonely job. In a sense, it ought to be - you cannot lead from a crowd. But with Denis there I was never alone. What a man. What a husband. What a friend."

[http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page126.asp][http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/thatcher.html]

== "Thatcherisms" ==

*"I like Mr Gorbachev, we can do business together."

*"I have made it quite clear that a unified Ireland was one solution that is out. A second solution was a confederation of two states. That is out. A third solution was joint authority. That is out-that is a derogation of sovereignty."

*"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."

*"If you lead a country like Britain, a strong country, a country which has taken a lead in world affairs in good times and in bad, a country that is always reliable, then you have to have a touch of iron about you."

*"I do not know anyone who has got to the top without hard work. That is the recipe. It will not always get you to the top, but should get you pretty near."

*"What Britain needs is an iron lady."

*"Unless we change our ways and our direction, our greatness as a nation will soon be a footnote in the history books, a distant memory of an offshore island, lost in the mists of time like Camelot, remembered kindly for its noble past."

*"I just owe almost everything to my father [and] it's passionately interesting for me that the things that I learned in a small town, in a very modest home, are just the things that I believe have won the election."

*"Democratic nations must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend." [http://www.quoteworld.org/authors/margaret-thatcher/1/]

*"It will be years before a woman either leads the Conservative Party or becomes Prime Minister. I don't see it happening in my time" (in 1970)[http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page126.asp]

Talk:Rudy Giuliani

2007-03-21T04:45:03Z

Cracker: /* Military service */ spelling

Talk:Rudy Giuliani

2007-03-21T04:44:07Z

Cracker: /* Military service */

This article appears to be in clear violation of the 6th commandment. The majority of the article is unsourced opinion. He is a lawyer. For this site's sake, shouldn't more care be taken to avoid libel? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:24, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

* I quite agree. I have removed the unsourced material, personal opinion, and added a complete, fair and ''accurate'' page. --[[User:TK|Terry]] 21:35, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

----

== User Mageoflulz/Eljoe ==

Just added "cross-dressing" to the list of Giuliani's hobbies. He should be removed as a user. I have reverted it. --Terry 01:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*User Mageoflutz just removed the post above....doesn't seem to understand the history is saved, even if he deletes it, lol. --[[User:TK|Terry]] 02:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Same user, vandalized the page, using user name: Eljoe, to read:'''

Personal

Giuliani's sexuality is often a topic in the press and at times his sexuality is questioned. The Catholic Church annuled Giuliani's first marriage between he and his then wife, Regina Peruggi, because Giuliani discovered that they were in fact second cousins. While he and his second wife Donna Hanover were separated he moved out of Gracie Mansion and moved in with two gay friends. Guiuliani has appeared several times dressed as a woman at public events. He appeared in drag in an episode of "Queer As Folk." He also wore a blond wig and pink dress for the 1997 Inner Circle dinner in New York. He then appeared again on national television on "Saturday Night Live" cross dressing. [http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2001/10/19/3]

:*User as Eljoe, just reposted the paragraph above. Reverted it. --[[User:TK|TK]] 02:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::*User Eljoe reposted the above paragraph once again. --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply''' Giuliani's cross dressing is of importance to voters that might plan on choosing him as the next President, particularly if family values and moral behavior are important to you. I cited my addition as well. What is the problem with this?

:::* Why would you revert the post about how Giuliani married his second cousin? It is a fact that he married his second cousin. TK you should stop trying to make this site less credible. Correct information should not be deleted.

*This is an encyclopedia, not the gossip columns. Ronald Reagan, Bush 41, and many others have dressed in drag for comedy skits, same as Giuliani, and it is not important to their record of public service. You will be banned soon, so warm up your other logins. LOL--[[User:TK|TK]] 03:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::We put facts, not opinions, not judgements, not gossip on these pages. TK, I copied your message to Aschlafly on to the Conservapedia:Abuse page. It'll be replied to faster there. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

None of what I added is gossip. It is a fact he was married to his second cousin. It is a fact he moved in with two of his gay friends. It is a fact he appeared on television dressed in women's clothes. And how one presents himself to the public and the world is incredibly important when serving public office.

::*Myk, I had already added a section on Andrews page. ;-) --[[User:TK|TK]] 04:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I know... don't bother Andrew with all that... he's got enough to deal with. Hold up on the edits here for a sec... I'm going to reformat it. Not mucking with content, just making it encyclopedic. We edit conflicted and I lost it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Removed section ==

Removed line "he was hailed around the world as "America's Mayor,"" this is an unverifiable fact. It may be a quote from a single newspaper article but hardly a consscensous from around the world.

*Please do not edit if you are unaware of the facts. Please also sign your posts. He has been hailed as "America's Mayor" in almost every publication, newspapers, all major networks, including Fox and CNN. A person would have to be disingenuous or have lived in a total vacuum not to be aware of that. --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Formating==
Now it looks more like an encyclopedia article and the format is at least similar to the McCain article. It's still slightly POVish... Giuliani does have some political warts, after all but it's looking much better. Nice job with the content, TK. If you want to help, I'm going to try to do some of the other Republican candidates tomorrow (this is conservapedia after all) before moving on to the Democrats (full disclosure.. I'm a Democrat). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*'' "full disclosure.. I'm a Democrat"''... Well, good luck with your choices, lol. --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:27, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Comedy Skits ==

"This is an encyclopedia, not the gossip columns. Ronald Reagan, Bush 41, and many others have dressed in drag for comedy skits, same as Giuliani, and it is not important to their record of public service."

::I was thinking about that comment and I have to agree that this is suppose to be an encylopedia and encyclopedias do not focus on one aspect of a person's life so it would not be appropriate to limit topics on Giuliani to simply his "record of public service". So in the same way it is important to understand Reagan in the context of the Cold War it is within the scope of an encyclopedia to include the fact that he was an actor and liked jelly beans. So I am suggesting a Giuliani topic that would be "Comedy Skits" would that be more acceptable?

*It isn't germain at all. However since you seem hell-bent on trying to get it in, I have no problem with it, as I just re-edited it. To me, it makes him look better than if you had just agreed to leave it out. Please sign your responses! It saves the aggravation of skipping back to history to see who you are. --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== The entry is way too one-sided ==

This entry reads like a campaign brochure for Giuliani. I'm going to track down and reinsert some of the inappropriate edits that has made this so distorted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Rather than do that why not simply add some balancing material. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
*Goodness! Perhaps if you would respond to your email, or IM's sent to you, Andrew, stuff like this could be avoided, and there wouldn't be a need for you to publicly complain.....I'm a Newt man, and for the life of me, I don't see this article as pro or con Rudy. Could you be more specific? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

This is from wikipedia but would balance the entry. Alot about hie leadership after 9/11 is mentioned but this is a fair criticism:

Aftermath of Ground Zero recovery effort

In February 2007, the International Association of Fire Fighters issued a letter accusing Giuliani of "egregious acts" against the 343 fireman who had died in the September 11th attacks. The letter asserted that Giuliani rushed to conclude the recovery effort once gold and silver had been recovered from World Trade Center vaults and thereby prevented the remains of many victims from being recovered: "Mayor Giuliani's actions meant that fire fighters and citizens who perished would either remain buried at Ground Zero forever, with no closure for families, or be removed like garbage and deposited at the Fresh Kills Landfill," it said, adding: "Hundreds remained entombed in Ground Zero when Giuliani gave up on them." --- Eljoe

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/09/giuliani.firefighters.ap/index.html

*User Aschlafly has posted that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source of information here, nor is it acceptable to cite it for work here. The complaints of a very few Firemen, as to if the Recovery effort was ended too soon, isn't a valid criticism, as it was predictable that there would always be some percentage that would think as they do, even if the Recovery effort lasted two years. PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS! --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Agree on the point in general about not using wikipedia, but the International Association of Fire Fighters is not a very small group of firemen. And I'll tell you, here in New York, this is a big deal. People are still finding remains down there. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 21:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes if you follow the CNN link the International Association of Fire Fighters is 280,000 members. It is a significant viewpoint of Giuliani's handling of 9/11--[[User:Eljoe|Eljoe]] 21:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*If one lives anywhere but NY, it isn't. 280,000 members for a "International" organization, isn't very large, gentlemen. If you are hell bent on adding that stuff, get the other side as well, and enter it in the same paragraph. Fair & Balanced like. I am not looking to paint him as Evil, and neither should anyone engaged in this project. For every story, there are at least two sides. On Fox News, I saw the story, the complaints about ending the Recovery effort. Do some research on major disasters, and see if NYC's recovery effort took less or more time than those...let's see you bring in what those who decided to end recovery say about those "charges". Then we will have something worth the space, and useful to those doing research. :p --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 22:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::That's what journalists do, not encyclopedists. For a man whose reputation is due in large part to his dealing with 9/11, criticism from first responders is a significant deal. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*No, encyclopedia's have an obligation to state facts. Charges by some group, any group, are not "facts". To my knowledge, what that fire fighters group is saying has not been proven factual by any board of inquiry or government body, correct? Are you suggesting that any and all allegations, made by anyone or any group should be included, that it is right to include such items, on the page of any person in this Conservapedia? Should, for example, the page about Ronald Reagan include speculation about his family? Should a page about Ted Kennedy include the speculations and charges of others about that girl who drowned when his car went off the road? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 23:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::There are two issues here. One is that a very large union of firefighters is criticizing Giuliani on behalf of its members who served under him during the 9/11 terror attacks. That is news because it will impact his campaign and already did when he wasn't invited / didn't show up to address this union at an event where every major candidate was president. And yes, they are still finding remains in the ruin which verifies the claims of the firemen. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*So, now you are saying opposite of what you said above. Encyclopedia's are not newspapers. I understand Andrew's additions, as they are indeed factual, and germain but the fire fighters not inviting him to address them, which is why he didn't attend, and their feelings about the recovery effort is something to include, since he is a candidate, however it should be balanced with his side as well. Otherwise the entry just becomes a vehicle for people who dislike him to include all manner of things, and I think my comment about what is "fair game" is valid. Look in any other written encyclopedia, and see if opponents remarks are printed with some rebuttal included..... --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 23:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::How did I contradict myself? Encyclopedia's report facts, but I'm not going to investigate. To the best of my knowledge Giuliani's campaign had no comment on the subject. If you would like to balance the story by finding Giuliani's response to it, that will be a fine addition. But I don't feel compelled to include it. An association of firefighters is openly criticizing a presidential candidate over the very issue which is the foundation of his candidacy. That is a key constituency for him. If I had a dog in that hunt I'd be looking at something to balance it, but I don't. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, for a guy without a dog in the hunt, you are pretty worked up, and post lots of words, about including what you did, lol. It's all good. But I do wish you would be more concerned with a balanced presentation, no matter what your personal interest is. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 00:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::In case you didn't notice, I didn't actually add anything to the article. I just look it over to make sure it's got a source and that it looks pretty like. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

*No, I apologize, Mike, I didn't really check that well. I think the lines I added balance out the article. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Military service ==

The fact that Giuliani received a deferrment is notable. The fact that he never served in the military is not. It could be justified in an electability section, but not in his early life section. Was he also not a Boy Scout? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The fact he did not serve in Vietnam is relevant to his "Early Career" particularly given the timiming.--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 00:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Eljoe2, if you remove only a partial quote, as you did the portion about the fireman's union, you will earn yourself a time-out. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 00:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*'''It is neither notable, or unique, nor important to giving a description of his life. Hundreds of thousands received deferments from the draft for attending school or being in certain professions. This was something that was done by the Selective Service Administration. His draft lottery number in particular, isn't relevant. Not having served in the military (as I did) isn't something shameful or unique either. If you wish to skewer Rudy, do so the right way, by posting germain factual information about his public record as Mayor or a U.S. Attorney.''' --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 00:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

As a person who is seeking the Presidency, the Commander in Chief of America's military, it is of significance to include in an encyclopedia that persons history of involvement or lack of involvement during in that military, particularly during a time of war.--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 00:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And people can figure out for themselves that he didn't serve by the fact that it is never mentioned that he ''did'' serve. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The quote I removed was from someone working on his campaign staff in regards to the Firefighters Union and John Kerry, that seems 1)Biased because of the source and 2) More fitting for John Kerry's entry. It should be removed.--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 00:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

If I recall correctly Dick Chaney had "other priorities" during the Vietnam War, getting multiple deferments in the process. Just an observation that may be taken into account here. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 00:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Tyrannosaurus

2007-03-20T18:40:00Z

Cracker: /* Diet */ corrected cite

The Tyrannosaurus was a large carnivorous [[dinosaur]] with very small forelimbs, large hind legs and a long tail. It is one of the largest land carnivores to have ever walked the earth, measuring about 13 meters long and 5 meters high.<ref>Brochu, C.R. 2003. Osteology of Tyrannosaurus rex: insights from a nearly complete skeleton and high-resolution computed tomographic analysis of the skull. Memoirs of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 7: 1-138.</ref> Evolutionary scientists believe that the T-rex lived at the end of the Cretaceous period, approximately 65 million years ago. [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] on the other hand believe that they became extinct some 6-5,000 years ago, after [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]] when the environment became too hostile for them.

==History==
The earliest find of a Tyrannosaurus rex occurred in 1892. In 1905, after additional discoveries of fossils, the president of the American Museum for Natural History named the dinosaur. Since then, more than 30 specimens have been found.

In 1990, amateur paleontologist Susan Hendrickson discovered the most complete Tyrannosaurus fossil yet. The fossil, named Sue, is also one of the largest Tyrannosaurus specimen discovered.<ref>Guinness World Records Ltd. (2003). 2003 Guinness World Records. pg 90.</ref>

==Alternate Theories==
While it is widely regarded to be a scientific fact that the Tyrannosaurus rex was a real creature, there is an alternate theory amongst some that the Tyrannosaurus rex either did not live, or that they lived at the same time as humans at some point in history. This is worth mentioning because these alternate theories about dinosaurs seem to be held almost exclusively by [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth]] creationists.

On the other hand it has even been suggested by some <ref>http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=37</ref> that there may be some surviving dinosaurs including Tyrannosaurs in unexplored regions of the Earth.

==Diet==

T-rex had forward-facing eyes, which gave it binocular vision. Binocular vision is usually present in carnivores, as it helps them see their prey from far off, therefore it is very likely that Tyrannosaurus was a carnivore. Young earth creationists believe that the Tyrannosaurus, along with all other carnivores, was herbivorous in the [[Garden of Eden]] before the Fall, but afterwards a change occured that caused T-rex to be unable to digest plants and therefore had to kill and eat other creatures for food.

Some have suggested that T-rex was exclusively a scavenger. This may be partially true, since most carnivores today will happily scavenge available meat. However, it probably was not an ''exclusive'' scavenger, as most meat-eaters must also hunt in order to survive. T-rex's jaws were also quite adaptive to grabbing live prey, and probably used them in the same way most carnivores do: bit the throat to either crush the larynx and thus kill by suffocation or through blood loss. Also, t-rex's large body probably required a great amount of food and therefore scavenging probably wouldn't be sufficient to support its high metabolism.<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3790/is_200103/ai_n8932547|</ref>

==References==

<references/>

Tyrannosaurus

2007-03-20T18:35:40Z

Cracker: /* Diet */ cite

The Tyrannosaurus was a large carnivorous [[dinosaur]] with very small forelimbs, large hind legs and a long tail. It is one of the largest land carnivores to have ever walked the earth, measuring about 13 meters long and 5 meters high.<ref>Brochu, C.R. 2003. Osteology of Tyrannosaurus rex: insights from a nearly complete skeleton and high-resolution computed tomographic analysis of the skull. Memoirs of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 7: 1-138.</ref> Evolutionary scientists believe that the T-rex lived at the end of the Cretaceous period, approximately 65 million years ago. [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] on the other hand believe that they became extinct some 6-5,000 years ago, after [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]] when the environment became too hostile for them.

==History==
The earliest find of a Tyrannosaurus rex occurred in 1892. In 1905, after additional discoveries of fossils, the president of the American Museum for Natural History named the dinosaur. Since then, more than 30 specimens have been found.

In 1990, amateur paleontologist Susan Hendrickson discovered the most complete Tyrannosaurus fossil yet. The fossil, named Sue, is also one of the largest Tyrannosaurus specimen discovered.<ref>Guinness World Records Ltd. (2003). 2003 Guinness World Records. pg 90.</ref>

==Alternate Theories==
While it is widely regarded to be a scientific fact that the Tyrannosaurus rex was a real creature, there is an alternate theory amongst some that the Tyrannosaurus rex either did not live, or that they lived at the same time as humans at some point in history. This is worth mentioning because these alternate theories about dinosaurs seem to be held almost exclusively by [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth]] creationists.

On the other hand it has even been suggested by some <ref>http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=37</ref> that there may be some surviving dinosaurs including Tyrannosaurs in unexplored regions of the Earth.

==Diet==

T-rex had forward-facing eyes, which gave it binocular vision. Binocular vision is usually present in carnivores, as it helps them see their prey from far off, therefore it is very likely that Tyrannosaurus was a carnivore. Young earth creationists believe that the Tyrannosaurus, along with all other carnivores, was herbivorous in the [[Garden of Eden]] before the Fall, but afterwards a change occured that caused T-rex to be unable to digest plants and therefore had to kill and eat other creatures for food.

Some have suggested that T-rex was exclusively a scavenger. This may be partially true, since most carnivores today will happily scavenge available meat. However, it probably was not an ''exclusive'' scavenger, as most meat-eaters must also hunt in order to survive. T-rex's jaws were also quite adaptive to grabbing live prey, and probably used them in the same way most carnivores do: bit the throat to either crush the larynx and thus kill by suffocation or through blood loss. Also, t-rex's large body probably required a great amount of food and therefore scavenging probably wouldn't be sufficient to support its high metabolism.<ref>http://www.vertpaleo.org/jvp/19-91-100.html</ref>

==References==

<references/>