Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Homeschooled celebrities

2009-03-03T04:40:49Z

DReynolds: New page: Is this legit? The entire title is a primer to weasel words. It's like writing an article for "People Who Arguably Could Be Considered Historically Important By Certain Individuals With Su...

Is this legit? The entire title is a primer to weasel words. It's like writing an article for "People Who Arguably Could Be Considered Historically Important By Certain Individuals With Such An Opinion." And the article itself makes us look lazy- "we haven't done the legwork, but these people could make homeschooling look good if they were, so here's hope"- just comes across poorly. I say we come up with definitive answers for those we can, get rid of the ones who are inconclusive and get rid of this article ASAP. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 23:40, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Talk:Evolution syndrome

2009-02-11T05:14:36Z

DReynolds:

Evolutionists have a compulsion to censor opposing or alternative views. This can be seen, among other places, on wikis. So, hypothetically, if there was a wiki whose pro-evolution was locked to prevent editing by anyone except for a single sysop, and where anyone who attempted to add alternative views was reverted or blocked, would that be an example of the type of censorship you have in mind? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 08:52, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:"insist that their belief in evolution must somehow be true" Isn't "their belief" superfluous? "Believing" something is "holding it to be true", so someone must believe it's true to believe it at all. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:06, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:: The locking is due to the prevalence of [[evolution syndrome]]. If someone can propose a solution, I welcome it.

:: No, "their belief" is not superfluous. There are are different beliefs about evolution, but the person who has [[evolution syndrome]] insists that ''his'' belief is true to the exclusion of other beliefs. Most normal people do not take that attitude.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::: But there is a difference between asserting that the theory of evolution is true (I.E. that it is factual), and a person asserting that their ''belief'' in it is true (I.E. that they ''truly'' believe in it). The text currently suggests that evolution syndrome is an insistance that one has a true belief in evolution. Are you implying that sufferers of this 'syndrome' do not actually truly believe in evolution despite insisting that they do? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 15:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Since there's been no response, I have taken the iniative & changed the wording. I am assuming that the intended meaning is that sufferers of this "syndrome" insist that evolution itself is true, not only that they truly believe in it. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]]

==Most atheists to many atheists change==

While most atheists certainly believe in evolution as the article states, it seems unlikely that most also contribute 90% edits about evolution. That only leaves 10% for other liberal atheist issues like promoting abortion, etc. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 13:22, 27 December 2008 (EST)

== Notability ==
Does CP have a notability guideline regarding articles? I've never heard this term used anywhere else and the fact that it has no citations seems to suggest it's a made-up term. I like it, but our job is to chronicle, not create, information.--[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 12:31, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Since no one has responded, I've nominated this article for deletion. No sources, no support. It violates the commandments. Kill it --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 00:14, 11 February 2009 (EST).

Evolution syndrome

2009-02-11T05:13:32Z

DReynolds:

{{speedy}}
'''Evolution [[syndrome]]''' is the tendency of some people to insist compulsively that human [[evolution]] from animals must somehow be true, and to spend nearly all of their time pushing that belief on others. It is reflected on the [[internet]] by people who devote over 90% of their edits and postings to pushing their belief in evolution and insisting on [[censoring]] or demonizing alternative views of the issue. They are particularly against teaching any alternative theories to children in school. A childish insistence on [[last wordism]] is a common characteristic of evolution syndrome.

Evolution syndrome particularly afflicts people who have some educational background without having the intellectual depth of more accomplished peers.
Evolution syndrome can be seen on [[wiki]]s, [[Usenet]] groups, faculty positions below full professorships, and some less selective doctoral programs.

There is a high incidence of [[atheism]] among this group and indeed, many atheists suffer from evolution syndrome.

Keeping an open mind, not obsessing about one's own views and avoiding the insistence that others should share his/her view is the key to avoid suffering from evolution syndrome.

== See Also ==

[[Richard Dawkins]]

[[Evolution]]

[[Atheism]]

[[category: Syndromes]]
[[Category:Conservapedia Terms]]

Esperanto

2009-02-11T04:56:13Z

DReynolds:

'''Esperanto''' is a [[constructed language]] developed by an ophthalmologist, Dr. L. L. Zamenhof, in the late 1870s. Esperanto is a planned language intended for use between people who speak different native languages. It was designed with the intention of being both simple to learn and unambiguous. It is spoken by some hundreds of thousands, perhaps several million, people in all parts of the world. The New Testament was first published in Esperanto in 1912, and the Bible in 1926. The language's creator, Dr. Zamenhof, was the main translator of the Esperanto Old Testament.

==Grammar and vocabulary==
Esperanto has 16 concise grammatical rules. Most significantly for English-speaking learners, several difficult features of foreign languages are absent from Esperanto. Nouns have no gender, and there are no irregular verbs. Esperanto does not have different words for "you"; the same word, "''vi''", is used to address any individuals or groups of people, regardless of their status.

The language has a primarily [[Latin|Latinate]] vocabulary, but has [[agglutinative]] aspects in its syntax. In keeping with its purpose of being as logical and simple to learn as possible, there are no irregular forms.

==Example text==

Patro nia, 
kiu estas en la ĉielo, 
sankta estu Via nomo, 
venu reĝeco Via, estu volo Via,
kiel en la ĉielo,
tiel ankaŭ sur la tero. 
Panon nian ĉiutagan donu al ni hodiaŭ kaj pardonu al ni ŝuldojn niajn kiel ni ankaŭ pardonas al niaj ŝuldantoj; 
ne konduku nin en tenton, sed liberigu nin de la malvera, ĉar Via estas la regado, la forto kaj la gloro eterne. 
Amen!

([[The Lord's Prayer]], as translated by Zamenhof.)

==Criticism==
One of the main criticisms of Esperanto is the use of the [[accusative]] case. All accusative nouns, together with their adjectives, must bear the -n ending. Critics point out that many languages do not use the accusative (for example English and French, except for pronouns), and its inclusion might create a difficulty for native speakers of these languages. However, Zamenhof felt that the lack of an accusative case led to ambiguity in certain instances.

Another criticism relates to the use of the accented letters Ĉ, Ĝ, Ĥ, Ĵ, Ŝ, and Ŭ. Several of these are unique to Esperanto and until the advent of [[Unicode]], computer users needed to install special fonts. Zamenhof suggested the use of ch, gh, hh, jh, sh and u, when no suitable typeface was available. Another common work-around is to use cx, gx etc; this has the advantage that X (along with Q, W and Y) are not used in Esperanto words.

Furthermore, many linguists criticized Esperanto for combining elements of only proto-European languages. Asiatic languages were largely ignored in creating the language, making it exceptionally difficult for native speakers of such languages to learn Esperanto.

Many speakers of Esperanto take a conservative view of proposals to change the language. They point out that arguments over the language have led to splits, most notably the creation of [[Ido]]. Despite these strong opinions, some changes such as the addition of extra affixes, have been accepted.

==History and current status==

The first significant international gathering of Esperanto-speakers was was the Congress of [[1905]], in Boulogne, [[France]]. The main international organization, ''Universala Esperanto Asocio'' (World Esperanto Association, generally known by its Esperanto abbreviation), was founded in [[1908]]. UEA has a policy of strict neutrality on matters of religion and politics. It organizes two annual congresses, one for all members and one for young people.

The other major international organization is ''Sennacieca Associo Tutmonda'' (World Non-Nationalist Association) which attracts people of various [[left wing]] persuasions. Aside from its main aims, SAT also publishes ''Plena Illustrita Vortaro'', the language's most prestigious dictionary.

From the outset, Esperanto publications were subject to censorship by the [[Russian Empire]], which ruled the part of Poland where Zamenhof lived. In the 1930s, [[Nazi Germany]] and the [[Soviet Union]] under [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] both persecuted users of the language. Many were arrested and sent to [[concentration camp]]s or the [[gulag]]s.

Following [[World War II]], the number of speakers grew. Esperanto has been taught as a formal subject in [[Hungary]] and [[Bulgaria]]. It is one of the languages used by the official broadcasters of [[Poland]], [[Cuba]], [[Vatican City|The Vatican]] and the [[People's Republic of China]].

The intended role of Esperanto as a [[lingua franca]] has yet to be realized - English has become, to all intents and purposes, the language of international politics and commerce. Nevertheless, national Esperanto organizations exist in all English-speaking countries.

==External links==
*[http://steve-and-pattie.com/esperantujo/biblio/ La Sankta Biblio (Bible in Esperanto)]
*[http://www.esperanto-usa.org Esperanto-USA]
*[http://www.uea.org/ World Esperanto Association]
[[Category:Constructed languages]]

Talk:6th millennium BC

2009-02-11T03:09:35Z

DReynolds:

Happened before God created the world if you are a young Earth Creationist. You know there are Old Earth Creationists in here.
-Gasmonkey

Erk, someone's making up dates again. [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 23:04, 13 November 2008 (EST)

THESE YEARS DID NOT OCCUR!!! BY PUBLISHING THIS ARTICLE, WE ARE LYING TO OUR CHILDREN!!--[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 22:09, 10 February 2009 (EST)

6th millennium BC

2009-02-11T03:08:22Z

DReynolds:

{{speedy|Years in question did not occur- prior to Creation}}
It is thought that during the '''6th millennium BC''' many environments shifted around the world, triggering a change in subsistence patterns. Some historians allege that [[Hunter-gatherers]] in the [[Middle East]] begin to shift towards sedentary [[horticulture]] and early intensive [[agriculture]].

[[Category:Years]]

MediaWiki talk:Ipbreason-dropdown

2009-02-11T03:01:40Z

DReynolds:

Wouldn't "inappropriate edit to Obama article" fall under "liberal vandalism"? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 11:52, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

: Yes, but more specific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:06, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
::Ok [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 12:49, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Shouldn't we kill the "Obama" thing now that the article is on lockdown and noone outside of the inner sanctum ''can'' edit it? --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 22:01, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Typo==
Just wanted you to know of a tiny typo, it should be vulgar instead of vuglar.--jpatt 17:18, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:Thanks Jp. Fixed. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:20, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Goat

2009-02-09T04:23:06Z

DReynolds:

==Deletion==
What worries me is:
# Deleting it is admitting defeat
#[[Homosexuality]] had its page views boosted beyond reality by bots, yet wasn't deleted [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:46, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't think consistency is required in responding to idiotic behavior. :-) --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:20, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
:A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. {{unsigned|Ed Poor}}
::See also: Opportunism --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 07:24, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

==Needs category==
animals or mammals. [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 15:51, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Needs the following categories

[[:Category:Kosher Animals]]
[[:Category:Biblical Animals]]
[[:Category:Mammals]]

-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 15:55, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks for the clarify! [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 15:59, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Your welcome -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 16:00, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

== Why... ==
...is ''this'' of all things locked?--[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 23:23, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Taqiyya

2009-02-09T02:44:17Z

DReynolds:

{{merge|Takeyya}}

'''Taqiyya''' (al-Taqiyya) is a concept in [[Shia]] [[Islam]]<ref>Taqiyah" Oxford Dictionary of Islam. John L. Esposito, Ed. Oxford University Press. 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Accessed 9 June, 2006.</ref> which encourages "disguising one's beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies."<ref name="Islam watch">http://www.islam-watch.org/Warner/Taqiyya-Islamic-Principle-Lying-for-Allah.htm</ref> It is authorized under the Qur'an and Sunna.{{fact}}

Taqiyya allows a [[Shia]] Muslim even "to deny or denounce his faith if, in so doing, he protects or furthers the interests of Islam, so long as he remains faithful to Islam in his heart."<ref name="Islam watch"/>

Taqiyya further permits "lying under oath in testimony before a court, deceiving by making distorted statements to the media such as the claim that Islam is a 'religion of peace.'"<ref name="Islam watch"/>

Sunni [[Muslim]]s typically denounce Taqqiya as hypocrisy.{{fact}}

Many people believe that [[Barack Hussein Obama]] is a Muslim using Taqiyya as a means to justify to his public denials of his Muslim faith. A survey in March 2008 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that ten percent of American voters believe Sen. Barack Obama is Muslim. 16% of conservative Republicans, 16% of white evangelical Protestants and 19% of rural Americans believe the former Illinois senator and President is Muslim. <ref>USA Today, ''Poll: 1 in 10 think Obama is Muslim'', Posted 4/1/2008, by Daniel Burke, Religion News Service, retrieved 10/16/2008.[http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-04-01-obama-muslim_N.htm]</ref> In a later survey, in July 2008, the number had risen to 12% of American voters who think Obama is a Muslim. Interestingly, 37% of those who think he's Muslim intended to vote for him. <ref>Pew Research Center, ''12% - Still Think Obama is Muslim'', retrieved 10/16/08[http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=509]</ref>

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Islam]]

Talk:Evolution syndrome

2009-02-08T17:31:18Z

DReynolds:

Talk:Richard Nixon

2009-02-05T03:35:16Z

DReynolds: Article no longer protected. Removing template.

Do we have to mention Nixon resigned twice? Doesn't that detract a little from more of his accomplishments, many of which are not stated here? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Considering much of the watergate scandals are not "stated here", I'd say it's fairly well balanced.

:I'd say it needs some serious reorganization, though. I keep looking at it, trying to figure how to move all that text around so it makes sense (flows well), and then I keep giving up. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:01, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::*I have the childhood info, and some other to add. Just under the weather pretty bad right now. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:35, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Watergate==
The Watergate stuff is good; however, because Nixon (a) had no prior knowledge of the break-in, and (b) did not give prior consent to the break-in, some of the excessive detail on this page gives undue weight to a common misperception that "Nixon was behind it".

As a solution, much of this material is very good to be included elsewhere, but I firmly beleive it is extremely prejudicial and damaging to Mr. Nixon's posthumous reputatation in such as way as to be grossly unfair. Watergate is not Nixon's legacy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:20, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:It is impossible to slander/libel the dead. Further, info on all presidential scandals ought to be added. I did try to make up for it by including info about Nixon's military service. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

You know, it looks prejudicial because there's not much there--get on it son! ;-) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::But that's the point, there's too much detail about the planning of the breakin, who was invovlved, etc. This for example,

:::''it soon became evident, from hints that emerged at the trial and other details revealed in a series of articles by the Washington Post, that the break-in had the approval of higher-level government officials''

::is a gross distortion long time Nixon wathcers have become accustomed to. Nixon ''is not'' one of these "higher-level government officials", and yet this is used to introduce the Watergate section. This is Nixon's bio, not H.R., Erlichman, Dean, Liddy, or whoever else "gave approval". Simply put, it's innuendo, and it's a restatement of the same type of innuendo we've heard for 30+ years now. I just don't beleive carrying these kind of distortions of fact will work in CP. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:29, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe it belongs in the Watergate article, too, but a synopsis of the affair belongs here--just as it does in the Whitewater and Teapot Dome examples. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[Watergate scandal]] has this,
::''Nixon had no prior knowledge of the burglary plans, nor gave consent to the escapade, yet his loyalty to subordinates led to Nixon consenting to cover up activities and transferring money from the Presidential election campaign fund to pay for the legal defense of those who were involved. ''
:If we just flip-flopped some of the information between pages, it would work. For this bio page, Nixon's invovlement stems from his being over-loyal to wayward subordinates who acted without his prior knowledge or consent. His real failing was being loyal to them, rather than cleaning house of rascals that got him in trouble in the first place. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::How i this inaccurate? I am willing to make changes, but the watergate scandal article is not the place to begin with citing material. That is only self-referential then. Here is the way Nixon's involvement reads right now:

::''"The White House released edited transcripts of the tapes in April 1974, and eventually the tapes themselves, after the Supreme Court rejected Nixon's claim to executive privilege. But the damage was done; President Nixon's behavior—his cover-up of the burglary and refusal to turn over evidence—and the erosion of the public's confidence in his administration, led the House Judiciary Committee to issue three articles of impeachment on July 30, 1974. The document also indicted Nixon for illegal wiretapping, misuse of the CIA, perjury, bribery, obstruction of justice, and other abuses of executive power."''

::Why don't we parse this here and work out a compromise? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

===proposed text===

The [[Watergate affair]] ultimately caused Nixon to resign on 9 August 1974. Nixon had no prior knowledge of a plan to burglarize [[Democratic National Committee]] headquarters in the Watergate hotel, yet his loyalty to subordinates led Nixon to approve covering up activities and transferring money from the Presidential election campaign fund to pay the legal expenses of convicted burglarers. Former White House Counsel John Dean testified to a Congressional investigating committee of Nixon's involvement in the cover-up.

The Congressional hearings revealed Nixon had tape recorded conversations and telephone calls in his office. The president, citing [[Executive Privilege]], refused to turn the tapes over to the committee. In Oct. 1973 Nixon ordered [[Elliot Richardson]], the attorney general, to fire [[Archibald Cox]], the special prosecutor who had subpoenaed the tapes, but Richardson resign in protest. Richardson's assistant, William Ruckelshaus, also refused to fire Cox and was fired by Nixon. Finally, Solicitor General Robert Bork fired Cox. The incident, which was trumped in the press as the "[[Saturday Night Massacre]]," although nobody had been killed, led to widespread calls for Nixon's [[impeach|impeachment]].

The White House released edited transcripts of the tapes in April 1974, and eventually the tapes themselves, after the Supreme Court rejected Nixon's claim to executive privilege. The House Judiciary Committee issued three articles of impeachment on July 30, 1974. The document also indicted Nixon for illegal wiretapping, misuse of the CIA, perjury, bribery, obstruction of justice, and other abuses of executive power.

"In all of this," the articles of impeachment summarize, "Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States." After conferring with Republican Senators Nixon resigned on [[Aug. 9, 1974]]. Nixon was succeeded in office the same day by [[Vice President]] [[Gerald R. Ford]], who a month later issued a full pardon to Nixon, in order to heal the great national rift he perceived might occur if the issue remained open. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:58, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Nixon's supposed conservatism ==

Considering that Nixon was hardly a conservative, I'd suggest having a smaller entry for his name. Or perhaps one that highlights his liberal record. I mean: OSHA, EPA, supporting women's rights, the Endangered Species Act, coddling the Commies in China. It doesn't make since that the entry on Bill Clinton is more critical than a President who was more to the left than Bubba![[User:Jsmog|Jsmog]] 13:11, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
:There is some merit in this idea, however I would propose it be presented as Nixon's centrism, moderate views, willingness to compromise & get along, tolerance of diversive views and opinions, and adhering to the established order--the established order in this sense being Keynsian [[New Deal]] economics. Nixon's embrace of [[New Deal]]ism led to re-establishing the commie infested Roosevelt Adminstration's Wage and Price Controls (see [[OPA]]). This had a lingering effect on the conservative movement. For example [[Ed Clark]] challenged [[Ronald Reagan]] on the [[Libertarian Party]] ticket in 1980, siphoned off economic conservative votes which was the keystone of [[Reaganomic]]s, and divided the movement. Clark said he did it cause it was the last GOP President who reverted to commie/Democrat decrees that infringe on personal human and civil rights. We can only speculate, Reagan's popular win probably would have been even greater if not for the sins of Nixon. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:07, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

At least you're willing to admit that Nixon was a commie! [[User:Jsmog|Jsmog]] 13:12, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
:Not a commie, but Nixon was tolerant of commies and thier establsihed order. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:17, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Apollo 11

2009-02-05T03:33:53Z

DReynolds:

==The "One small step" quotation==
I don't know if I'm going to be challenged on this... but I really want the "a" in brackets.

The form with the "a" in brackets is what the Encyclopædia Britannica uses. Actually, their [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-237057/space-exploration current online article] says
:“That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.” (In the excitement of the moment, Armstrong skipped the “a” in the statement he had prepared.)

The best thing I can say is to listen to the numerous recordings and judge for yourself. I've never heard an "a" there. The small amounts of noise or transmission artifacts do not occur in a place where they would obscure it. The only reason for hearing an "a" there is that the quotation only makes sense that way and so there's a tendency to fill it in perceptually.

In the excellent [http://www.snopes.com/quotes/onesmall.asp Snopes] discussion, see the indented passages beginning "On July 20, 1969, Joel Shurkin..." and "Later, a representative for the Grumman corporation..."

So, he blew his line, and out of courtesy to him (and, I suppose, in deference to his own account) an increasing number of reference sources are reporting what he ''meant'' to say instead of what he actually ''did'' say.

This is (obviously!) a pet peeve of mine, because I have the feeling I am watching the distortion of history in my own lifetime. It really amazes me: if there can be a controversy like this about an event that was televised live and watched by half a billion users within living memory... and about a simple fact that does not have any great political, financial, or legal implications. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:28, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== Controversy ==
A number of sources provide reasonable arguments suggesting that the moon landings were a hoax. I think we should include this- we are neutral to the facts, and the facts do often support their claims. Comments? --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 22:33, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Anti-Americanism

2009-02-03T03:56:18Z

DReynolds: Cleaned-up article, improved definition

'''Anti-Americanism''' is hostility towards the people, policies and culture of [[United States of America]].

Many Islamist regimes are noted for their anti-American sentiments- often disguised as criticism of the War on Terror. Those with anti-American sentiments often lack the liberty celebrated in America and therefore hate America because of the freedoms available to the American people, and many are liberals who believe that other nations are equal to or beyond America in their achievements.

"Anti-Americanism is not only the world’s most pernicious and ubiquitous ideology — it is also the most tenacious. In fact, it has taken on some aspects of a religion." <ref>[http://www.nysun.com/news/america-s-moral-authority America’s Moral Authority], Daniel Johnson, ''[[New York Sun|The New York Sun]]'', May 1, 2008</ref>

"Anti-Americanism is the prevailing disease of intellectuals today." <ref>[http://www.forbes.com/global/2003/0721/017.html Anti-Americanism Is Racist Envy], Paul Johnson, ''[[Forbes|Forbes.com]]'', July 21, 2003</ref>

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

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

[[Category:United States]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]

Talk:Anti-Americanism

2009-02-03T03:49:10Z

DReynolds:

While I am not anti-American per say I do not have respect for Bush. However I agree that anti-American sentiment is alive and well.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 07:25, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

:I'll have to research further, but:

::''"I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."'' - Kofi Annan

:Are we sure the initial invasion of Iraq had UN approval?
::yes it did: [http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm][http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0688.htm][http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/scres90.htm][http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm][http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html][http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

==Proposal==
Maybe it is a good idea to explore the "why" behind there being so much anti-American sentiment, yes? What is it that causes it? It could make for an interesting investigation and article. After all, people do not wake up and say, "I hate America." --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 08:06, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

==Reason==
I dont think people are Anti-America more they are anti-Bush. I have been to America and thought the people and places were wonderful however when ever I Bush mbling with the English language and people like Rumsfeld lie through their teeth I get very grumbly.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:46, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

== Wait... ==
Does criticism really constitute anti-Americanism? Criticism can be constructive and is key to progress- I think there are better ways to put this. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 22:49, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-01-30T20:34:29Z

DReynolds:

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 
== Demanding Major Change ==

I'm not well educated on Obama enough to write an article on him, and even if I did I would not know where to start, but come on! Someone step up to the plate and correct this article. We atleast need a rewrite that presents a case for him being a christian. It can include all the Rev. Wright stuff you want, but if Conservapedia wants to become "The trustworthy encyclopedia" it has to convey both sides.

As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.

: It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small "c" want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::Reminiscent of those who assert the title of catholic with a small c, which in fact means something wholly other than a Catholic (i.e., a Roman Catholic) with a large C. (All Christians are in fact catholic with a small c if I understand it's fairly broad meaning.) --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 23:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't think you can "demand" anything here. This is not a place where you can get what you want with the well-worn liberal tactic of stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum.
: If you have proof that Obama is a Christian, then let us see it. As far as I can tell, he is completely uninterested in Christian fellowship of any kind, which to me is very telling.
: It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:
: '''Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'''' (Matthew 7:22-23)
: When and if Barack Hussein Obama shows some evidence of having been washed clean in the blood of Christ, then we can talk. I'm not holding my breath. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::DeanS, you have proof, it's been shown to you multiple times. All the people seem to be interested here is raising a conspiracy theory. They are so set in their ways that arguing against them will yield no results. That's the whole thing about conspiracy theorists: it doesn't matter what proof you show or how complete it is, they will find some hole, real or imagined, and fill it in with whatever belief they hold to actually add strength to their theories. A quick review of the page reveals 3 telling conspiracy theories that are held in belief by the people who hold power on this website: 1) That Obama is a Muslim (he isn't) 2) That Obama wasn't born in Hawaii (He was), and 3) That the majority of Obama's campaign contributions came from anonymous donors (they didn't). That's why this page has been locked from editing, because it has become a war zone and is unlikely to change if it was unlocked. The only solution at this point is to try and gleam what facts you can from this article, and do your own independent research for more facts concerning Obama. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 09:14, 6 January 2009 (EST)
::: First of all, I'm David, not Dean. Secondly, Obama certainly doesn't ''act'' like any sort of Christian I care to know: he supports [[abortion]], he is a radical [[socialist]] (possibly a [[Communist]]), and he tells falsehoods. I don't know if he is a Muslim or not, but it seems quite likely, and the page has a lot of evidence showing that he is. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 11:44, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::First, my apologies on the name. Secondly, I'm not claiming that Obama is a good Christian, just that he most certainly is not Muslim. The evidence on this page, many of which are blatant falsehoods, are hardly conclusive proof of anything. I have no doubt that if I held any user here under the same scrutiny that Obama has, I could gather enough "evidence" to make a case that they are any religion I choose them to be. Thirdly, just because he may not be the type of christian you want to know doesn't make him not christian. There are many Christians that I [[Ku Klux Klan|don't care to know]]. Does that make them not Christian?--[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 12:13, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Atheism ==

I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that "Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it "as a choice, not an epiphany."<ref>http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama</ref> It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.

In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?

Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama Arab-American ==

This article should, at some point, actually say that Obama is African-American, making him the first black president. If you really want to leave room for speculation about Warren G. Harding's ancestry, you could write "first openly black president" or something. But Obama's blackness is clearly a large part of his personal and political identity, and is probably going to be remembered as one of the most historically significant aspects of this election. An article on Barack Obama should contain a direct statement of this information, period.

The editors should also consider putting that information in the first paragraph. I understand that there is no established rule about the ordering of information in a Conservapedia article. However, an uneducated reader looking at this article would learn how long his campaign was before learning that he is the first black president, which doesn't make much sense to me. [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 16:20, 9 January 2009 (EST)

There is much distortion in the media about Obama being African-American. '''Obama is actually Arab-American''', and I agree that this page should reflect his race.

Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). --[[User:Cwcopela|Cwcopela]] 14:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:Does it really matter? It's not the technicalities that define what race Americans perceive Obama as - He looks more black, than white and arabic and that's how people will perceive him - They won't perceive him as another rich religious white guy or as an arab because of technicalities like that. --[[User:Atheuz|Atheuz]]

:*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)

== Small comments ==

Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a "family" section in this biography, it seems rather lacking on this point? For the rest it seems very informative, but rather cluttered. Would it be more logical to use a chronological build-up for this biography, such as placing the parts relating to his presidency more to the end of the biography, and his earlier endeavors to the front? Perhaps it would help if the contents table was moved up, at least to end up higher than the first muslim president bit? Let's hope I'm not asking any all-too-stupid questions! ;-) Regards, [[User:AVanbeek|AVanbeek]] 22:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't see any of your suggestions as an improvement. Obama's presidential ambition predates the other items you mention, and his personal beliefs are the most significant. Encylopedias, like newspapers, prioritize presentation based on significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: Shall I go ahead then, and erase "Family" Sections on George W. Bush and McCain's articles? Their great accomplishments surely predate those insignificant sections. [[User:AMurdoc|AMurdoc]] 13:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::Why not go ahead and make some positive contributions to this encyclopaedia by creating wanted articles, rather than attempting to be satirical? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 14:18, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Lincoln's Bible? ==

Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/</ref>. I think it's fairly safe to say that it will not be a koran. I also think it is safe to say that this is exactly the kind of trickery a manchurian muslim would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely muslim" section?

[[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)

: I agree, it is safe to say it will not be a Koran. I think i'ts also safe to say this is exactly the kind of "trickery" a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely Christian" section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)
: So Obama is damned if he does use a Bible, and damned if he doesn't. Seems a bit unreasonable. None of those other candidates were ever accused of being "Manchurian Muslims" just because they DID use a Bible to get sworn in. Then again, none of those other candidates had brown skin and a funny name, right? [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 12:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)
::None of the other candidates hid from questions about their past, it's Obama's own fault. Nobody ever said his name was funny except Obama. The brown skin comment is over the top racist ploy. You know very well that there are more respected, patriotic, qualified 'brown skin' people that are deserving of presidency, Obama isn't one of them. FYI- slanderous allegations are deserving of a permanent block here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:03, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion? Do those count?

:::I'm not accusing anyone of racism per se. I'm just pointing out that no other presidential candidate has ever had to prove to the country that he is not a Muslim. And let's be honest - that's because all the other presidential candidates have been white guys named George or Bill or Ron or Jimmy, and this one is a black guy named Barack. If people WANT to believe he's a Muslim (the authors of this article clearly do) it's easier to do so. If you can't see the connection between his race/name and the popularity of the belief that he is a Muslim, you're not looking hard enough.

:::Anyway, this is all a moot point. He's not a Muslim. As time goes by after Obama takes office, this page will look increasingly loony. I guess if Obama really turns out to be an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent poised to sabotage the United States in a plot straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, I will be the one looking loony. But I think I'll take that chance.[[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 17:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)

== References ==

Barack Hussein Obama (born in Honolulu,[1][2][3] August 4, 1961) served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2004-2008) and then, along with his running mate Senator Joseph Biden, won the presidential election[4] after twenty-three months of campaigning, raising an unprecedented $750 million and spending over $700 million of it,[5]. Post-election, Obama indicated that he would make an unprecedented speech within his first 100 days from a Muslim capital.[6] (7][8]

Obama has espoused the idea of "spreading the wealth,"[10]
in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay income taxes.[11] His health care plan requires employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will require many into a single payer system.[12] To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of others.[13] During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.14]
{{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009

==Picture==
[[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)

: Interesting, Steven. But where did you get it from? The uploads should reflect the source and claim of ability to use it, unless before 1923 (in which everything is public domain).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)

::Oh yes. sorry, i got it from the msn.com do i need promission to take photos from there? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 14:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama/Muslim Support ==

In the May be a Muslim section, it says that he had an increased support of Muslim voters. How does this prove he is Muslim? While this should be kept, It should be moved to another section.

== I know we lost a week... ==
But we can't stay in some alternate universe where G.W.Bush is still president forever, especially if this article is going to link to the front page. We need to update this article to show that Obama is now president. I would do so, but its locked. As it has been. For quite some time. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 23:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)

== Low Res Pic ==

Why is the leading picture of Obama such a low resolution version? It looks crappy when stretched [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:20, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: That's the only picture we could get from the White House Web site. It certainly surprises me, because I would have thought that they would have a very high-resolution picture of..."Him." We might try the White House site again to see whether "He" has corrected this—er—oversight.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::Wikipedia found one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:29, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::(I could have sworn i edited this already, did we loose some more from the database?) The orginal high resolution image can be obtained from the change.gov site; http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg . Updating to this version should fix all the scaling artefacts --[[User:SCarter|SCarter]] 22:10, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Second swearing in ceremony? ==

I'm surprised that this isn't even mentioned in the article, but when Obama retook the Oath he DIDN'T USE A BIBLE. In fact, there was no video recording of the session and the picture taken only showed him from the chest up. This is profound evidence of being Unchristian at the very least. Since we can't see his left hand during the ceremony, it could be on anything ... dare I say, the Koran?? (source http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-takes-oath-office/) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:40, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: I consider swearing on the Bible to be un-Christian, because of Matthew 5:34-37, where swearing on anything is expressly forbidden by Jesus.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) ==

This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:

''Rejects ID''
From the responses to a Q&A sent out by Nature: Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?

Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny. <ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/</ref>

''Pushes Evolution Over Christianity''
Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. "It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain," Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of "faith" would hurt him a national election. "Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels." <ref>http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp</ref>

Wow. [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Allegedly born in Honolulu ==

Why does it still say he was allegedly born in Honolulu? Later on in the page it says the it was proven his birth certificate is genuine. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Maybe it should be rewritten then since now it reads more like it states a fact that the birth certificate is indeed genuine. I'm guessing 99% of people never even check the reference.[[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Additionally, he's already been sworn in as president, so arguing over where he was born is a moot point. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 23:57, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Why no family section? ==

The Obama article has no family section. Neither does Clinton's or Carter's. However, Reagan's, Bush the elder's and W.Bush's articles have them. Why none on the democratic presidents'? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)

There's a simple answer: Obama, Clinton, and Carter are Democrats. They belong to an anti-family party, therefore their family is irrelevant to their political existence. Family is central to Republican policy, and so it is impossible to understand President Bush without mentioning his family.
[[User:LatinScholar]] 1:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

:He has a family though, doesn't he? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 13:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, but a Democrat family, which is something entirely different. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 2:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Some Changes ==

Why is this locked?
Obama has not been succeded by "incumbent" nor will he be.
Obamas term in office might not go to 2013, it might go further, it might not go that far, unless you are psychic this should be changed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:"Incumbent" means he is the current holder of the office. It's simply a term to indicate that he is the most recent. And while it is true that Obama could be elected to a second term and thus serve until 2017, he hasn't. His first term expires on 2013 regardless of what happens between now and then (barring impeachment or death, of course) so it's factual to list that date. Listing a second term when he's only a week and a half in his first one is speculative and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 14:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)
It's the exact same thing we did with [[George W. Bush]] - <s>there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.</s> - saying incumbent merely confirms that he is the current president - no one has succeeded him yet.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

==Is he or isn't he President?==
This article has a lot of wildly inaccurate and unsourced information in it. It also can't seem to decide whether BO is President or not - the picture on the right says he is, the text varies from claiming he's won the election, to him being Senator. I'd love to help clean this up, but can't seem to edit the page? Ready to help. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 15:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Yes, it's pretty weird isn't it. One would have thought that if it was important enough to protect then it would be important enough to update. But the failure to update tells the casual reader what to expect in respect of the general accuracy of the article - so it's probably not a bad thing.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:12, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::I notice the article has been updated to make it somewhat more reality-based. Good. However, I would expect - almost to the case of 'demand' - that the article on the current POTUS begin with the short and simple line "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Instead, the first sentence about this, arguably the world's most important person, is overlong, appallingly punctuated, begins immediately with unfounded gossip and wanders off into some other random irrelevant facts and utterly lacks focus. It says a lot about what the reader can expect from the entire article to follow. I wish I could help rewrite this article so as it would be more based on fact and reality - and particularly, better written - but as it's locked, that's impossible. So all we, the casual readers, can do is suggest things which need to be done to improve the article. I would begin by recommending the deletion of the entire monster and a total rewrite from scratch. There's nothing here of substance and nothing that will engender any respect for this supposed 'encyclopedia'. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 13:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::It's a shame we can't all be as learned and insightful as you, FNNoonan. However, I dare say all the hard-working editors here will jump up to obey your lofty commands. If you want a 'better' article, why not write one on your userpage/in a sandbox and submit it to the criticism of your peers? Or is this a case of 'those who can't, criticise'? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 14:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::: You must not have read my comment, in which I made a suggestion to improve the article's first sentence. What's yours? You might try contributing something to the debate rather than trying to shoot the messenger. The message is - the article's a disaster. Now, what are you doing about that? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 16:24, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::::I don't think it a disaster, but a multi-layered and well-argued piece. Looking at the revision history and talk pages, I see that some of the best minds on Consercvapedia think so, too. Therefore I have no need to do anything. You, on the other hand, see faults, but do nothing except indulge yourself in corrosive criticism. [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::::::I would also point out that the article even fails to mention which country he's President of. I would again recommend the inclusion of my suggested opening sentence - "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Thank you for helping to improve this terrible article. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Real Bible NOT Koran ==

Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:

“Look, I wrote here and in the article that Obama would swear on the Koran, and now I’ve just got to eat humble pie. See, I was wwoo….wrooggga…woolooo..wopppaaa. wrong. There, I managed to say it, and I feel better for it.”

Yeah, I been waiting for that one, but I’m not holding my breath. But since Obama DID in fact swear on Lincoln’s Bible that means (check this one in archives) you clowns owe me $100. Each. (American notes thank you.) [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 18:31, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: You're clueless, Myles. Obama's real oath was not on the Bible. I don't know if it was on the Koran. Do you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 28 January 2009 (EST)

OP Myles back. Right, let me see if I can sum up the state of play. Obama tries to take the Oath on the Lincoln Bible, which presumably has special powers not available to the usual Gideon’s Hotel edition. Anyways, Chief Justice Roberts manages to bellyflop his role in history. It’s like the guy who needs play only one note on a triangle during the symphony and manages to foul that up. Along with 90% of the world, I thought that Obama was completely blameless for this glitch, and actually quite gracious. His face and bearing said “Hey, you stuffed up, but I forgive you. Let’s try it again.” This was not what the foaming at the mouth crowd saw, and talk here was of how Obama was not properly inaugurated, and that somehow it was all his fault. Then, to satisfy the New Philistines, he takes the oath, again. This time, no one of the Born Again crowd who frequent these occasions thinks to bring a Bible, but it is Obama’s fault once more, because apparently he should have one in his back pocket at all times. He takes the oath again. Hey, that’s good enough for me, but apparently I’m clueless, according to Andy, who, in one of his regular 2 line missives from above believes there’s more to this than meets the eye.

Well, let me see. I suppose Obama could have paid Roberts off in the first instance to screw up the wording, so he would not have to put his hand on the Bible. (Because then he would wince with pain as the Word of God burnt his skin, or something.) This set up the SECOND inauguration at which everyone was paid to make sure no Bible was there, so Obama gets to be Prez while cunningly evading the Bible. You see, it all makes perfect sense, don’t it? Yeah, and I’M the one who’s clueless! Truly, what a man believes, he sees. Look, I’ve got an idea. Instead of hurling everything you got including the kitchen sink at Obama on a second by second basis, every time he so much as scratches his nose, let’s take the fair-minded, objective, dare I say American approach. It’s the customary 100 day honeymoon. Why don’t we all give him those 100 days, and THEN have a look at the plus and minus sheet? Sound like a sensible notion? Of course, that would mean putting your knee in some other crotch for that time, which is asking a hell of a lot I know. But then you would have some REAL grievances at the end instead of the kind of sort of all this relentless muck-raking on the basis of trivia. And just think of the size of the bonfire you could build then.

You know, where I come from conservatives are known as people with a sense of honour, with ethical standards, polite and cultivated, aware of etiquette, educated, and with a keen sense for fair play. You might be using a different dictionary. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

*Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing. Your non-American spelling of "honor" is also a giveaway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)

::Somebody decides to spell 'honour' the way that it is spelt correctly in '''English''' (the mother-tongue of '''England''') and you decide to try and be insulting about it. Classy.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this "swearing in on the Koran" business because it is purely insulting speculation.
::And I have to ask... why is using non-American spelling a liberal trait? Our Prime Minister up here in Canada is as conservative as they come... [[User:SJames|SJames]] 13:37, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Incumbent ==

In the box to the right of the page it says that Obama will be succeeded by [[incumbent]]? Doesn't this imply that he will have two terms? I'm a bit confused. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:I can understand the confusion, but all it implies is that he is the current President. It would probably be better if the whole line was removed until we actually know who he would be succeeded by. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 13:09, 29 January 2009 (EST)

::Well, I tried to fix it up, I really did. But it was hard what with the lock down. I tried dabbing liquid paper on my monitor but that didn’t work very well either. Normally, “Not known” or “To be announced” or “To be determined” are the accepted forms, but hey, what about "Sarah Palin"? Let’s be positive and proactive about this. That lady is gonna wipe the floor with this Obama ring in. I’m marching in her parade right now. “Palin ain’t for failin’ “
::Whoo hooo!!” [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:::I fixed all this....what's the problem now, Myles? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:46, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Stylistic matter ==
Technically, it is proper to simply list the day of Obama's inauguration followed by a dash, as, God forbid, he might be reelected in 2012. So we can't say until the election when his last day in office will be... --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 09:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*I believe you are not correct. ''Technically'' he was elected to a four year term. The text for the info box says term of office, no? That would be four years from his inauguration, 20 January, 2009. One doesn't typically take into account the possibility of death, resignation or re-election. Perhaps you are saying what is "typical" for Wikipedia? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:52, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::This[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=598707] seems like a reasonable template "typical" for Conservapedia. The Bush entry was changed from "present" to January 20, 2009 less than three weeks before the date that he was definitively leaving office.[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 14:51, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::What he was elected to and his actual term in office can be different things. William Henry Harrison was elected for a four year term but his actual term was one month. As I recall Bushes article said 'present' until several days after his term was over. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:11, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Actually, that's almost universal. We don't know when his term will end. He could be re-elected in four years, or shot tomorrow. We can't say when his term will ''actually'' end. Wikipedia, by the way, doesn't even have a dash- just "assumed office," "incumbent" and "January 20, 2009." If accuracy is our goal, it's best to simply put a dash, or a dash followed by "present" or "incumbent." --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 15:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-01-30T14:36:16Z

DReynolds:

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 
== Demanding Major Change ==

I'm not well educated on Obama enough to write an article on him, and even if I did I would not know where to start, but come on! Someone step up to the plate and correct this article. We atleast need a rewrite that presents a case for him being a christian. It can include all the Rev. Wright stuff you want, but if Conservapedia wants to become "The trustworthy encyclopedia" it has to convey both sides.

As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.

: It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small "c" want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::Reminiscent of those who assert the title of catholic with a small c, which in fact means something wholly other than a Catholic (i.e., a Roman Catholic) with a large C. (All Christians are in fact catholic with a small c if I understand it's fairly broad meaning.) --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 23:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't think you can "demand" anything here. This is not a place where you can get what you want with the well-worn liberal tactic of stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum.
: If you have proof that Obama is a Christian, then let us see it. As far as I can tell, he is completely uninterested in Christian fellowship of any kind, which to me is very telling.
: It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:
: '''Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'''' (Matthew 7:22-23)
: When and if Barack Hussein Obama shows some evidence of having been washed clean in the blood of Christ, then we can talk. I'm not holding my breath. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::DeanS, you have proof, it's been shown to you multiple times. All the people seem to be interested here is raising a conspiracy theory. They are so set in their ways that arguing against them will yield no results. That's the whole thing about conspiracy theorists: it doesn't matter what proof you show or how complete it is, they will find some hole, real or imagined, and fill it in with whatever belief they hold to actually add strength to their theories. A quick review of the page reveals 3 telling conspiracy theories that are held in belief by the people who hold power on this website: 1) That Obama is a Muslim (he isn't) 2) That Obama wasn't born in Hawaii (He was), and 3) That the majority of Obama's campaign contributions came from anonymous donors (they didn't). That's why this page has been locked from editing, because it has become a war zone and is unlikely to change if it was unlocked. The only solution at this point is to try and gleam what facts you can from this article, and do your own independent research for more facts concerning Obama. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 09:14, 6 January 2009 (EST)
::: First of all, I'm David, not Dean. Secondly, Obama certainly doesn't ''act'' like any sort of Christian I care to know: he supports [[abortion]], he is a radical [[socialist]] (possibly a [[Communist]]), and he tells falsehoods. I don't know if he is a Muslim or not, but it seems quite likely, and the page has a lot of evidence showing that he is. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 11:44, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::First, my apologies on the name. Secondly, I'm not claiming that Obama is a good Christian, just that he most certainly is not Muslim. The evidence on this page, many of which are blatant falsehoods, are hardly conclusive proof of anything. I have no doubt that if I held any user here under the same scrutiny that Obama has, I could gather enough "evidence" to make a case that they are any religion I choose them to be. Thirdly, just because he may not be the type of christian you want to know doesn't make him not christian. There are many Christians that I [[Ku Klux Klan|don't care to know]]. Does that make them not Christian?--[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 12:13, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Atheism ==

I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that "Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it "as a choice, not an epiphany."<ref>http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama</ref> It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.

In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?

Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama Arab-American ==

This article should, at some point, actually say that Obama is African-American, making him the first black president. If you really want to leave room for speculation about Warren G. Harding's ancestry, you could write "first openly black president" or something. But Obama's blackness is clearly a large part of his personal and political identity, and is probably going to be remembered as one of the most historically significant aspects of this election. An article on Barack Obama should contain a direct statement of this information, period.

The editors should also consider putting that information in the first paragraph. I understand that there is no established rule about the ordering of information in a Conservapedia article. However, an uneducated reader looking at this article would learn how long his campaign was before learning that he is the first black president, which doesn't make much sense to me. [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 16:20, 9 January 2009 (EST)

There is much distortion in the media about Obama being African-American. '''Obama is actually Arab-American''', and I agree that this page should reflect his race.

Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). --[[User:Cwcopela|Cwcopela]] 14:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:Does it really matter? It's not the technicalities that define what race Americans perceive Obama as - He looks more black, than white and arabic and that's how people will perceive him - They won't perceive him as another rich religious white guy or as an arab because of technicalities like that. --[[User:Atheuz|Atheuz]]

:*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)

== Small comments ==

Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a "family" section in this biography, it seems rather lacking on this point? For the rest it seems very informative, but rather cluttered. Would it be more logical to use a chronological build-up for this biography, such as placing the parts relating to his presidency more to the end of the biography, and his earlier endeavors to the front? Perhaps it would help if the contents table was moved up, at least to end up higher than the first muslim president bit? Let's hope I'm not asking any all-too-stupid questions! ;-) Regards, [[User:AVanbeek|AVanbeek]] 22:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't see any of your suggestions as an improvement. Obama's presidential ambition predates the other items you mention, and his personal beliefs are the most significant. Encylopedias, like newspapers, prioritize presentation based on significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: Shall I go ahead then, and erase "Family" Sections on George W. Bush and McCain's articles? Their great accomplishments surely predate those insignificant sections. [[User:AMurdoc|AMurdoc]] 13:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::Why not go ahead and make some positive contributions to this encyclopaedia by creating wanted articles, rather than attempting to be satirical? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 14:18, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Lincoln's Bible? ==

Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/</ref>. I think it's fairly safe to say that it will not be a koran. I also think it is safe to say that this is exactly the kind of trickery a manchurian muslim would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely muslim" section?

[[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)

: I agree, it is safe to say it will not be a Koran. I think i'ts also safe to say this is exactly the kind of "trickery" a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely Christian" section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)
: So Obama is damned if he does use a Bible, and damned if he doesn't. Seems a bit unreasonable. None of those other candidates were ever accused of being "Manchurian Muslims" just because they DID use a Bible to get sworn in. Then again, none of those other candidates had brown skin and a funny name, right? [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 12:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)
::None of the other candidates hid from questions about their past, it's Obama's own fault. Nobody ever said his name was funny except Obama. The brown skin comment is over the top racist ploy. You know very well that there are more respected, patriotic, qualified 'brown skin' people that are deserving of presidency, Obama isn't one of them. FYI- slanderous allegations are deserving of a permanent block here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:03, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion? Do those count?

:::I'm not accusing anyone of racism per se. I'm just pointing out that no other presidential candidate has ever had to prove to the country that he is not a Muslim. And let's be honest - that's because all the other presidential candidates have been white guys named George or Bill or Ron or Jimmy, and this one is a black guy named Barack. If people WANT to believe he's a Muslim (the authors of this article clearly do) it's easier to do so. If you can't see the connection between his race/name and the popularity of the belief that he is a Muslim, you're not looking hard enough.

:::Anyway, this is all a moot point. He's not a Muslim. As time goes by after Obama takes office, this page will look increasingly loony. I guess if Obama really turns out to be an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent poised to sabotage the United States in a plot straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, I will be the one looking loony. But I think I'll take that chance.[[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 17:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)

== References ==

Barack Hussein Obama (born in Honolulu,[1][2][3] August 4, 1961) served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2004-2008) and then, along with his running mate Senator Joseph Biden, won the presidential election[4] after twenty-three months of campaigning, raising an unprecedented $750 million and spending over $700 million of it,[5]. Post-election, Obama indicated that he would make an unprecedented speech within his first 100 days from a Muslim capital.[6] (7][8]

Obama has espoused the idea of "spreading the wealth,"[10]
in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay income taxes.[11] His health care plan requires employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will require many into a single payer system.[12] To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of others.[13] During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.14]
{{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009

==Picture==
[[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)

: Interesting, Steven. But where did you get it from? The uploads should reflect the source and claim of ability to use it, unless before 1923 (in which everything is public domain).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)

::Oh yes. sorry, i got it from the msn.com do i need promission to take photos from there? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 14:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama/Muslim Support ==

In the May be a Muslim section, it says that he had an increased support of Muslim voters. How does this prove he is Muslim? While this should be kept, It should be moved to another section.

== I know we lost a week... ==
But we can't stay in some alternate universe where G.W.Bush is still president forever, especially if this article is going to link to the front page. We need to update this article to show that Obama is now president. I would do so, but its locked. As it has been. For quite some time. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 23:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)

== Low Res Pic ==

Why is the leading picture of Obama such a low resolution version? It looks crappy when stretched [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:20, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: That's the only picture we could get from the White House Web site. It certainly surprises me, because I would have thought that they would have a very high-resolution picture of..."Him." We might try the White House site again to see whether "He" has corrected this—er—oversight.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::Wikipedia found one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:29, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::(I could have sworn i edited this already, did we loose some more from the database?) The orginal high resolution image can be obtained from the change.gov site; http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg . Updating to this version should fix all the scaling artefacts --[[User:SCarter|SCarter]] 22:10, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Second swearing in ceremony? ==

I'm surprised that this isn't even mentioned in the article, but when Obama retook the Oath he DIDN'T USE A BIBLE. In fact, there was no video recording of the session and the picture taken only showed him from the chest up. This is profound evidence of being Unchristian at the very least. Since we can't see his left hand during the ceremony, it could be on anything ... dare I say, the Koran?? (source http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-takes-oath-office/) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:40, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: I consider swearing on the Bible to be un-Christian, because of Matthew 5:34-37, where swearing on anything is expressly forbidden by Jesus.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) ==

This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:

''Rejects ID''
From the responses to a Q&A sent out by Nature: Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?

Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny. <ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/</ref>

''Pushes Evolution Over Christianity''
Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. "It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain," Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of "faith" would hurt him a national election. "Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels." <ref>http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp</ref>

Wow. [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Allegedly born in Honolulu ==

Why does it still say he was allegedly born in Honolulu? Later on in the page it says the it was proven his birth certificate is genuine. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Maybe it should be rewritten then since now it reads more like it states a fact that the birth certificate is indeed genuine. I'm guessing 99% of people never even check the reference.[[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Additionally, he's already been sworn in as president, so arguing over where he was born is a moot point. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 23:57, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Why no family section? ==

The Obama article has no family section. Neither does Clinton's or Carter's. However, Reagan's, Bush the elder's and W.Bush's articles have them. Why none on the democratic presidents'? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)

There's a simple answer: Obama, Clinton, and Carter are Democrats. They belong to an anti-family party, therefore their family is irrelevant to their political existence. Family is central to Republican policy, and so it is impossible to understand President Bush without mentioning his family.
[[User:LatinScholar]] 1:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Some Changes ==

Why is this locked?
Obama has not been succeded by "incumbent" nor will he be.
Obamas term in office might not go to 2013, it might go further, it might not go that far, unless you are psychic this should be changed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:"Incumbent" means he is the current holder of the office. It's simply a term to indicate that he is the most recent. And while it is true that Obama could be elected to a second term and thus serve until 2017, he hasn't. His first term expires on 2013 regardless of what happens between now and then (barring impeachment or death, of course) so it's factual to list that date. Listing a second term when he's only a week and a half in his first one is speculative and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 14:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)
It's the exact same thing we did with [[George W. Bush]] - <s>there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.</s> - saying incumbent merely confirms that he is the current president - no one has succeeded him yet.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

==Is he or isn't he President?==
This article has a lot of wildly inaccurate and unsourced information in it. It also can't seem to decide whether BO is President or not - the picture on the right says he is, the text varies from claiming he's won the election, to him being Senator. I'd love to help clean this up, but can't seem to edit the page? Ready to help. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 15:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Yes, it's pretty weird isn't it. One would have thought that if it was important enough to protect then it would be important enough to update. But the failure to update tells the casual reader what to expect in respect of the general accuracy of the article - so it's probably not a bad thing.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:12, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::I notice the article has been updated to make it somewhat more reality-based. Good. However, I would expect - almost to the case of 'demand' - that the article on the current POTUS begin with the short and simple line "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Instead, the first sentence about this, arguably the world's most important person, is overlong, appallingly punctuated, begins immediately with unfounded gossip and wanders off into some other random irrelevant facts and utterly lacks focus. It says a lot about what the reader can expect from the entire article to follow. I wish I could help rewrite this article so as it would be more based on fact and reality - and particularly, better written - but as it's locked, that's impossible. So all we, the casual readers, can do is suggest things which need to be done to improve the article. I would begin by recommending the deletion of the entire monster and a total rewrite from scratch. There's nothing here of substance and nothing that will engender any respect for this supposed 'encyclopedia'. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 13:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::It's a shame we can't all be as learned and insightful as you, FNNoonan. However, I dare say all the hard-working editors here will jump up to obey your lofty commands. If you want a 'better' article, why not write one on your userpage/in a sandbox and submit it to the criticism of your peers? Or is this a case of 'those who can't, criticise'? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 14:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::: You must not have read my comment, in which I made a suggestion to improve the article's first sentence. What's yours? You might try contributing something to the debate rather than trying to shoot the messenger. The message is - the article's a disaster. Now, what are you doing about that? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 16:24, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::::I don't think it a disaster, but a multi-layered and well-argued piece. Looking at the revision history and talk pages, I see that some of the best minds on Consercvapedia think so, too. Therefore I have no need to do anything. You, on the other hand, see faults, but do nothing except indulge yourself in corrosive criticism. [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Real Bible NOT Koran ==

Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:

“Look, I wrote here and in the article that Obama would swear on the Koran, and now I’ve just got to eat humble pie. See, I was wwoo….wrooggga…woolooo..wopppaaa. wrong. There, I managed to say it, and I feel better for it.”

Yeah, I been waiting for that one, but I’m not holding my breath. But since Obama DID in fact swear on Lincoln’s Bible that means (check this one in archives) you clowns owe me $100. Each. (American notes thank you.) [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 18:31, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: You're clueless, Myles. Obama's real oath was not on the Bible. I don't know if it was on the Koran. Do you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 28 January 2009 (EST)

OP Myles back. Right, let me see if I can sum up the state of play. Obama tries to take the Oath on the Lincoln Bible, which presumably has special powers not available to the usual Gideon’s Hotel edition. Anyways, Chief Justice Roberts manages to bellyflop his role in history. It’s like the guy who needs play only one note on a triangle during the symphony and manages to foul that up. Along with 90% of the world, I thought that Obama was completely blameless for this glitch, and actually quite gracious. His face and bearing said “Hey, you stuffed up, but I forgive you. Let’s try it again.” This was not what the foaming at the mouth crowd saw, and talk here was of how Obama was not properly inaugurated, and that somehow it was all his fault. Then, to satisfy the New Philistines, he takes the oath, again. This time, no one of the Born Again crowd who frequent these occasions thinks to bring a Bible, but it is Obama’s fault once more, because apparently he should have one in his back pocket at all times. He takes the oath again. Hey, that’s good enough for me, but apparently I’m clueless, according to Andy, who, in one of his regular 2 line missives from above believes there’s more to this than meets the eye.

Well, let me see. I suppose Obama could have paid Roberts off in the first instance to screw up the wording, so he would not have to put his hand on the Bible. (Because then he would wince with pain as the Word of God burnt his skin, or something.) This set up the SECOND inauguration at which everyone was paid to make sure no Bible was there, so Obama gets to be Prez while cunningly evading the Bible. You see, it all makes perfect sense, don’t it? Yeah, and I’M the one who’s clueless! Truly, what a man believes, he sees. Look, I’ve got an idea. Instead of hurling everything you got including the kitchen sink at Obama on a second by second basis, every time he so much as scratches his nose, let’s take the fair-minded, objective, dare I say American approach. It’s the customary 100 day honeymoon. Why don’t we all give him those 100 days, and THEN have a look at the plus and minus sheet? Sound like a sensible notion? Of course, that would mean putting your knee in some other crotch for that time, which is asking a hell of a lot I know. But then you would have some REAL grievances at the end instead of the kind of sort of all this relentless muck-raking on the basis of trivia. And just think of the size of the bonfire you could build then.

You know, where I come from conservatives are known as people with a sense of honour, with ethical standards, polite and cultivated, aware of etiquette, educated, and with a keen sense for fair play. You might be using a different dictionary. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

*Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing. Your non-American spelling of "honor" is also a giveaway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Incumbent ==

In the box to the right of the page it says that Obama will be succeeded by [[incumbent]]? Doesn't this imply that he will have two terms? I'm a bit confused. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:I can understand the confusion, but all it implies is that he is the current President. It would probably be better if the whole line was removed until we actually know who he would be succeeded by. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 13:09, 29 January 2009 (EST)

::Well, I tried to fix it up, I really did. But it was hard what with the lock down. I tried dabbing liquid paper on my monitor but that didn’t work very well either. Normally, “Not known” or “To be announced” or “To be determined” are the accepted forms, but hey, what about "Sarah Palin"? Let’s be positive and proactive about this. That lady is gonna wipe the floor with this Obama ring in. I’m marching in her parade right now. “Palin ain’t for failin’ “
::Whoo hooo!!” [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:::I fixed all this....what's the problem now, Myles? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:46, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Stylistic matter ==
Technically, it is proper to simply list the day of Obama's inauguration followed by a dash, as, God forbid, he might be reelected in 2012. So we can't say until the election when his last day in office will be... --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 09:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Homo sapiens

2009-01-29T01:04:34Z

DReynolds:

== Creationist View? ==

Can we add the creationist view on "Homo Sapiens?"
:Yes, but keep it neutral.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Antarctica ==

There are permanent bases on Antarctica. Wouldn't that mean we inhabit all seven continents? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Not really according to most geographers I have talked to. Usually inhabiting means having people living there all thi time in the form of family units, towns, cities and the like.
-Gasmonkey

:Well according to this site [http://www.antarctica.org/old/UK/Envirn/pag/antar_history/pag/science1.htm#science||Antarctica.org] at least one baby was conceived and born there. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 04:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Two Homo sapiens articles ==
There are two separate articles on this subject, [[Homo Sapiens]] and [[Homo sapiens]]. The lower case sapiens is the correct form, so we should merge the other one here.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 01:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Not a mammal? ==

"(I personally dispute this classification - revert me if you must)"

Are humans not vertebrates that produce milk for their young with hair, specialized teeth, three bones in the ear, warm blooded, and have a placenta when developing? This is what defines a mammal. If any of those are wrong, then we are not mammals. Being a mammal is a scientific definition and classification - not an idealogical one. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:54, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== Britinme's edits ==

I've changed Britinme's edits, and I'm here explaining why.
* I've removed the bit about the human brain being larger than the chimpanzee's, because it has what relevance? His text seemed to imply that's why it has extra capabilities, but elephant and whale brains are bigger, so it the point is lost. The text already said that humans had the capability of language, so even that bit wasn't needed.
* I've change the bit about the larynx, as it assumed evolution to be true. I've used the word "design", but even evolutionists such as Dawkins have used that word, so it doesn't necessarily imply a designer.
* Other bits I've deleted because they duplicated material already there, or I've explained in edit comments.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

== CP's Manual of Style overrides correct scientific classification? ==

That's... eyebrow raising, to say the least. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:48, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

:Does "correct scientific classification" say that it can never ever be done in any other way? What if, for example, there was some text written in all capitals. Would ''Homo sapiens'' even then have to be written in lower case (apart from the "H")? Occasionally text on posters or signs is written in ''all'' lower case, proper nouns included. Would binomial names be the exception that requires a capital letter even in such cases? The point is, a policy of headings having capital first letters (which is not my preference, incidentally) is not really "incorrect" just because scientific names are not customarily written that way. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:17, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

== Haha... what? ==
Alright, rather than getting into an edit war: Why is the O uncapitalized? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 16:07, 27 January 2008 (EST)
: As far as I know, we have no policy on the capitalisation of section headings. Some use title case, but others, including myself, use lower case (first letter and proper nouns excepted). I don't know why Dan reverted (perhaps account the edit comment?), but I will agree with your edit insofar as it at least provided consistency with the other headings with similar wording. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:07, 27 January 2008 (EST)
::There is no edit comment... Now it just looks stupid :/ [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 16:51, 28 January 2008 (EST)
::: I was referring to your edit comment when you made the change. It didn't make a lot of sense, and perhaps Dan took it as having a go at someone, although I now see that it was addressed to the capital letter "O", not to some other editor. If Dan doesn't respond here within, say, another day, you have my permission to make the change again. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:57, 28 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Oh. Yeah. Any of my even vaguely amusing edit comments seem to get reverted. Thank you, though. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:22, 28 January 2008 (EST)

==Biology==

Surely we can examine [[human beings]] from the purely biological perspective, but [[Biology]] is not the only member of the [[:Category:Life Sciences|Life Sciences]]. There is [[sociology]], [[economics]], [[psychology]], etc.

Very few scientists can say with confidence that men are nothing more than "[[molecules in motion]]", even if modern biologists have tended to blur the distinctions between people and animals. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:26, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

:We are animals in our own way. We have animal senses, for instance, in this world it is the survival of the fittest. If you, let's say, in buisness, create a product that nobody wants, then you are simply done, and the company with the thing that people do wants pwns your company. We also get very territorial. For instance, how many times have you heard about this, there is a robber sneeking into a man's house. So, the man kills the robber. This is not only a method of pretection but is also, a territorial thing because we are scared of having a strange person, in this case, roaming our property.

:However, as you did say, there are some distinctions between people and animals. For instance, as far as we know, humans are the only animals that are capable of loveing another human being. Also, humans are the most intellegent life force on the planet (hey, we can make borders, grow plants, domesticate animals, et cetera). Ferthermore, we are also the only animal that kills for fun. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

:PS. The [[Amused To Death]] page is now finished. Tell me what you think of it, Ed.

== Humans are animals ==

Human beings are animals. We just simply are the dominant species, however, that does not make us animals. {{unsigned|Rocky}}

== Picture ==
Would we not better serve our readers if we used a newer picture of a ''standing'' human being, so we can see the whole body? As much as I like Rev. Sunday, I think a new picture would be better. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 20:04, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Jesus Christ

2009-01-29T00:57:45Z

DReynolds:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

== God doesn't exist ==
Because God doesn't exist Jesus can't be claimed as the son of god. For this reason the article should approach the biblical character of Jesus in the same way it would approach the character of any other timeless work of literature.

==Atheists denying existence of historical Jesus?==

I seriously challenge this and would like to see some evidence for it. As the article correctly notes, the historical evidence for the life of Jesus of Nazareth is very good. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:08, 22 February 2007 (EST)
:Go look at the section on wikipedia discussing the historicity of Jesus. This is the typical secular/humanist/evolutionist/atheist pap. [[User:FightPerniciousSwarm|FightPerniciousSwarm]] 21:47, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Atheists do not deny the historical person.... in fact, quite the opposite. Atheists tend to believe that, someone who is remembered by so much oral and textual history, must've been a real person. However, just like the characters of Homer's Illiad, simply because someone was real, does not make them progeny of any deity. In fact, evidence proving Jesus was a real, historical person only conflicts with ideas that he could magically heal the sick, walk on water, turn water to wine, etc. In other words, it is those who believe Jesus had supernatural powers that do the most disservice to his historical persona. Were everyone to claim that Jesus was an excellent preacher with some incredibly great ideas, no one would argue his existence! --[[User:Newsdan|Newsdan]] 14:39, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

As an athiest, I do deny the existence of historical Jesus. But only because every shred of "proof" has been found to be either false, or so vague that it cannot be interpreted as actual proof. Most make references to "Christ" which is was common title, "the anoited one," not a name. --[[User:Niffed|Niffed]] 23:38, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Hi Niffed, if you don't believe that Jesus Christ exists, why do you spend time on the attempt to disprove something that you believe doesn't exist? Do you think that much about Hobbits, even though Hobbits don't exist? If you really want to know if God exists, ask Him with an honest heart. God promises, that He will make himself known to those who honestly seek Him.[[User:MartialArtist|MartialArtist]] 20:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
----

The article still says "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously." No source is cited. ''Who,'' exactly, denies the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth? If this belief is widely held someone, somewhere ought to have published something about it and the publication ought to be cited.

There's no need to introduce this section with a straw man. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Want confirmation of this? Go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ#Historicity this section of Wikipedia's article on Jesus]. It's true that some people deny his existence. It's not a widely held belief; it's only held by a small, and I do emphasize ''small'', minority. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::If you think there is a small minority of people in the world that deny the existence of Jesus then you need to get out of the house a bit more.

::When using Wikipedia as confirmation of a fact, I try to follow the trail of cited sources. In this case, the trail leads to Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus Historicity of Jesus], thence to a footnote, which quotes the source as saying

:::The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

::I don't think "Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted" supports the statement that "a small minority [of scholars] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure..." Neither of the Wikipedia articles names any scholars, or anyone else, who hold that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real figure in history.

::I still will think it's a straw man unless someone produces some reasonably mainstream, reasonably modern examples of people challenging the historicity of Jesus. Wikipedia's neutrality policy says you can include "facts about opinions" when the opinions are ''reasonably'' widely held. I think the idea of there not being an historical Jesus of Nazareth is so rarely held that it is not worth mentioning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)
::: I think you have serious defintional issues here that may alter whether or not this is at all a commonly held view. For example, do we mean that Jesus is a figure made up out of whole cloth? I don't think anyone seriously argues for that. Do we mean that he is a historical figure but many details of other preachers at the time got glommed onto his life-story? Many more would agree with this. Do we mean that Jesus is a compilation of the lives of a variety of people from that time period and one of their names happened to stick? I think you would get a lot for this last one. So when denying historicity you need to be very careful what you mean. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:15, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: OK. Originally I was commenting on the phrase "Many atheists claim that there is no evidence of Jesus outside the Bible." That has since been softened to "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus." I was, indeed, interpreting this to mean "invented in whole cloth."

:::: If the article were editable I'd propose simply excising the sentence "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously" since I don't see that it adds anything to the section. Presumably a finished section would make it clear which details of the Gospel accounts are widely accepted by scholars as historical and which are debated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::The evidence presented so far in the article is hardly compelling. It needs to be expanded, or the assertion that "few scholars take this seriously" will need to be qualified. --[[User:John|John]] 22:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Whether there are or are not people who question the historical existence of Jesus is not as important to this article as is the fact that there is no citation of where this claim comes from. Scorpionman, if you are suggesting I should go to Wikipedia to check the information, then what use does this Conservapedia article have in the first place? --[[User:GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:14 5 April 2007 (CST)

Even we Atheists and Jews do not deny the '''existence''' of Jesus, merely the idea that he was the son of God.

There are other conservative religious perspectives as well, could the article be expanded to include those? In particular Muslims accept the existance of Jesus as a Prophet but deny that he is the son of God.
--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 20:04, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I am an Atheist. I believe in Jesus. I just don't believe he was a deity. [[User:AnAtheist|AnAtheist]] 20:08, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

There is no independent (i.e., non-Christian) evidence of the existence of Jesus because he was not well known during his life. Roman and Jewish scholars who wrote about him long after his death relied on Christians sources for his existence. However, I cannot see why this should matter, since this is a matter of faith. --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 17:36, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

There is no evidence that jesus was anything other than a man other than one book, the bible which could very well have been a collection of childrens stories used to teach morals.

== Locked ==

Can someone unlock this article? It needs more information. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Apparently... the key to unlocking this page is true faith.

The very fact that this article is locked means I'm leaving this website and never returning again.

::You Legend

:::Some one needs to unlock this page if it is on the main page: Lets all improve these articles. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 09:17, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Funny how this page is locked depsite conservapedia asking for people to edit it. previous unsigned comment added by [[User:Wikipediaisbetter]]
:Funny how Wikipedia's article is also locked... They are better exactly how..? [[User:Fox|Fox]] 10:11, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Jesus is a pretty popular object of vandalism, I say keep it locked and people can propose changes here. That is one of the reasons for talk pages. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== Josephus ==

The line about Josephus is misleading and false. No doubt you refer to the "Testimoniam Flavianum," in which Josephus trumpets Jesus as the messiah for one paragraph, and then moves on. It's worth noting that the TF is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval monks... note that this does *NOT* undercut the importance of Jesus at all! He was barely known in his time, and the fact that Josephus wouldn't write about him is unsurprising. Josephus was known to be an anti-revolutionary who hated all the messianic figures of his time, and won his fame by being the lone Jew to decry them...<ref>http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html</ref>

== Worth mentioning? ==
Excuse me, but do you think it's worth mentioning that Jesus was probably Jewish? He merely provided the foundation of Christianity.

: Jewish? ''Jewish''? He was the Son of God, for pete's sake (sorry, nearly used the other, rather more obvious expression)! Haven't you seen all those pictures of him with the fair hair and blue eyes? And so, with Joseph not being his father an' all, he can only have been ''half''-Jewish at best, can he? (pardon my irony!) So it's no wonder, is it, that, thanks largely to Paul, the poor Jews can't make head or tail of what Christians have managed to do with him - let alone with ''their'' scriptures!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Wouldn't that be racist? --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:No. Just taking the p... out of racists! Irony. British thing. Don't worry your head about it! (''Of course'' the man was Jewish!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Having been born in that part of the world, the Roman province of Palestine, he more likely had semitic features was short (everyone was short at the time), olive skinned with dark hair. Plus, he observed Passover, and read in the synagogue. [[User:Vjay|Vjay]] 22:23, 14 December 2007 (EST)

::Matrilineal descent is what counts, I believe. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:That's funny - I could have sworn that Matthew traces his descent through his father (or rather through the man who allegedly wasn't his father in the first place) while Luke does the same, but citing an incompatible number of generations and entirely different names! (pardon my irony again!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::The two theories are:
::1) St. Joseph was adopted, and one lineage is legal heritage
::2) One lineage is that of Our Lady, and the other of St. Joseph
::--[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, you'd have thought they'd have said so, then, wouldn't you? Especially as they both say it's through Joseph, and there are far more generations in the one than in the other! (Honestly, the squirming that goes on to try and justify Christian dogma in the face of what the scriptures actually say!) ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Its rather redundant to state he was Jewish. As obvious as stating he was male.

==References==
<references/>

== Christ ==

Is this page locked? I thought that perhaps one should add, after explaining that "Jesus" is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Joshua," that "Christ" comes from the Greek "christos," meaning "the annointed one"

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Absolutely. Or rather that ''christos'' is the Greek translation of Hebrew ''mashiach'', meaning 'anointed' and thus '[[Messiah]]' (and not, of course, Joshua's surname!!). Ironic, isn't it, that we know the two names mainly through the 'enemy' Greek culture that faithful Hebrews were most anxious to combat at the time? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 07:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Christ the Redeemer?? ==

Er...I find it a little bizarre to have a photo, and not a very good one of the Christ the Redeemer sculpture in Brazil as the only picture on this article.

'''A NOTE TO THE ADMINS:''' Why are so many essential articles locked? If someone wanted to v-andalise an article on Jesus they'd do it on Wikipedia where they'd get more airtime. This article is so woefully inadequate it's almost laughable. What about the teachings of Jesus, summarised? What about, oh, the prophets of the old testament foretelling his coming? What about the revelation of God's character through the old testament brought to fruition in Christ?

If you want to lock these articles, fine, I don't care. But make sure they're up to scratch before you do so. Otherwise you'll just drive people away like our friend earlier. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Help for this article is on the way, so be patient! :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:56, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==The name Jesus==

I came across some interesting information, which I've summarised here. If anybody who can edit this page would like to put it in, others might also find it interesting.

Considering that Christianity is 2000 years old, the name Jesus for Jesus Christ is not a very old word in English. In Old English he was called hæland “saviour”, from the Proto-Germanic root hailjan “to heal, to save”.

After the Norman conquest, the French form Iesu or Iesus was adopted. This derived from Latin Iosus, which the Romans adopted from the Greek Iesous. The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Jah, short for Jahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

In 16th century written English both Iesu and Iesus were used, for example in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526. J did not replace I until the 17th century and the form with the final s became common in the 18th century.

In Middle English documents, Jesus was often written IHS, an abbreviation of Greek IHSOYS (Iesous). However, in spoken English between the 11th and 17th centuries, the letter I could sound like either an I or a J, so the pronunciation of Iesus was similar to today’s sound. Welsh still retains the Iesu form but pronounces it “yessy”.

http://www.takeourword.com/Issue068.html

[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 3.51 24 March 2007

:''Very'' interesting, but, alas, factual - so it doesn't have much chance of being included here! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Birth of Christ ==

Just curious, especially considering how big a deal the A.D./C.E. thing is here, but why is there no mention of Christs Birthdate? Would think its sort of important given how much attention you've been heeding it. Best Scholarly guess seems to be late September in 05 B.C., which is odd I think, since that not only would grammatically read as him being born five years before he was born (a lesser miracle?) but also would imply that A.D. and C.E. are equally, inaccurately, based on the date of Christ's birth, with only A.D. claiming as much, and incorrectly at that.

The date would have been around Sept. 15 or 16 of 5 b.c., going by the signs in the heavens and the lunar cycle, and adjusting it to a Roman calendar date. The important thing to remember is that Yahshua was FULFILLING TORAH, thus, 'the day of his DEATH is better than the day of his birth', meaning we should continue in observing PASSOVER. 'Do this in remembrance of me...' --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:20, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

==Case for Christ==

I am reinserting the reference to ''Case for Christ''. It is not a "book review" to mention the book in one or two sentences. In fact, I think Conservapedia should serve as a jumping off point to further research on subjects, and that book is in itself a jumping off point to further research. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Name of page==

This ought to be Jesus Christ, not just Jesus. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well from what I understand Christ is a [[Messiah|title]] not part of a name. It would be like renaming the George W. Bush article to President George W. Bush. If you're worried about someone typing in Jesus Christ and not able to get to the article that's not happening as Jesus Christ redirects to Jesus. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sulgran, it is a highly secular idea of what it means. His name is '''Jesus Christ''' to hundreds of millions of people throughout the World. I don't think some online encyclopedia has a right to truncate his name. As Christians, we hold to these basic tenets:

<blockquote>
Our Core Values

#'''1. We praise Jesus Christ as Lord and savior always'''.
#2. Help others in their time of need, the lost, hungry and weak.
#3. Spread the good news about the Kingdom of Heaven.
#4. Love God the Father with all of our hearts, mind, body, and soul.
</blockquote> --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::5. 5. And ignore all the other 600-odd commandments, apart from:
::6. 6. Be insufferably smug at all times.

:In that case, we should refer to 'King David Christ', too, since he called himself that (in the Hebrew, ''mashiach'') throughout the Psalms. But it wasn't his name, any more than it was Jesus's. The word is a ''Greek translation'', of all things! (But then, to be fair, so is 'Jesus'!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Indeed. Christ is an honorific, not a name. In fact, his name was actually Yeshua[[User:Daemon|Daemon]] 12:28, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, we are not for everyone. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

As a sysop, I decided that readers looking for information on [[Jesus]] would be better served if they found it in [[Jesus Christ]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

'Christ' simply means 'anointed', like in Daniel, 'an anointed one'. His name should be Yahshua of Nazareth, as He was never a GREEK. --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:23, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

== Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals ==

Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:It looks like it has been locked again. There are a few ignorant spelling errors I would like to correct. [[User:MontyZuma|MontyZuma]] 19:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

==Simple Logic?==

I don't see how this phrase:

:"Why would Jesus voluntarily submit to a crucifixion unless it was to be followed by a resurrection?"

is an example of simple logic. There could be any number of reasons why he would submit to his execution. I don't think even Christian's think he only did it to prove that he would be resurrected. He submitted to be executed simply because it would wash away the sins of man. This statement should be removed. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:58, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely Jesus while on Earth was a man born of woman and both feared and felt pain as a man would. Saying he went willingly because he knew he would rise again surely cheapens the sacrifice he made for us. He gave his life willingly and with great suffering for us without knowing what would become of him and, in this, made the most selfless sacrifice in all of history.

I am not a theologian but I would like to see a scholar of the Bible (as supposed to a simple follower like me) look at what I've suggested and see if the Bible supports this. I always believed that the human aspect of him made the sacrifice all the greater (and the sadder as such a great man died to such mockery and in such pain). --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:17, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:This statement was put in again (although under a different guise). I removed it as it is neither logic, or the reason Jesus was crucified. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:35, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== The top picture should be on the right more so the top text can be on the left ==

The top picture should be on the right more so the text can be on the left. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::Nevermind i fixed it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...its okay for the pic to be on the left, as it was originally. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::TK, i certainly don't want to get into a edit war over something trivial. But people do read from left to right and at first I missed the upper text. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

How can there be an edit war if you're the only person editing? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 20:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Unprotection ==

Glad to see you unprotected the article for the "Article improvement drive". I would make some edits but need to hit the sack. [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 19:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Other people in the Bible name Jesus ==

While this is interesting, it's not appropriate for an article on Jesus Christ, which itself can get rather long. I did include a brief acknowledgement of Joshua and Messiah in the opening paragraph so your additions in regard to Jesus Christ are not lost. I hope this makes sense to you. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:26, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Lead ==
I wrote a new lead. I hope its not to bold, but I wanted to get the point about just who Jesus is right upfront. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 20:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:While I am a Christian, I'm still thinking perhaps we should start with the words "In Christian theology", before your new lead. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:34, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*Learn together, please don't fall for the realitivists here. This is a Christian, Conservative encyclopedia. Ignore those wanting neutral statements, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Can you objectively, empirically demonstrate the claim that Christ was born of a virgin, was the incarnation of God and, through dying, absolved the sins of his believers past, present and future? Its perfectly fine to believe this, sure, but to claim it as outright fact is wrong, and not simply because the only source for these grand claims is the Bible (a book which contains within it numerous self-contradictory and inaccurate passages, but thats another discussion) but also that to attempt to pin him down as a concrete character defies the various interpretations which have lead to the factioning of the church based on different eschatologies. Different christian religions all see christ in different lights. Some believe he was a miracle worker, some a philosopher/teacher, some see him as a pure man of God and some as God himself.
:Don't get me wrong, TK, I'm fully in favor of an un-neutral encyclopedia that promotes a specific "Christian, Conservative" narrative by selectively cherrypicking evidence and ignoring context to suggest as fact things that are not necessarily the case, and certainly the article can stay such as it is, offending the intellectual sensibilities of people like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin who saw truth in Christ's teachings but had "doubts as to his divinity," by committing the intellectual dishonesty of stating these things as outright fact which only cite one text as the source for these extraordinary claims.
:I just think though that if beliefs are going to be stated as fact that CPedia needs to come out front and decide which particular kind of christianity its going to promote as singularly true. Which particular protestant reformations will CPedia then be in a position to declare as false? Which Catholic sects? Methodism? Lutheranism? Mormonism? Making an "un-neutral" statement does get that snowball rolling after all, and if you've decided, TK, that neutrality is a bad thing, then riddle me this: Which conservapedia contributors... no... which CPedia Sysops will have the fun to find that the CPedia says their particular belief in Christ is outright wrong? I would really like to know. You all going to vote on which religion is "true" are you? I mean clearly here "true" is decided by the ideaology of the sysops as a group, and its not very likely that you all go to the exact same church, so who is it, specifically, who gets to have their Christian faith called false here? Inquiring minds want to know.
:--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 12:27, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think you got off on a tangent there. The majority of practicing Christians would have no trouble with the portrayal of Jesus put forth by Lostcaesar; there's no need to identify every variant and condition to the point where gridlock trumps common sense. And saying only one text is cited for Jesus is like taking all of the works of ancient Greece and putting them in one volume, then saying there's only one source that discusses ancient Greece. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:24, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:I apologize if I was unclear. I realize that there is archeological evidence that Jesus existed, but the problem isn't whether he lived or not. Its his divinity. The only source for such a claim is a selection of specific accounts of his life (others who witnessed him do not mention miracles, as an example) of which there is no supporting evidence. The only you can say about his divinity, therefore, is that the bible claims it to be so and that people believe it. Stating it as manifest fact simply because the majority agrees would be like, if the majority were also Star Trek fans, saying that Capt. James T Kirk is a real person. Facts are not democratic and demand quantification.
:My other problem with "majority" being used to argue the stament of beliefs as fact in this sense is that you admit there are a minority of Christians (myself among them) who do not necessarily believe in the divinity of Christ. Say then that another section goes up in the article about how He should be worshipped then. Do you populate that section with the majority religion at the expense of the others? Say Catholicism over Protestantism? Then that majority further divides over reformations and yields another majority, which then divides over another issue and then another, and before long you have Russian Nesting dolls, each being a majority, until the "minorities" put together outnumber the "majorities" 10 to 1.
:When you allow lapsed standards for statements of fact such as this merely on the basis of it being the opinion of the majority, you get exactly that situation in the long run. I notice, of course, that if a liberal were to make a similar unverifiable, intellectually dishonest claim on this site, he'd be hunted down with dogs. For consistancy's sake, for legitimacy's sake, and not least of all for Christ's sake, the only thing that should be said as fact about Christ's divinity is that the bible claims it to be so.--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 11:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::''Here they crucified him, and with him two others--one on each side and Jesus in the middle. Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." ...The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, "Do not write 'The King of the Jews,' but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews."'' (John 19:18-19, 21)
::What will we write? "Jesus is the Son of God", or "some claim he said that he was the Son of God." ? [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 12:40, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the best and simplest thing to say is some variant of "According to the Bible, Jesus was the son of god, born of a virgin, etc." since I agree the bible is the most pivotal reference for alot of the history attributed to him. The important thing to realize is that, and I dont mean this to be as condescenting as it might sound, but Jesus here is basically a character in a book, and as such since the only real source for the bulk of the extraordinary claims is that same book, the very simple quantifier "According to the bible..." used sparingly just to establish that context would, I think, be the best course of action. Fair?--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry to follow you here, RexMundane, I'll cease with this observation. I generally agree with your modest tone here, and do not take offense. I would like to add one clarification, though. While the Bible is most often published in a single book, it is actually a collection of books (or scrolls), letters, etc. The phrasing "According to the Bible..." seems to ickypedian to me. This is a conservative encyclopedia. I am not sure we need to cite the source of the statement in line, but perhaps we do. I don't think conservapedia is about doubting the historocity of Jesus. Am I wrong? [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 15:57, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:Well the claim of Jesus's divinity though is entirely based on the aggregate statements made by the bible. I agree that there was a Jesus, that significant events in the story of his life, as recanted in the bible, have been verified by archeological record, and it is entirely honest to say as much. Claiming he was born of a virgin, is the son of God, etc., however rather demands a quantifier since it is, and I say this recognizing this as a "christian" cyclopedia, only a claim being made by one source (I am here refering to the selection of texts in the bible as a single group) and significant as that source is to discussing the nature of Jesus, I maintain that it is wrong to say these things as objective fact when, outside of the claims made by that one source, there is no other empirical proof to say that, for instance, the ressurection was a real event. If the event exists, basically, only as an event in the story the Bible tells, that should be made explicit.
:As I say, I consider myself a christian in a sort of Thomas Jefferson sense, and don't require him to have been supernatural or even for the bible to have been accurate in order to be able to glean moral lessons from the story of his life. I realize that my opinion is not as important as the bible's in this regard, certainly as far as conveying the story of Christ, but the important thing is that the story is, basically, the bible's version. An important version to be sure, but it does a disservice to not make that clear, I rather think. Given too how I don't actually see how saying something like "The Bible says Jesus was X" instead of simply "Jesus was X" in any way changes a persons interpretation of Christ or his story in any significant way. I'm not saying to call it a lie, just to acknowledge that the primary basis for the claims is the bible itself.--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 17:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::Jesus' divinity is known by revelation, making it a fact that we can be certain about. If you wish to talk about sources, a section would be appropriate, where we can talk about the witness of the Bible, the Church Fathers, and any of the many miracles wrought in his name in the two thousand years since his resurrection. But, just as we would not qualify every statement about Julius Caesar being emperor of Rome, we should not qualify what we say about the Son of God. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 19:42, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:The distinction is that Ceaser being the emperor of rome is not disputed by anyone, whereas the nature of the divinity of Christ, even among Christians, is under dispute. "Jesus' divinity is known by revelation," only to those who know it, not to everyone. Among even people who believe in the truth of his teachings there are legitimate arguments as to whether or not the account of the bible regarding the virgin birth, miracles, etc., is true, or even necessary. All I'm asking for is that such statements of divinity which historians and christians themselves have disagreements on simply be clarified as being the bible's account. Saying its not necessary simply because the majority of christians believe in it sends us down the rabbit hole of deciding which religion is "true" by majority as well. I'm sorry, please help me here, why is there such opposition to simply adding the phrase "According to the Bible" once or twice?--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 10:23, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Rex. Stating that Jesus *is* the Son of God unequivocally leaves Conservapedia in the position of endorsing Christianity as objectively true, when in fact this isn't verifiable, and the majority of people on earth are not Christian. A statement saying "According to the Bible" or "According to the Christian faith" as a preface would make this more objective. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 13:11, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::1) This is a Christian encyclopedia. 2) While you may not think it is 'verifiable', others are not obliged to agree with this conclusion or approach. 3) Truth is not determined by mere popular whimsy, ergo the number of Christians is not directly relevant, though the position of the faith as the plurality, or near plurality position amongst different religions ought to give cause to reevaluate your position, even if you continue with the assumption that sheer number is directly relevant. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 16:34, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::1) No, it isn't a Christian encyclopedia; it's a conservative encyclopedia QED. Not all conservatives are Christians, and even if they were it wouldn't make the question of Christ's divinity any more or less objectively verifiable. 2) It isn't just me that believes that the question of Christ's divinity is unverifiable. Such a question is one of faith, not of science, and as such is purely subjective. You may personally believe that Christ is your Lord and Savior, and noone is suggesting that you should believe otherwise, but you should recognize that this position can't be objectively proven. 3) I'm not making an argumentum ad populum, I'm simply pointing out that Conservapedia should not be in the business of claiming that one religion is true over all others, and it's sheer hubris to do otherwise. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 11:39, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
::::You sound as if you consider your statement (2) to be "objectively verifiable", since you give no argument for it other than to repeat the assertion. Whatever the case, what is "objectively verifiable" is that the frontpage contains a Daily Bible Verse. Please example this [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070306/26179_Conservapedia_Challenges_%27Anti-Christian%27_Wiki.htm useful text]. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 13:06, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Regardless of the opinion of the Christian Post, the stated purpose of this website is to provide a counterpoint to perceived liberal bias in Wikipedia, not to advance Christianity as the only true religion. There are a great many non-Christian conservatives. If you haven't guessed by now, you're speaking to one. With regards to verifiability, the fact is that the entire basis upon which the divinity of Christ rests is the Bible itself, which is not an objective source, it's a work of faith. I appreciate that you have a strong faith, but just as Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Conservapedia should not be one either. To claim that one religion is true over all others rather than to give a dispassionate overview of the facts surrounding those religions is to stop being an encyclopedia, and to start being a tract. To state "Christians believe Christ to be the Son of God" is a fact which can be proven. To state "Christ is the Son of God" may or may not be true, but cannot be proven independant of the Bible. This in and of itself violates Conservapedia commandment 1. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 14:12, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::The Gospels and the testimonies and facts along centuries are "objectively verifiable". They are holly books and facts as well as scientifically truth as other history book are according to History science. What you have to remember is that men are undoubtedly flash and soul. Make your statements using both and you will see as John the Apostle teched, the love that is there and that is a reality objectively verifiable. Any man can be a witness of that simple truth. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:25, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The Bible may be held by some to be holy, but that view isn't held by all (indeed, it's only held by a minority of the world's population). Other holy texts do not claim that Jesus was the son of God. Conservapedia should not be in the business of stating that one holy text is true and others are false, because this is a matter of faith, not fact. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 16:27, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Jesus was Jewish! ==

Jesus was Jewish... his personal religious beliefs are central to a belief in him, yet this article makes no mention of what Jesus believed. This glaring omission can only be seen as an effort to force history into alignment with current ideals. {{unsigned|Newsdan}}

:That's a little harsh. Yes, Yeshua was Jewish. And as the site grows I'm sure the article will come to reflect this. This is a fairly new site, Newsdan - it didn't appear fully formed and perfect :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:34, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Like most of us did not know he was a Jew. There is nothing wrong with him being Jewish, nothing!--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 14:36, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Will... the problem is that the article is locked, and yet was done so without adding this fact. --[[User:Newsdan|Newsdan]] 14:42, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:You can use this talk section to preview to the sysops anything you'd like to add. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:44, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:I'd suggest providing the wording you would like to see included and where this placement would occur. As Fox has stated, the sysops are more than happy to see that constructive edits are included. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:49, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus was ethnically Jewish, but he came to fulfill the Jewish faith, thereby founding the Christian Church. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 17:22, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

I would have to counter the thought above about 'founding the christian church'. The christian church was formed to save its own butt from the persecution of the Jews. Then, it started to worship what it wanted to worship to separate themselves further(such as xmas and esthar), thus further STRAYING FROM THE TRUTH, and bringing man to what it is right now, a spiritual mess. That said, scripture PREDICTED that this would happen in Hosea 6:1-2. Man has been ripped apart for 2 days(2000 years), and the healing is about to begin.--[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:30, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

== Introductory Paragraph ==

This article has a real problem. Many people question the divinity of Jesus Christ. The opening section of this article should state "According to the Christian faith..."

To state as fact that Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God has no place in the main article and has no business being in an encyclopedia. This article should be unlocked and appropiate changes made to make this article neutral.

The owners and administrators are doing great harm to this website and their positions by allowing their personal opinions to enter into the articles. Credibility, readership and contributions cannot be maintained by allowing non-neutral articles.

Personal, religious and political opinions should be expressed outside the main body of articles.

:You're not an authority on all things encyclopedic, are you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:29, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:::You're new here aren't you...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:31, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes I am new, and I am learning. However, the first thing I did was read the rules, especially rule#5 which states that personal opinions are not allowed in articles. The beginning of this article breaks rule #5. Clearview 15:46 6/19/07

:Are you sure that Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Savior is personal opinion? Is it your personal opinion that He's not? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:48, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok before a big fight breaks out, Clearview, just keep in mind that while the site says that no personal opinion is allowed, the site owner and most of the administrators here view the Bible as irrefutable fact and while you may disagree, refuting that is only going to get you banned. If you have an idealogical issue with that, then I suggest that you either try to repress it when editing, or perhaps try another wiki, as making edits that refute the divinity of Jesus are only going to result in a ban.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:58, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

First, I never stated my position on the divinity of Christ so please do not assume what I believe. Second, my suggestion that the article be introduced by stating that the Christan faith holds that Christ is divine does not refute any fact. Third, belief in Christ does not require fact, only faith "Blessed are those who believe yet do not see". Clearview 16:32PST 6/19/07.
:Well, first, we had trolls and vandals come in who picked the CP commandments as the first thing they complained about in general, and articles about the Bible specifically. Second, you are not an authority as to what constitutes the structure and layout of an encyclopedia. Third, the changes that you have insisted be made pertaining to Jesus and Judaism articles constitute a violation of commandment #5, because, like it or not, it is your personal opinion and beliefs as to the subject. Therefore it will not be changed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:46, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Hi, I would like to point out that the phrase "According to Christian faith...." does not state a personal opinion. Maybe you could make it something like "For all Christians..."? So it does not sound as questioning, but still pays respect to the fact that people of other/no faith don't view Jesus of Nazareth as the son of god and their savior. --lhb 02:53, 15 Sept 2007

:::First, I think Karajou owes an apology to all of us, and especially to Clearview, for acting obnoxiously. What gives you authority to say that anyone, including yourself and me, is or is not an expert in what constitutes the structure and layout of an encyclopedia. Then the argument was used that "the changes that you have insisted be made pertaining to Jesus and Judaism articles constitute a violation of commandment #5 because, like it or not, it is your personal opinion and beliefs as to the subject." I think we all agree that religion is a controversial topic. Therefore, it is important to consider all points of view on religion, including those who believe in Jesus Christ as a spiritual leader and those who believe in him as a historical figure with no spiritual background or even those who do not believe he existed at all. Karajou does not understand that saying that Jesus is believed by Christians is a completely neutral way of addressing the topic. Therefore, the article is as fair as possible because Christians who do believe in Christ have their arguments mentioned. Those who do not believe in Christ have their views acknowledged because the article states that Christ's divinity is believed by only some people. Karajou stated that "Are you sure that Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Savior is personal opinion? Is it your personal opinion that He's not?" It most certainly is a personal opinion, and that he is not is also a personal opinion. While the article may completely focus on one side of this opinion, it needs some form of disclaimer in the opening paragraph to explain that Jesus and his divinity is not a universally accepted truth. --[[User:Eb12|Eb12]] 18:42, 12 January 2008 (EST)

""While the site says that no personal opinion is allowed, the site owner and most of the administrators here view the Bible as irrefutable fact and while you may disagree, refuting that is only going to get you banned."" So, no personal opinion is allowed UNLESS it's the personal opinion of the site owner and administrators? Ha! That's hilarious. Why are you even bothering to pretend that Conservapedia has the remotest commitment to impartiality if you're willing to make statements like that? At least Wikipedia has the decency to PRETEND they're not biased. Unless the site owner and administrators are actually willing to abide by their own commandments, Conservapedia will forever be viewed as a ridiculous propoganda site that maintains it's blinkered dogma by banning anybody who expresses a different point of view. Your editing policy has more in common with communist Russia than modern America (remember a wee thing called 'Freedom of Speech?') I imagine I'll get instantaniously banned for writing such heresy, but I think it's a VERY valid point to be raised. {{unsigned|Rolandhulme}}
:Wikipedia is biased in many of its articles; changing the evolution article, for example, to include facts that evolution is false will get instantly reverted. As to what constitutes a wiki, do you have the right to claim "freedom of speech" in a wiki dedicated to ''Star Wars'' when you post articles related to the U.S. Civil War? I don't think so. You're welcome to make positive contributions in this wiki, but you have to realize that editing in any wiki is a priviledge, and not a right. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:21, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Hi Karajou - thanks for the response (which was more reasonable than mine, so I apologise. I was just frustrated.) I see your point about freedom of speech, although that's not applicable in this situation. A man posting about the Civil War in a post about Star Wars could be censored on the basis of relevance. The flaws in Conservapedia's page on Jesus are VERY relevant. To fulfil the intention of Conservapedia - to be a reference, rather than a propoganda site, it needs to outline Jesus' life as referenced by the Bible and Christian texts - not just as imperical fact. From what you're saying, it seems clear that the site owner and administrators play the 'It's my site and I'll censor/rewrite as I want to' instead of actually trying to be impartial or factual or follow their own clearly established commandments. That's their right, sure - but it means Conservapedia is entirely useless as an alternative knowledge resource to Wikipedia. Oh, and as for evolution... Wikipedia does explain creationist theory and intelligent design, but considering that evolution is only a theory in the same way gravity is (and I studied history and did some archeology at a theological university, so I'm pretty knowledgable about this stuff) I don't think it's possible to support creationism with any convincing 'facts' - hence deletion. Although that's a topic for another post! {{unsigned|Rolandhulme}}

The opening sentence claims that Jesus IS in fact the son of God. This is a belief, not a fact, and it should therefore be referred to as a belief. e.g. "Jesus Christ is ''believed by Christians to be'' the only Son of God and prophesied Messiah..." {{unsigned|DerUebermensch}}

Only 'begotton' son. The bible is quite specific and some consider it to imply that there are other sons , just not born of woman. This gets quite difficult to explain since Jesus IS God and has always existed , also theres no Mrs God and 'son' has a pretty specific meaning in most languages , but I digresss. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 17:52, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Rolandhulme and DerUebermensch (even though he is banned) should read my [[essay:Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]. As for evolution, it is not a theory "in the same way gravity is": gravity is observed, but goo-to-you evolution isn't. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:10, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

== Teachings of Jesus ==

Why does the article have no section about the teachings of Jesus? --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 17:39, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

:Good question! Why don't you work on it at [[The Gospels]]? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:57, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

We should add a section about how the teachings of Jesus are applied today, especially be liberals using his words to incorrectly support their agenda.

Ex. Welfare (compassion)

Gay Marriage (acceptance)

Capital punishment (thou shall not murder)

This will make the article more practical and informative. Thanks for the consideration! [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]] 23:36, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who..." ==

Please consider changing to "Jesus Christ is the only ''begotten'' Son of God who..." for Ge 6:2 talks about other "sons of God."

{{cquote|Ge 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.}}

I appreciate it. [[User:FightPerniciousSwarm|FightPerniciousSwarm]] 21:43, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Category removal ==

Please remove the categories: Christianity, Trinity, Christian History, Religion, Biblical persons, and Divine Beings. They are all supercategories of [[:Category:Jesus]]. Also, it would be nice if you could sort the Jesus article at the top, by doing thus: <nowiki>[[Category:Jesus|]]</nowiki>. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 15:39, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== Jesus in Islam ==

i will further expand the article by adding the Islamic view of Jesus as the Massaiah and a prophit, i will also start a new article about the issue

watch your spelling --[user:PhilipV|PhilipV]

== Truth and verifiability ==

I don't think this article should be phrased the way it is. CP commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable". Is it really verifiably true that "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God", or that "Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him"?

It may well be true, I don't deny that, but it is not verifiably so, hence the need for [[faith]]. It is in the same category of statement as "The Koran is the perfect, unalterable word of God", or "Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse". It is not the same category of verifiable statements such as "water boils at 100 degrees celsius", or "China has the highest population of any country in the world".

It is verifiably true that ''Christians believe'' Jesus to be the only Son of God, and that ''According to the New Testament'', Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him, so why can't the article be written that way? There are precedents. Compare with [[Hell]], which states "''To Christians'', hell is a place where the souls of the wicked are punished eternally for all the sins they perpetrated during their lifetime on Earth." Or the page on [[Islam]], which mentions "''The Qur'an states that'' Christians will be punished, though the nature of the punishment is not specified."

Why make an exception to the first CP commandment for this page?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 05:39, 14 February 2008 (EST)

== The Theory of Jesus? ==

In the same way that evolution is stated to be a mere "theory" since it is not universally accepted, should we not give equal consideration to Jesus and his relation to god. A vast majority may accept he was the son however since a few do not can we not rephrase such statements in a manner like "currently most accept that Jesus was the son of god" or perhaps "the leading theory amongst religious people today is that Jesus was the son of god"

The statement

"Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who, in the fullness of time, was sent by God the Father to be the propitiation for our sins and to ransom us from death."

also seems unverifiable
[[User:Qc|Qc]] 17:03, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

==Hebrew or Aramaic?==
The article has the [[Aramaic]] form of His title but calls it [[Hebrew]]. Aramaic is Meshiha (Aleph) - the article at the end, while Hebrew is HaMashiah - article at the front[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 06:25, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

==minor bits==
shouldnt The Twelve Apostles be in the see also part and not just Andrew

== Commandments ==

Is it possible for anybody to actually edit the article in accordance with the Conservapedia guidelines?

It begins :'Jesus was the son of God...'

That's wrong. Rule No.1 in the guidelines is Attribution. It should read 'Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God.' If you don't bother following the rules of Conservapedia there's no point in even having the bloody thing in the first place.

It should read:

Christians believe that the Biblical figure Jesus Christ, featured in the New Testament of the Bible, was the Son of God, sent to Earth to die for our human sins and show people the path to heaven. Popular Christian lore suggests that Jesus was born in the first century A.D. and it is his birth upon which the modern calendar system is based.

According to the new Testament, when he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, inaugurating his ministry. According to the Bible, Jesus performed various miracles throughout his life, lending support to his claim that he was the son of God.

The Bible chronicles that many during Jesus' lifetime did not believe in his divinity and some sought to put him to death. Eventually, Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and crucified. Christian lore states that he died for mankind's sins on the cross, therefore offering a path to heaven to all those who accepted him as their savior.

According to the Bible, Jesus physically rose from the dead three days after being entombed and appeared to his disciples on various occasions. The Bible then states that Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he now acts as our mediator and path to heaven.

== Editing ==

Why are we not able to edit this page? As I said earlier, the entire first paragraph is inconsistent with established conservapedia guidelines and should read:

Christians believe that the Biblical figure Jesus Christ, featured in the New Testament of the Bible, was the Son of God, sent to Earth to die for our human sins and show people the path to heaven. Popular Christian lore suggests that Jesus was born in the first century A.D. and it is his birth upon which the modern calendar system is based.

According to the new Testament, when he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, inaugurating his ministry. According to the Bible, Jesus performed various miracles throughout his life, lending support to his claim that he was the son of God.

The Bible chronicles that many during Jesus' lifetime did not believe in his divinity and some sought to put him to death. Eventually, Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and crucified. Christian lore states that he died for mankind's sins on the cross, therefore offering a path to heaven to all those who accepted him as their savior.

According to the Bible, Jesus physically rose from the dead three days after being entombed and appeared to his disciples on various occasions. The Bible then states that Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he now acts as our mediator and path to heaven.

==Evidence for Jesus flimsy at best.==

This whole Christ-as-savior thing kinda irks me. Why is it that the Bible is full of all these miracles which were treated as the greatest spectacles of their day and yet it seems that as soon as media and culture popped up on the scene the whole "magic God" went kinda dormant. It's kinda like how Superman used to fight all kinds of crazy space aliens and stuff and then he just starts taking on topical issues like corporations and terrorism. Why the watering down so suddenly? Aren't we talking about a God with an infinite scope of the universe? Why does he care whether people are smart enough to acknowledge these things? Why doesn't Sodom and Gemorrah happen like, everyday in this day and age? [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 16:19, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Evidence for Jesus being black?==

I have read over the article and I see no mention to the possibility of Jesus being black? [[craan|craan]]

If you can provide credible evidence, please post it. Thanks. [[User:Mark7|Mark7]] 17:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why can't you provide credible evidence that he is white? Technically, he's a Middle Easterner.
[[LiberalJohn|LiberalJohn]]
== Prayer to receive ==

Jesus never taught to "Pray to receive Him now", so why is that under the "Teachings of Jesus" section? [[User:Mark7|Mark7]] 18:12, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

In one sense it is true that prayer to receive Jesus is not a teaching from or of Him, but rather a teaching about Him or approach to Him. In another sense, it is a teaching from or of Him, in that the prayer is a definite decision of incorporating Him into our life as He is - Lord and Savior. And that, Jesus did many ways when He was on earth - presenting or interjecting Himself in the "equation" of reaching God and His Kingdom. This shows that the two ways, that "of or from Jesus Himself" (Gospels) and the way "about Jesus" (Epistles) are really one way.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:54, 5 January 2009 (EST)

==Unlock==
Any chance of getting this unlocked so some edits can be made? It's pretty sloppy in formatting.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:56, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Seconded [[User:Illuminatiscott|Illuminatiscott]]

:::I would like to unlock to add [[:Category:Catholic Church]]-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:07, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== New section needed - Popular depiction of Jesus ==

Jesus has been generally depicted over the years as "as being taller than his disciples, lean, with long, flowing, light brown hair, fair skin and light-colored eyes" - however this depiction is heavily at odds with the racial characteristics of humans in the [[Judea]] and [[Galilee]] areas at the time of Jesus' life as a mortal man. "According to the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane before the Crucifixion, Judas Iscariot had to indicate to the soldiers whom Jesus was because they could not tell him apart from his disciples." This would suggest Jesus is much shorter and darker skinned than traditionally believed.<ref>http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282186.html?page=1</ref> [Image:http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_jesuslead-lg.jpg].

Can someone add this section and upload the linked image and display it alongside? Thankyou. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 22:23, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

[[Arnold Toynbee]] in his “Study of History” talks about “diversity in unity” and says that an identical religious belief can be given totally different cultural interpretations. Think of black Madonnas in Africa and Brazil and Orthodox images of Christ that look Greek. I lived near a “Sacred Heart” school and their statues were perfectly Anglo-Saxon.
And did Charlton Heston look Semetic? (Though I do wonder why the bad guys tended to sound British). If God created man in His image, we should be able to reciprocate, whatever we look like. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:39, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps it is best to leave the article as it is, which is to say not mentioning his physical appearance. After all, the Bible itself chooses that path. Anything else would just be speculation and detract from the portrayal of Jesus that the Bible does provide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 07:31, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

== transference of a section. Is it O.K.? ==

I took the Self Consciousness of Jesus section from the Christianity article. Is this O.K. to do? I thought so because I am the editor for the section. But still unsure if this is acceptable procedure for articles. I felt more sure of it for the KAL 007 [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] articles because I am the main editor. But not so for the articles on the Faith[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 04:35, 29 November 2008 (EST)

== Christians believe... ==
I'm something of a newbie, but should we start the article with something like "Jesus Christ is, in Christian theology, the only Son of God..." in order to be more accessible to our non-Christian brethren? While I would never deny the divinity of our Lord, I think we could be more ecumenical with such an approach. Opinions? --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 19:57, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Conservative

2009-01-29T00:47:16Z

DReynolds:

{{protected|Aschlafly}}

== George W. Bush a conservative? ==

Really, why is George W. Bush listed as a conservative? He's gladly helped to spend far more than the government is bringing in in taxes, and ballooned the budget to ridiculous, formerly inconceivable heights, he's promoted programs like No Child Left Behind, which gives the federal government more money and control of education, rather than eliminating the Department of Education, as a true conservative would, and he's gone along with all this horrible prescription drug benefit garbage, all the while never making a serious effort to fix our broken tax system or taking steps to free us from the onus of a completely worthless and hopeless social security program with no future. Hardly conservative. [[User:Flinker du|Flinker du]] 04:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::I just have to add this gem contributed elsewhere by [[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&diff=80273&oldid=80267]:
:::''"one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue."''
:::When did George W. Bush become a Liberal? He's zero-for-three on that list...
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:While we're at it, how can George Washington be a conservative if conservativism did not arise until the 19th century as stated in the article. I am taking him off the list. --[[User:Wikidan81|Wikidan81]] 14:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:The article includes ''"Return of prayer in school,"'' I'm going to guess this would mean like '''''The Lord's Prayer''''' and not the '''''Salaah'''''.

::And return of prayer to school isn't really conservative either - heck, most of American "conservatism" falls under propaganda to in fact increase the power and the size of the government. And I'd like to see what religion does with those values listed for conservatism... doesn't it, in fact, promote the opposite? [[User:Ninj4|Ninj4]] 20:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Probably no invocations to [[Nylarthotep]], either. The usual explanation for that is that Christians are the majority, so other, lesser religions just have to suck it up and endure. I wonder how well that'd go over in, say, [[Clearwater]], Florida? (Scientology world headquarters.)
::The First Amendment: proving once again that the Founding Fathers make our current politicians look like the retarded chimps they are. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::George '''H'''. W. Bush isn't a conservative? Weird. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is George Washington a conservative? That's what I want to know.{{unsigned|PandaBear}}, June/July 2007

George W. Bush is not conservative. A conservative is one who wishes to preserve traditional laws, values, ideals, etc as opposed to "doing away with" the afformentioned items. Globalism[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/globalism 1] is not a tenet which is compatable with conservatism. It might even be considered one of the core principles of liberalism, because it seeks to do away with the traditional sovereignty of nations/states. George W. Bush is a globalist who seeks to undermine the basic sovereignty of the United States of America[http://www.spp.gov/ 2]. George W. Bush does not respect or desire to preserve the constitution for the United States of America[http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf 3]. That document which might have been considered "liberal" at its conception, is sufficiently established so that it can now be considered a "traditional law."
A conservative stance on one issue (e.g. abortion) coupled with one or more liberal positions makes one a liberal. A conservative stance on every single issue immaginable coupled with one liberal position makes one a liberal. Someone can't be both. A "neocon" is a liberal who calls himself a conservative.

So could someone please explain again why he is on the list? with rational?

sources
1: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/globalism
2: http://www.spp.gov/
3: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf

[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 14:44, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

George Dubya is SO a conservative. He's a religious, traditional, war-mongering, anti-progressive, greedy, and freedom-restricting conservative who taps phone lines and is out to protect the interests of the rich. And why the hell would anyone want to eliminate the Department of Education? And what is wrong with taking the money of the filthy rich and giving it back to the community? --[[User:Ardwingore|Ardwingore]] 22:45, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps because "taking" money that you haven't earned is theft? Or the government doing it is Communism? And, please get a clue before trolling here! All of your complaints were instituted by the Congress of the United States, not George Bush. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:03, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
::That post was funny. I think the user was a conservative parodist. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

==definition==
Could someone explain what is meant by "Economic allocative efficiency"? Sounds a bit like gobbledeygood to me. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==The List==
The list that is in the article refers to an article written by Jonah Goldberg, who was quoting John Derbyshire, who, in turn was quoting, ''John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, in The Right Nation , tick off the six fundamentals of classical, Burkean, Anglo-Saxon conservatism''. It was a fun romp tracking it down. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 00:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

If The List includes the list of conservative presidents, it would behoove you to remove Lincoln from the list. Conservatives of Lincoln's time supported the status quo, including the existence of slavery.

== Inaccurate information ==

"Some Conservatives hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth."

This statement could not be further from the truth. Conservatives are the exact opposite of libertarians. To say someone is conservative and libertarian would be contradictory in terms. This statement should be some REPUBLICANS hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth. This statement would be true because Republicans are LIBERALS economically and would in fact not want government interference with the economy. Therefore I am deleting this statement from the article due to the inaccuracy of the statement.
--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 00:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Around here, LiberalMedia, we communicate. Try it the next time. I have removed all of your changes. And I will continue to do so until you lower yourself to using this discussion as it was intended to be. FYI, libertarians do not believe in the government using forced income redistribution! --[[User:TK|TK]] 02:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:*I never said that libertarians believe in using forced income redistribution by the government. Where did I say that in my paragraph above. If you could read, I was saying that conservatives do not hold the same view as libertarians on the redistribution of wealth. People that are economically conservative want forced income redistribution by increasing taxes, etc. People that are libertarians don't want the government to increase taxes and definitely do not want the government using forced income redistribution. How are users intended to use this discussion? Is it to give false information and make this site look like a joke? Or is it to give factual information. Hopefully, it is the latter. --[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 03:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::*Hey, LiberalMedia, you are the one who wanted the text that made the blanket statement that Libertarians side with the Democrats on economic policy, it wasn't me. One of they keystones of Democratic Party policy has been income resdistribution, not the Republicans, lol. You vandalizing the page as you did, adding the "Some Conservatives hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth. '''(This statement makes no sense)"''' will earn you a time-out. Perhaps Wikipedia will better tolerate your point of view? --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::* Where did I say that the Libertarians side with the Democrats? I never said that, in fact, I was stating the opposite. You probably just realized your error and are now trying to cover your behind. Did you even read my first paragraph? I never mention the word Democrat once in the paragraph. So where did you get this statement that "Libertarians side with the Democrats on economic policy." You must have made that up because I never said that. Libertarians side with Democrats on political issues and with Republicans on economic policy. Conservatives which this article is about side with Republicans on political issues and Democrats on economic policy.

*Your paragraph read: ''"In America, conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]] on social issues and tend to align with the [[Democratic Party]] on economic issues."'' Since the major tenet of Democratic Party economic policy is economic redistribution, that would indeed imply Libertarians buy into that. Sorry if you cannot see my point. I have been involved with public policy, at the federal level for over twenty years, working with both parties. I think I can judge fairly well, the difference between what Republican and Democratic policies are. That doesn't excuse you being a vandal, which is by its very nature, intellectual dishonesty.--[[User:TK|TK]] 03:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* The error that you are making is thinking the Democratic Party is the same as the Libertarians. Why would it imply Libertarians to buy into economic redistribution if Democratic Party believes in it? The Democratic Party disagrees with the Libertarians on economic policy.

*Are you in Grade School? If you state, as your paragraph did, that Conservatives align, generally, with the Democratic Party on economic issues, that is saying they must buy into income redistribution. Conservatives do not buy into that. Surely you know that. Just as those Conservatives with a strong libertarian bent also do not. You are a vandal, I will not continue to reply.--[[User:TK|TK]] 04:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* No, I am in college. Conservatives do buy into income redistribution. That is exactly what I have been saying the entire time. Finally, you were able to figure it out. Conservatives can never have a "strong libertarian bent." They are complete opposite. Obviously realized that I am right and that is why you aren't going to reply anymore. How am I vandal? I am only a vandal if giving correct information on this site is considered vandalism.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 04:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Goodness! You, or your 'rents should demand your tuition back. Your professors are doing a crappy job, teaching you Conservatives believe in income redistribution. ROFLMAO!! --[[User:TK|TK]] 11:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* TK, you are confusing conservatives with Republicans. Conservatives are not the same thing and have different views on economic policy. So if the statement "Conservatives believe in income redistribution" is not true then it means that Republicans believe in income redistribution. I am certain that you will agree that Republicans do not want income redistribution. Thus, conservatives want income redistribution.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 14:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*That statement of yours, above, LiberalMedia, is utter nonsense. Please provide a citation, other than some moronic revisionist college professor. If you keep changing things to suit your fancy, I will either restrict you, or lock the article. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:*This is the definition of conservatism given by [http://www.dictionary.com Dictionary.com]:
::''A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.''

:Now look at the definition of liberalism:
::''A political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.''

:Which one does a free market fall under? Liberalism or Conservatism? The answer is liberalism. If you look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism Wikipedia] they agree saying that economic liberalism is a free market ideal.

:The point that I am trying to make is that this article is talking about conservatism and its ideals. Not the Republican party agenda or anything of that matter. So when writing an article on it, it should be about conservative beliefs on social issues and economic issues. It doesn't make sense to start talking about economic liberalism because it is not the same as conservatism. Conservatism is about "big government" or to put it in terms you can understand, it is about government controls through established institutions(ex. taxes). Liberalism is about minimal government and freedom to do whatever you want, hence free market. In a truly liberal society there would be no government and it would be complete anarchy because everybody would have the freedom to do what they want.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 20:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*I'm sorry, Liberalmedia, but most of us live in the here and now, the real world, where dogmatic thoughts, such as yours, mean very little. What things should mean, and what they actually are, usually are very different. I note you have nothing to back your nonsense about Conservatives supporting income redistribution, as opposed to favoring a generally flat tax, equal for all. This entry has nothing to do with either the Republican or Democrat political parties. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:*I never put that conservatives want income redistribution in the article. Maybe on this discussion page, but never in the article. In the article I only said a fact that conservatives align with the Republicans on social issues and Democrats on economic issues. Shouldn't an encyclopedia talk about what things mean and not talk about how they are in the moment? Otherwise, you would have to change this article every time the majority changes its opinion. Actually, conservative and liberal still mean the same thing today in the real world. It is just the ignorant people that think conservative means Republican and liberal means Democrat. Also, if you are suggesting that conservative is a synonym for Republican (which is what your advocating) then wouldn't the people that are liberal Republicans be an oxymoron. Or how about conservative Democrats? Do you understand?--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 20:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*What I understand is, you quite possibly might get an "A" in debate tactics, however as an intellectual, an "F". I never introduced any text here, or in the article, equating Conservative or Liberal with either American political party. That was you, and others. I am willing to concede, generally, that there are more "Conservatives" aligned with the Republican Party, than with the Democrat Party. Take a look at the article below.....provided for your edification. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Looking at the latin origin of conservative, i.e. conservare, indicates that it means high credt for the existing, since it has proven its usefulness until now. Therefore, the direct opposite of conservative is progressive, which gives high regards simply because something is new. Liberal in its general sense means maximum freedom of the individual. It depends on the further circumstances, whether this agrees with a conservative or progressive point of view. The direct opposite of liberal rather is a state or society which takes care of as much as possible, probably called socialistic. However, the meaning of these terms depart often from their original meaning, if they are used to "label" political groups or parties. --[[User:SchiFra|SchiFra]] 13 April 2007

*"generally flat tax, equal for all." Surely such an idea is an oxymoron. A flat tax cannot be equal for all unless everyone was receiving the same wage, same benefits and existed in the same socio-economic group. How is it fair to tax someone living at or below the poverty line the same rate as someone earning 6 figures a year? It just doesn't make sense. And another point >> Terry; what's with the flaming. Very uncool.

==Goldwater Conservatives==
<blockquote>"During the campaign of 1964, [he] was our incorruptible standard-bearer," recalled William F. Buckley, Jr., in his 1998 obituary of Barry Goldwater, the career senator from Arizona, 34 years after the watershed. Goldwater, of course, was defeated resoundingly on Election Day, winning only six states. "It was the judgment of the establishment that Goldwater's critique of American liberalism had been given its final exposure on the national political scene," Buckley continued. "But then of course 16 years later the world was made to stand on its head when Ronald Reagan was swept into office on a platform indistinguishable from what Barry had been preaching."

Strange, then, that these days many commentators believe that Goldwater's conservatism was a different species from Reagan's and, especially, from George W. Bush's. Though admittedly an economic conservative, Goldwater has become an icon of opposition to social conservatism. When the 2004 Republican national convention showcased social liberals like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani, George F. Will proclaimed, "[Goldwater's] kind of conservatism made a comeback." By "Goldwater conservatism" Will meant "muscular foreign policy backing unapologetic nationalism; economic policies of low taxation and light regulation; a libertarian inclination regarding cultural questions."

Will was merely restating the consensus view. Darcy Olsen, president of the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, argued on the fifth anniversary of Goldwater's death that "Goldwater conservative" had "a different meaning than just saying, 'I am a Republican,' because when you say 'I am a Republican,' people assume that you're involved in the Moral Majority. It's its own brand...very libertarian." Senator John McCain said that Goldwater "disliked the religious right, because he felt they were intolerant, because Barry was not only conservative, but he was also to a degree libertarian."

What does the notion that Goldwater was a libertarian mean? First, it suggests that the cultural Right has abandoned true conservatism. It implies that presidents like Reagan and Bush, who have relied heavily on socially conservative voters, deviate from Goldwater's rugged and pure frontier conservatism. And then there is the implication, appearing frequently in the mainstream media, that Republicans must move back in Goldwater's direction if they are to reclaim their intellectual credibility.

But this interpretation happens to be wrong: it overlooks the role of social issues in the origins of the conservative movement. William F. Buckley, Jr.'s, God and Man at Yale (1951) complained not only about economic collectivism but also about rampant agnosticism and atheism among Yale's faculty. Ever since, the conservative movement has been as concerned with religious and moral issues as with economic and libertarian ones. Goldwater's 1964 campaign actually shaped the social conservatism of the modern Republican Party in at least three crucial respects: his view of human nature and the American republic; his concern over the moral deterioration of American society; and his stand on several key policy questions.

Human Nature

Goldwater articulated a view of the American Founding and America's purpose, as well as the nature of man, that was fundamentally moral, even religious, in character. In the introduction to his bestselling The Conscience of a Conservative (1960), Goldwater argued, "The laws of God, and of nature, have no dateline." Conservative principles "are derived from the truths that God has revealed about his creation." In the first chapter, he (and his ghostwriter, L. Brent Bozell) wrote:

The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man's nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy.... Man's most sacred possession is his individual soul.

The 1964 Republican platform, the handiwork of committed Goldwaterites, declared:

Much of today's moral decline and drift—much of the prevailing preoccupation with physical and material comforts of life—much of today's crass political appeals to the appetites of the citizenry—can be traced to a leadership grown demagogic and materialistic through indifference to national ideals founded in devoutly held religious faith. The Republican Party seeks not to renounce this heritage of faith and high purpose; rather, we are determined to reaffirm and reapply it.

In his speech accepting the 1964 presidential nomination, Goldwater extolled "freedom under a government limited by the laws of nature and of nature's God." He warned that

those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for Divine Will, and this Nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom.

Reagan and Bush later echoed this language.

Goldwater decried the general moral decline of the time. On the campaign trail, he asked, "What's happening to us? What's happening to our America?" His campaign ran several television spots on this theme, which he called simply the "moral issue." In one commercial an announcer shouts, "Graft! Swindle! Juvenile delinquency! Crime! Riots!" before Goldwater proclaims: "Let this generation of Americans set a standard of responsibility that will inspire the world."

Another spot linked the corruption of government officials to moral deterioration. Goldwater exclaims, "Americans everywhere are indignant about the moral decay in Washington," while the narrator calls on voters to "put conscience back in government." A third advertisement asked "What has happened to our America? We build libraries and galleries to hold the world's greatest treasury of art—and we permit the world's greatest collection of smut to be freely available anywhere." A fourth featured Goldwater speaking directly into the camera:

Is moral responsibility out of style? Our papers and our newsreels and yes, our own observations, tell us that immorality surrounds us as never before. We as a nation are not far from the kind of moral decay that has brought on the fall of other nations and people.... [The] philosophy of something for nothing, [the] cult of individual and governmental irresponsibility, is an insidious cancer that will destroy us unless we recognize it and root it out now.

Goldwater made morality the centerpiece of a 30-minute televised address that aired on CBS on October 20, 1964. After citing George Washington's dictum, "'Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports,'" Goldwater said, "The moral fiber of the American people is beset by rot and decay," and pledged "every effort to a reconstruction of reverence and moral strength."

The campaign also produced, but did not air, a television program called "Choice." It focused on the "moral issue," and featured disturbing footage of topless bars, wild beatnik parties, drunken college students, and riots by both whites and blacks. Goldwater declined to use the film in the end, but only, it seems, because he feared that scenes of blacks rioting would introduce unseemly racial overtones into the campaign. But he had no inherent objection to addressing the other issues raised in the show.

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.'s History of American Presidential Elections included a scathing contemporaneous account from John Bartlow Martin: "Goldwater's moral strictures soon began to sound preachy; he almost castigated Americans for their wickedness.... Goldwater looked not only like the mad bomber, but the half-crazed moral zealot." Sympathetic observers would characterize his message differently, but what is clear is that Goldwater hardly eschewed moral, social, and cultural themes.

The Rise of the Moral Issue

Nor did he discuss these themes in outline only. He and his party took a socially conservative stand on a number of policy issues. The 1964 GOP platform endorsed a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's school-prayer decisions and to permit voluntary school prayer. In his CBS televised address, Goldwater asked, "Is this the time in our nation's history for our Federal Government to ban Almighty God from our classrooms?" He answered: "Ours is both a religious and a free people. Over years past we have encountered no difficulty in absorbing that religious character into our state institutions, while at the same time preserving religious liberty and separation of church and state." Goldwater pointed out that his Democratic opponents ignored far more than just school prayer: "you will search in vain for any reference to God or religion in the Democratic platform." The Republican platform called for enactment of legislation "to curb the flow through the mails of obscene materials"; it criticized the Democratic administration and Congress for resisting tuition tax credits; and, not least, it emphasized the rise in crime as a moral issue, not merely a sociological one.

The Conscience of a Conservative devoted an entire chapter to education, anticipating its importance in the eyes of social conservatives. Goldwater paraphrased Dorothy Sayers when he wrote that Americans must "recapture the lost art of learning." He argued that

in our attempt to make education 'fun,' we have neglected the academic disciplines that develop sound minds and are conducive to sound characters.... We have forgotten that the proper function of the school is to transmit the cultural heritage of one generation to the next generation.

As a solution, he advocated a renewed emphasis on basic subjects, within the context of local control of schools.
In The Making of the President 1964, political journalist and election chronicler Theodore White wrote:

Goldwater could offer—and this was his greatest contribution to American politics—only a contagious concern which made people realize that indeed they must begin to think about such things. And this will be his great credit in historical terms: that finally he introduced the condition and quality of American morality and life as a subject of political debateâ€¦. Yet he had no handle to the problem, no program, no solution—except backward to the Bible and the God of the desert.

It's worth reflecting on this paragraph. Writing in 1965, White of course could not have predicted Goldwater's contribution to the long-term rise of conservatism. Nonetheless, this respected center-left analyst held that the Republican nominee's "greatest contribution to American politics" and his "great credit in historical terms" lay not in any impact he might have had on foreign or economic policy, but in the way he forced the "moral issue" onto the national agenda. White also had no difficulty identifying Goldwater's prescription: "the Bible and the God of the desert."

It should come as no surprise, then, that a number of veterans of the Goldwater effort later made names for themselves as leaders of the burgeoning grassroots movement of social conservatives. As Goldwater biographer Lee Edwards has pointed out, "almost all the leaders of the New Right...were drawn into politics because of [Goldwater]," figures like Phyllis Schlafly, Richard Viguerie, Paul Weyrich, and Morton Blackwell. For them, the transition was seamless.

Goldwater's move away from social conservatism came only in the twilight of his Senate career—and more starkly after he had left the Senate in 1987. Throughout the 1970s, he opposed abortion on demand and taxpayer funding of abortions. (He wavered on a constitutional amendment restricting abortion.) In 1980, in the midst of his last and most difficult Senate race, he endorsed the Human Life Amendment. Only in his final term did he adopt a pro-choice position, voting in 1983 against a constitutional amendment that would have reversed Roe v. Wade and returned legislative authority over abortion to the states. In 1984, he reversed his 1964 position by voting against a constitutional amendment to restore voluntary prayer to public schools. As late as 1985 he opposed "gay rights" legislation. Only in 1993, six years after leaving the Senate, did he change his view.

Goldwater's shift was largely a reaction against the leaders of the New Right, for whom his dislike grew stronger as their influence increased. In 1981, Goldwater said of the leader of the Moral Majority, "Every good Christian should kick [Jerry] Falwell in the ass." He also had personal reasons: one daughter and three granddaughters of his had had abortions; and a grandson and a grandniece were homosexual. In 1937, his wife, Peggy, had become a founding member of Planned Parenthood of Arizona, and the couple remained active in the organization throughout Goldwater's Senate career. Though he initially rejected Planned Parenthood's position on abortion, his long association with the group would ultimately make a convert of him. For Goldwater, private considerations like these sometimes trumped abstract philosophy.

Liberty and Morality

So how has the myth developed of the great gulf between "Goldwater conservatism" and Reagan's and Bush's? To begin with, several of the hot-button issues that later mobilized social conservatives en masse were non-issues in 1964, or had barely begun to stir. The '60s counterculture was inchoate, as was radical feminism. The downward spiral of social trends had just begun, as had the Left's crusade to obliterate religion from public life. Key court decisions on abortion, criminal rights, and gay rights lay in the future. Consequently, a distinct mass movement of religious traditionalists—a "Religious Right" with tens of thousands of foot soldiers—did not exist for the Goldwater campaign to incorporate. (To be sure, an intellectual movement of social traditionalists, including Russell Kirk, existed already and backed Goldwater.)

When Goldwater underwent his transformation as the years wore on, liberals rushed to embrace him. This Goldwater became every liberal's favorite conservative—not the historic figure who had condemned moral decay, extolled the religious underpinnings of American society, championed school prayer, inveighed against big government, and helped launch the modern conservative movement. Yet it was the latter Goldwater who ran for president, who galvanized Reagan and pointed the way to a long-term Republican electoral realignment.

Conservatives today need to revive Goldwater's argument in the '60s, and Reagan's in the '80s, that liberty is not only compatible with morality, it depends on it. Limited government cannot long coexist with a collapse of moral order; and an unlimited government is usually the consequence of an amoral society. Sweden, for instance, has both one of the most hedonistic societies in Europe and one of its most smothering welfare states. When in 1964 Goldwater told the graduating class of the Pennsylvania Military College that "it is impossible to maintain freedom and order and justice without religious and moral sanctions," he at once echoed George Washington and Alexis de Tocqueville, presaged Reagan, and issued a clarion call for future generations. </blockquote>

[http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1237/article_detail.asp]

:*Are you going to make a point or just post an article you found on the internet? You might not have put in any text equating Conservative or Liberal with either American political party, but you did reverse my edits and by doing so it makes it seem like you are equating conservatives with the Republican party. --[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 21:30, 19 March 2007 (ED

'''[[BNP]]'''

The British National Party is not similar to the Republican Party.The BNP are in fact quite racist in their policies,something which the mainstream Republican party are not.--[[User:RCSENG|RCSENG]] 16:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal List. ==

Shouldn't the list of things on this page be the reverse of the list on the liberal page? At least as far as US definitions are concerned.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I've always been partial to [[Steve Jackson]]'s definitions:
:Liberal: Politically 'Left', whatever that means.
:Conservative: Usually mad at the Liberals.
Concise AND accurate!
--[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:09, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why was my addition deleted? ==

I'm just curious why my addition concerning the conservative's faith in God was deleted? Seems like that's the biggest defference between Librals and Conservatives, at least with respect to today's culture wars.

*I didn't do it, but I suspect it's because on the face of it, to suggest all Liberals don't believe in God and accept Jesus Christ, is not factual? This isn't a blog space for posting one's own beliefs, even if I personally might agree with your premise. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::There ARE [[Liberal Christians]]. They're the ones who take that communist propaganda in the Book of Matthew (Chapter 25:27-46) as something other than allegory. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution ==

The article on evolution is locked. Please explain why this is as it violates the idea of a freely editable encyclopedia. The article is also extremely biased and contains very little information on evolution; is mainly the conservative Christan opinion on evolution and irrelevant information. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 15:10, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*I don't know why you posted about Evolution here. However, you are trying to apply standards set by other Wiki's here, and as you can tell from the rules and commandments here, this is indeed the CONSERVApedia. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
**I think he meant [[User:Conservative]] (Conservative's extremely creative nickname really makes things confusing sometimes). Well, actually, none of the rules says anything about the need to be Christian-conservative or YECist, unless I really missed a memo. That's what many people complain about: The obvious bias is not acknowledged in the rules. The only possible "reasoning" seems to be the "We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts" from the Differences page, with "facts" having a VERY interesting definition ("A fact is what either disses Wikipedia or supports America, the Bible and the YEC position. Anything else is just atheist liberals trying to deny the truth"). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
***Neutral? Why? Wikipedia started out with the same noble aims - neutrality, fairness, demands for attribution, a fair hearing for all views. Look where dedication to finding 'the facts' got them. The fact is that the internet is disproprortionately liberal, and wikipedia came to reflect that. And if conservapedia impliments exactly the same goals, exactly the same will happen. To be a conservative encyclopedia, it must be willing to recognise that only by giving conservatives an 'unfair' advantage can real fairness be achieved - otherwise the numerical advantage of liberals will just allow them to turn it into a second wikipedia. - BornAgainBrit
****Interesting, it seems you therefore support affirmative action towards those who hold conservative views. The article on this very site about the subject is extremely critical of affirmative action, and yet here it is being basically said that the conservative view is unable to compete in a marketplace of free ideas. Very disapointing! - Colduck77
**And no, please don't move this to Conservative's Talk page. He locked it again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Origins and conservative presidents ==

<s>If conservatism didn't arise until the 19th century, how was George Washington a conservative President? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)</s> Sorry, someone already asked this. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to definition==
Conservatism/Conservatives tend to believe in the rights of individuals over 'group' rights
Conservatives tend to believe that individuals should, to the greatest extent possible, be responsible for themselves & for their own success
Conservatives tend to believe that the best way to help people is through private means, rather than through government programs. right wing2

*"Conservatives tend to believe in the rights of individuals over 'group' rights..." Which is why conservatives in America are fighting so strongly for the rights of individuals to engage in any private, consensual sexual act they choose, right?

==Lincoln a Conservative?==
How was Lincoln a conservative? He brought about radical economic and social change in the name of human rights. He was against the institution of slavery that was a tradition in the South. He was also a Republican. At that time the Republican party was liberal.--[[User:ResistanceFighter|ResistanceFighter]] 14:11, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with RestanceFighter. Lincoln was definitely not conservative. He was more of progressive because he brought change into America. It seems like the people who wrote this article think Republicans were the same as conservatives in the 19th century. --[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 22:34, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

*You cannot in any intellectual way, or any logical way, apply our modern ideas of what Liberal, Progressive or Conservative is, and compare them retroactively to the past. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:58, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
:We are not applying our modern ideas of conservative and applying them to Lincoln. You make it sound like definitions change over a hundred years. Which if that were it would make it impossible to read old texts and understand what the author was talking about.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 23:06, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

I strongly disagree that Lincoln was a conservative. Restistance Fighter is right, he did break with the long held tradition of slavery. Also, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, taking a position of power not given to the president by the Constitution. This, in my opinion, is a very liberal act. Most historians have agreed that Lincoln was a conservative in the beginning, with the hope that he could keep the United States together under one federal government. However, his actions during the presdideny certainly do not match conservative policy. {{unsigned|Getbackloretta66}}

These people are absolutely right, Abraham Lincoln was not a conservative. In the 1860's and up until the 20th Century and about the New Deal era, the Republicans were America's liberal party.

Come on guys, Lincoln is well known as a Liberal; By his deeds and his words... We all know the greatest speeches were written by Liberals! *Cough* Seriously though, I know you guys want to claim all of histories great characters to your side of the fence (Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln (You'd probably make a stab for Roosevelt and Truman if you had the chance) but give credit where credit is due - Lincoln was a Liberal. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 17:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

== Andrew Jackson ==

If you are going to put Polk on the list of conservative presidents, then why don't you put Andrew Jackson on there too? Polk was a Jacksonian Democrat and had the same views as Andrew Jackson.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 22:41, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative communists?? ==

It would be good to add in further discussion of the term "conservative" in the article. When discussing the politics of countries ruled by a Communist Party, such as China, the word "conservative" is used to refer to Communist Party members, especially officials who hold to traditional communist values such as central planning, state ownership of the economy, stronger censorship of the media and stronger repression of dissidents and practitioners of religion, especially Christians. The term "liberal" used when discussing these matters refers to those Communist Party members who favour economic reform, with more private involvement in the economy, more freedom of expression and movement towards a more liberal political regime, perhaps even towards a democratic system. I believe the word also has further definitions which are worth discussing, and then some further paragraphs could be added to the article to make it more complete. {{Unsigned|Luojie}}
:''ROFLMAO !!!'' [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:16, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
It's true!! Check out the China pages of the South China Morning Post. BTW, there are also conservative and liberal Muslims. The former will adhere more closely to traditional Islam and are more likely to support terrorism than the liberal Muslims who want to live a more Western lifestyle, and so interpret Islam to fit their material and other desires.
:Yes, I recall the "Kremlin conservatives" at the end of the Soviet era, the reactionaries that wanted to preserve Communism. Very reminiscent of the reactionaries in the U.S. Democratic party who refuse to reform Social Security. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:12, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
As Ma Lik, the chairman of the pro-Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong has just passed away, so the media (e.g. the South China Morning Post) brought up the word conservative as it is used in the Hong Kong political context. Here in HK, conservative means pro-Beijing, not wanting to introduce universal suffrage at an early date and in favour of keeping functional constituencies (legislative seats reserved for special interest groups such as tycoons). Pro-democracy groups which want universal suffrage as soon as possible and which place importance on human rights are considered "liberal", even though they may fit the definition of conservative when it comes to social matters such as gambling and small government[[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 09:30, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

*It never ceases to amaze me the different colloquialisms we run into throughout the world. I am now on a personal campaign to fight the entire establishment to stop applying the term "Communist" to China, since there is not much left that could be properly labeled communistic in their economic system. They are really just a despotic regime, a rump tyrannical establishment group of old men, who replaced the Cult of Personality that was Mao. The Tyrants now running China will go to any lengths to avoid admitting Communism was an abject failure there, as it was every other place it was imposed. In point of fact, Communism was always imposed, never voted for and never really welcomed by the masses it pretended to serve. Nowadays wherever we find it, it is usually an Oligarchy in disguise. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:58, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

== Bulleted list? ==

Should the list of conservative people be a bulleted list? It looks a bit weird with just a name on each line and nothing else. [[User:SigmaEpsilon|SigmaEpsilon]] 23:42, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

*That better? Thanks for the suggestion! I restored your JS, btw. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:01, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Washington? ==

How is George Washington a conservative when he mounted a revolution to establish a new nation, based on democracy and not monarchy. Conservatives dont mount revolutions against the establishment, the want to "conserve" it. Washington and Co. were actually from the school of liberalism. If the addition of his name is because of the quote on religion, then i suggest adding every American president ever, as they all have aknowledged their belief in a higher power. I think the inclusion of Washington's name is a political ploy-something this website accuses wikipedia of doing. Thanks
--[[User:Billwsu|Billwsu]] 16:48, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Why not just note [[Ronald Reagan]] as a conservative and leave it at that? [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]] 00:09, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

The article is basically faulty since it's simply a laundry list of (supposedly)conservative policy positions with no attempt at discussing or analyzing the philosophy behind all of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 21:24, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

== The nature of the page ==

It would seem to me that the nature of the page seems to be more in relation to the actual ideology of conservatism than of conservatives in general. Wouldn't it be more pertinent to have the introduction rewritten appropriately, and then move this page to an article entitled "Conservatism" (with the appropriate redirection, of course)? [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 21:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

== Neoconservative? ==

This description sounds more like what a neolibertarian would be. Neoconservatives would support increased government spending (especially on the military) and an interventionist foreign policy based on spreading democracy throughout the world (especially the Middle East). Neolibertarians also support an interventionist foreign policy, though as libertarians, they would support limited government and would be "amoral."

I think there should be "paleoconservative" (Pat Buchanan, etc.), "neoconservative" (Bush, etc.), and "mainstream conservative" (a mix of both ideologies, e.g. Reagan). The same should apply to the article on libertarianism - "paleolibertarian," "neolibertarian," "anarcho-capitalist," (party) "Libertarian," etc.

What do you think? --[[User:RedBlade7|danq]] 22:21, 3 December 2007 (EST)

:Where did this word, "paleoconservative," originate? I am beginning to feel uneasy about it without a source. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:10, 6 December 2007 (EST)

[[The Nation]], 20 October, 1984, according to Lexis-Nexis.[[User:Claude|Claude]] 14:14, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::Ahh, ''The Nation.'' Thank you. Now I have a starting point. If this checks out, we may have sufficient cause to nip this in the bud. Pat Buchanan, as far as I'm aware, does not refer to himself as a "paleoconservative," although I could be wrong. This type of liberal labeling and use of pejoritives may have gone too far already in Conservapedia. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:32, 6 December 2007 (EST)

== "Moral Virtue" ==

I believe that the phrase "moral virtue" is too vague for this article. I am a liberal democrat, and also believe I am morally virtuous, although not in the view of the US Republican party. Is there a perhaps more fair way of saying this? [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 15:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Category Addition ==

Can a sysop add "Category: Political ideologies" to this article? Thanks!

== Fox News ==

Fox News is listed on this page as conservative, but I'm not sure if that's correct. I think such an assertion just feeds into the liberal
accusations that Fox is biased (in contrast to the supposedly fair but obviously left-leaning major networks). I would prefer to refer to Fox news as "balanced" or "moderate" rather than "conservative." What do others think? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 15:03, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:Well, technically, moderate still implies a bias. Just one that's generally more agreeable. Balanced might work, though. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 15:44, 5 January 2009 (EST)

== UK newspapers ==

Although I agree about the broadcast media (mainly the bbc) I do not believe what you have added about the print media is correct, or supported by the source given. The most popular broadsheet, the telegraph, is a supporter of the conservative party, as is the Times and the Daily Express. From the source provided
<blockquote>
The Times, the UK’s oldest national newspaper, is not the most popular - that accolade falls to the Daily Telegraph, known affectionately as the Daily Torygraph because of the staunch support to the Conservative Party.
</blockquote>
--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 13:25, 4 January 2009 (EST)

== GWB conservative? ==

"George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States, is an example of American conservatism, except on immigration, public schools, government spending, and financial bailouts."

This can be rewritten as

"George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States, is an example of American conservatism, except on EVERYTHING THAT CAN MAKE SOMEONE CONSERVATIVE."

I'm removing the bit about him. Why not cite Reagan as an example? Or Washington?

[[User:Conservamike|Conservamike]] 17:03, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::Washington favored a strong national government, raised taxes and suppressed theWhiskey Rebellion. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:02, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:::Fine. But I think we can agree that Bush isn't the best example of a conservative leader [[User:Conservamike|Conservamike]] 19:17, 5 January 2009 (EST)

== Fiscal v. Social ==
The difference is pretty significant. Thete are pro-life socialists and libertarians who support homo "marriage." Should we create sub-sections to differentiate the two?--[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 19:47, 28 January 2009 (EST)

John McCain

2009-01-28T18:26:54Z

DReynolds:

[[Image:Casmier.jpg|right|thumb|250px|'''Senator John McCain, R-Arizona''']] '''John Sidney McCain III''' (born in the U.S. [[Panama Canal]] Zone, August 29, 1936 ) <ref>[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m0003http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Button_enter.png Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]</ref>, was the Republican candidate for President in 2008, is a prominent maverick politician and [[Vietnam War]] hero, and he is the senior [[United States Senate|Senator]] of [[Arizona]]. He has been an influential leader in American politics since 1986, when he ran for office attacking corruption, attacking [[pork barrel]] spending and working for [[campaign finance reform]]. He was defeated by [[George W. Bush]] for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, and lost to [[Barack Obama]] in the 2008 Presidential Election.

As a pilot for the [[United States Navy]] and former Prisoner-of-War ([[POW]]), he served in the military for 22 years.<ref>[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m000303 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]</ref> McCain, a [[Baptist]],<ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296973,00.html</ref> has impressive credentials on issues of foreign policy and national security, which have propelled him in the forefront of national politics as both an outspoken voice for the United States military and as a Presidential contender for the Republican Party since 1993.<ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People. Published 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-47545-9</ref><ref>[http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080305/NATIONWORLD/803050441/0/LOCAL1901 ''McCain clinches GOP nomination; Huckabee bows out''] 5 March 2008 IndyStar.com</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,255535,00.html John McCain Announces Plans for '08 Presidential Candidacy on 'Late Night With David Letterman'], Associated Press, 1 March 2007</ref> If McCain had been elected President, he would have been the first President who was ever a POW of a foreign conflict.

==Early Life==
McCain's family has a long history of military service, including ancestors who fought as army soldiers in the Indian Wars, [[American Revolutionary War]], [[War of 1812]], for both the Union and the Confederate States of America during the [[American Civil War]], and in [[World War I]]. Both his father and grandfather were high-ranking United States Navy admirals. In addition, McCain's two sons are currently serving in the U.S. Navy.

In 1951, the McCain family moved to Northern [[Virginia]] and he attended Episcopal High School, a private preparatory boarding school in Alexandria. McCain was on the wrestling team and went on to graduate in 1954. He later joined the U.S. Naval Academy and graduated in 1958.

==Military career==
[[Image:McCain 1965.jpg|left|thumb|200px|McCain photographed in 1965]]
McCain served heroically in the [[United States Navy]] from 1958 to 1981. He spent two and a half years as a naval aviator in training at the Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida and the Naval Air Station Corpus Christi in Texas. By 1967, McCain was a veteran pilot aboard the ''USS Forrestal'' aircraft carrier off the coast of Vietnam. On 29 July 1967, while preparing to take off on a bombing run over North Vietnam, a missile accidentally fired from another plane, hitting the fuel tanks on McCain's aircraft and triggering explosions and a fire. McCain escaped from his plane by crawling onto the nose of the aircraft and diving on to the ship's deck which was ablaze from burning fuel. His attempt to rescue a fellow pilot whose flight suit was on fire was prevented when McCain was blown over by further explosions. When the fire was contained 24 hours later, 134 men had been killed and hundreds more injured. It was called the worst non-combat-related accident in U.S. naval history.<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=526451&in_page_id=1811 ''The coronation of the ultimate survivor, John McCain''] 5 March 2008 [[Daily Mail]]</ref>

===Prisoner-Of-War (1967 - 1973)===

On October 26, 1967, as McCain was flying over Hanoi's Thermal Power Plant during his 23rd bombing mission, he was shot down and captured by the North Vietnamese. He had just released his bombs when [[A-4 Skyhawk|his plane]] was shot down by a [[surface-to-air missile]]. As he ejected, unconscious from the accident, he broke his knee and both arms and descended by parachute into a lake. When he floated ashore, Vietnamese locals spit and kicked him, nearly killing him. The police took him to Hoa Loa Prison where he was held in solitary captivity without medical attention or sufficient food. During brutal interrogations, he was asked for information in return for medical care. McCain refused, giving only his name and date of birth. When it was discovered that he was the son of a top U.S. Admiral, he was given medical care. Hospital personnel never believed he would survive, as he had large wounds and weighed a mere 100 lbs. He also had completely white hair, a product of accelerated aging under harsh conditions. Nonetheless, his health improved and McCain was held as a Prisoner-Of-War (POW) at the [[Hanoi Hilton]]. As a prisoner, guards tortured him with frequent beatings and painful contortions, breaking his teeth and bones. <ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People. Published 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-47545-9</ref>

After months of beating sessions and intense interrogations, McCain was psychologically and physically weakened. At one point, he was forced to sign a statement which made claims exonerating his captors of inhumane treatment. The paper was intended for use as propaganda, but in all their subsequent attempts for promoting a "humane" image of the POW camp, McCain worked his hardest to thwart them. In 1971, four years from his capture, he was placed with 20 to 30 other Americans in better treatment. They were allowed to celebrate Christian holidays, including Christmas. McCain, who served as an impromptu chaplain, recalled that during their services, men cried; "They were tears of joy that for the first time... we were able to celebrate Christmas together."<ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People. Published 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-47545-9</ref> In light of his father's high military status, McCain was offered early release, which he adamantly refused in honor of the "First in, first out" clause of the POW Code of Conduct.

On March 14, 1973, after five and a half years of imprisonment, McCain was released alongside 106 other pilots under the Nixon administration. McCain received a heartfelt reception at the White House and was pronounced a war hero and eminent voice for the Vietnam War. Awards from the military followed, including the Legion of Merit, a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, a [[Purple Heart]], the [[Distinguished Flying Cross]], and the Vietnamese Legion of Honor.<ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People. Published 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-47545-9</ref> McCain's severe war injuries prevent him today from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. <ref>http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/McCain_character_loyal_to_a_fault+.shtml</ref>

===Return to the Navy (1973 - 1981)===

The Vietnam War and his military service remained strong in McCain's. He immediately wanted to rejoin the Navy, and spent years preparing with excruciating physical therapy and a year of study in the Naval War College, where he attacked the liberal anti-war movement for weakening the morale of his fellow POWs.<ref>Kirkpatrick, David D. "[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/14/america/15pows.php In '74 thesis, the seeds of McCain's war views.]" The New York Times (June 15, 2008) p. A1.]</ref> With his extensive experience in the Navy's Aviation division, he was selected to reform the flying fleet as Commanding Officer. John McCain quickly transformed his crew's personnel, which had been underfunded in the post-Vietnam era. Carl Smith, who served under McCain, stated, "He immediately began making changes. He fired people, and he replaced people at the top who he thought were not being as effective as he wanted them to be. He wanted real leadership. He wanted the squadron to come to life."<ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People. pg. 57</ref> Many in his staff were disappointed to have him leave, and praised his work in promoting efficiency.<ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People.</ref>

During his assignment to the Senate as the Navy's liaison, 1977-81, McCain began to join the ranks of politicians. He transformed the position from a rather unimportant post into one of authority and respect{{fact}}, gaining allies in the Senate. The Senate liaison role provided a learning experience in national security policy and foreign affairs.

==Political career==
===Congressional (1982 - 1986)===

Prior to entering public service, McCain worked in [[Phoenix]] for his father-in-law's company, Hensley & Co, which was an Anheuser-Busch beer wholesaler and distributor. With nagging injuries and limited physical mobility, McCain realized he would never become a four-star general like his forefathers.<ref>[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9542249 John McCain Biography (1936-)]</ref> Some biographers argue that he shifted into politics so that he could achieve the equivalent in politics, leading to his Senatorial career. After gaining support from local business leaders, he ran for a congressional seat for Arizona's 1st congressional district as a Republican in 1982. His [[liberal]] opponents labeled him as a "carpetbagger". McCain responded to a voter making the charge of "carpetbagging" saying,

{{cquote|Listen, pal. I spent 22 years in the Navy. My father was in the Navy. My grandfather was in the Navy. We in the military service tend to move a lot. We have to live in all parts of the country, all parts of the world. I wish I could have had the luxury, like you, of growing up and living and spending my entire life in a nice place like the First District of Arizona, but I was doing other things. As a matter of fact, when I think about it now, the place I lived longest in my life was Hanoi.}}

With the endorsements of local newspapers, McCain easily won the election. In 1983, he became President of the Republican freshman class of representatives. At the time, he largely supported Reagan's hard stance against the [[Soviet Union]], his tax cuts and matters on Indian Affairs. He did, however, break with the President on the decision to place a U.S. military presence in Lebanon, saying {{cquote|''I do not foresee obtainable objectives in Lebanon; I believe the longer we stay, the more difficult it will be to leave.''<ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People. pg. 100</ref>}} During his four years in [[Congress]], McCain and his wife Cindy had three children.

===Senatorial (1986 - Present)===
[[Image:Reagan mccain.jpg|left|thumb|300px|3/3/1987 President Reagan and Nancy Reagan greet John McCain in the Blue Room during a dinner for newly elected members of the 100th Congress]]
When Republican and [[conservative]] icon [[Barry Goldwater]] retired from the United States Senate in Arizona in 1986, Congressman McCain announced his candidacy for the seat. He easily won the election, defeating his Democratic opponent Richard Kimball by 20 percentage points. When entering the Senate, he became a member of the powerful Armed Services Committee and he also joined the Commerce Committee and the Indian Affairs Committee. During the 1988 Presidential Election, McCain was named chairman of Veterans for Bush. In 1991, Senator McCain became part of the "Keating Five" scandal, where McCain and four other Senators (all Democrats) were accused of improperly aiding Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received approximately $112,000 in political contributions from Charles Keating Jr. After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined that McCain's involvement was minimal and was criticized for using "poor judgement".

===="Maverick" Image in the Senate====
John McCain has gained a reputation as a "maverick" for his sponsorship of many bills and leadership on almost every issue. Starting in 1994, he worked with Democratic [[Wisconsin]] Senator [[Russ Feingold]] on campaign finance reform. The McCain-Feingold bill banned "soft money". It passed and was signed into law on November 6th, 2002, by President Bush. In the 1990's, McCain gained attention for his strong opposition to pork barrel spending. He championed the 1996 Line Item Veto Act, which gave the President the power to veto individual spending items. However, in 1998, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled the act unconstitutional.

Voteview.com rated McCain as the second most conservative Senator in the 109th Congress (Jan. 2005 - Jan. 2007).<ref>http://voteview.com/SEN109.HTM</ref>

John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues. He voted with the Bush administration 95% of the time in 2007, according to Congressional Quarterly's "Presidential Support Scores". <ref>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/512/ Politifact fact checks McCain's voting support</ref> Issues include making the Bush tax cuts permanent (even though he originally opposed and voted against them), energy independence, winning the war in Iraq, reforming Social Security, and continuing and expanding Bush's supply-side economic policies.

In 2008, McCain asked for $0 in earmarks.<ref>[http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2008_database 2008 ''Pig Book''], Council for Citizens Against Government Waste</ref>The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste has given him a rating of 100% in 2007 (88% lifetime).<ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/2007_Senate_Ratings_Final.pdf?docID=3242 2007 Senate Scorecard]</ref> A score of 100% represents voting against all pork, and 0% represents voting ''for'' all pork. Democrats averaged 5% in 2007, whereas Republicans averaged 60%. <ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11590 CCAGW Releases ''2007 Congressional Ratings'']</ref>

==Presidential Politics==
===2000 Presidential Campaign===
McCain launched his first campaign for President in 2000, when he challenged then-[[Texas]] Governor [[George W. Bush]] for the Republican nomination. McCain's campaign was surprisingly strong. By ignoring the [[Iowa Caucus]], he was able to win the [[New Hampshire]] Primary by nineteen percentage points. He then won the [[Michigan]] Primary. However, he went on to lose [[South Carolina]] and 9 out of the 13 [[Super Tuesday]] states. McCain withdrew from the race on March 9, 2000.

After withdrawing, McCain announced that he supported the removal of the Confederate battle flag from the top of the South Carolina statehouse. During the primary he had stated he believed it was an issue for the state to decide, which was his true belief from a federal standpoint, but not his personal belief. He felt by withholding her personal belief that he had erred. He explained that he lived his life by being open and felt he should have been at that time and apologized for not speaking up sooner. <ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/04/19/mccain.sc/</ref>

===During Bush Presidency 2001 - 2008 ===
Following McCain's loss in the 2000 Presidential primary and reports of dirty tricks in [[South Carolina]]<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/ The anatomy of a smear campaign, March 21, 2004</ref><ref>http://www.palmettoscoop.com/2007/12/30/top-romney-advisor-tied-to-anonymous-attacks-of-previous-presidential-primary/ Top Romney advisor tied to anonymous attacks of previous presidential primary, December 30, 2007</ref>, McCain began to disagree with President Bush on many issues, such as tax cuts, climate change, and gun legislation. After the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], McCain wrote legislation that created the 9/11 Commission, while he and Democratic Senator Fritz Hollings co-sponsored the Aviation and Transportation Security Act that federalized airport security. In May 2005, McCain led the so-called "[[Gang of 14]]" in the Senate, which established a compromise that preserved the ability of senators to filibuster judicial nominees, but only in "extraordinary circumstances". McCain also co-sponsored comprehensive immigration reform (see below under political record for details). In addition to bipartisan work in the Senate, it was during this period that McCain was courted by the Senate Democrats, and considered switching parties.<ref>http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html</ref>

===2008 Presidential Campaign===

{{main|John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign}}

[[Image:McCain_nomination.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Senator John McCain accepting his party's presidential nomination, 09/04/08]] McCain announced his run for President in early 2007 at New Hampshire, a state which had boosted his floundering 2000 run for President. From the onset, he ran on an unwavering support for the Iraq War and a close tie to President Bush, stemming from his shift during the 2004 election. The Republican Party was highly splintered among political groups, with strong constituents of the Christian social conservatives (Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee), anti-immigration activists (Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo), and the blockbuster fundraisers, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, who appeared to be media favorites upon entry. McCain was not seen as a viable candidate by many Republicans because of his strong support for immigration reform and distaste for political fund-raising. Mitt Romney, for instance, had raised $23 million in the first three months of 2007, for instance, three times that of Sen. McCain.<ref>Cook, Charles. "The 2008 Presidential Primaries: What in America's Name Is Going On?" The Washington Quarterly Vol. 31 Issue 3 pp. 193-204.</ref>

Christian conservatives overwhelmingly backed Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback, rejecting McCain from longstanding offense he had struck during his 2000 run. John McCain had called politically-charged leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance" for their part in a smear campaign during the South Carolina Primary. Many Christians were angered by these remarks, and fumed that they would field a Third Party candidate if McCain was chosen as the nominee. McCain had shown unfavorable views on abortion and religious initiatives in the past, and many Republican voters were worried that he could not be a reliably conservative candidate. <ref>Luo, Michael. "Evangelicals see Dilemma in GOP Field." July 8, 2007. New York Times.</ref>

Sen. McCain's unwavering support for victory in Iraq was made into a hot-button issue by many politicians following stories of insurgent violence erupting during early 2007. People began to fear the worst in Iraq, and the idea of a timetable for withdrawal became a major issue. At this time, conservative Republicans also feared McCain's position on immigration reform, and booed him loudly at the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference. A news story by the New York Times was a major blow to the campaign, which reported that a scandalous affair between McCain and a lobbyist had taken place. It was found to be completely false, but the story severely hurt his political advances.

When news had spread that McCain's campaign bankrupted and "imploded" in the summer of 2007, the Republican nomination began a period of quick shifting; other candidates began to soar in the polls, detracting McCain's support. Rudy Giuliani, who collected a strong following based on his leadership as "America's Mayor", began to court evangelical Christians who felt uneasy about McCain, gaining the endorsement of televangelist Pat Robertson. However, as his less-than-flattering personal life and liberal positions on social issues became apparent, he quickly lost momentum to Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee.<ref>Cook, Charles. "The 2008 Presidential Primaries: What in America's Name Is Going On?" The Washington Quarterly Vol. 31 Issue 3 pp. 193-204.</ref> Fred Thompson, who entered late in the race, quickly withdrew because of lackadaisical popularity and poor fund-raising efforts. Huckabee remained popular in the Southern United States, but failed to win major contests among independents and Democrat voters.

Romney had the edge in early races, but couldn't deliver a knockout blow. McCain's poll numbers slowly increased and benefited as the field narrowed. After McCain defeated top contender Mitt Romney by a large margin on Super Tuesday in delegate-rich states like New York, California, and Arizona,<ref>Scott Neuman and Howard Berkes. "Mitt Romney Drops Out of GOP Presidential Race." Feb. 7, 2008. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18772382</ref> Mitt Romney withdrew with some protest, leaving McCain the clear front-runner.<ref>Bumiller, Elisabeth, Kirkpatrick, David. "Romney Is Out; McCain Emerges as G.O.P. Choice." Feb. 8, 2008. New York Times.</ref> Although McCain's proportion of the vote was not much higher than Romney's, he won most of the 'winner take all' states giving him a much higher proportion of the delegate count. Without Romney's well-financed opposition, McCain easily clinched the necessary delegate lead of 1,191 in March after a spirited yet short-lived fight from Mike Huckabee.<ref>NPR.org. "Election 2008: Huckabee, Romney Stay in Race for GOP Nomination." Feb. 6, 2008. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18739137</ref>

McCain had won the nomination and could focus on the [[2008 United States Presidential Election]].

==Domestic Policy==
[[Image:McCain_on_Meet_the_Press.jpg|left|thumb|300px|Senator John McCain discusses his opinions with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press", 2005]]

===Balanced Budget===
McCain has emphasized reducing government spending over tax cuts. He is one of the Senate's most outspoken critics of pork barrel spending and has pledged to veto any bill with pork as President. Congressional experience has enabled John McCain to identify items that are unnecessary. McCain is fiscally responsible with the taxpayers' money and created a simple method to detect spending abuses. <ref>[http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=d1a878d9-f16c-4570-b402-9d1bc3fe6ab9] , http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=d1a878d9-f16c-4570-b402-9d1bc3fe6ab9, U.S. Senate Pork Barrel Spending</ref>

* An appropriation that is not properly authorized by the Senate and not requested by the Administration.
* An unauthorized and unrequested, locality-specific or facility-specific earmark (including those funds that are above the Administration request).
* A budget add-on that would be subject to a budget point of order.
* The transfer or disposal of federal property or items under terms that circumvent existing law.
* New items added in conference that were never considered in either bill in either House.

===Economy===
Upon his party gaining the White House in 2001, McCain opposed a $1.35 trillion cut in [[taxation]] over 10 years, but switched his position around 2006, and voted to renew it twice. The plan included the objectives of doubling the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, reducing the tax penalty on [[marriage|married couples]] and fully repealing the [[Estate tax|tax on estates]]. A [[United States Senate]] Finance Committee Report estimated that with all the planned reductions fully phased in, the average family of four making $50,000 would save $1,825 per year.<ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes/ $1.35 trillion tax cut becomes law], CNN, 21 June 2001</ref>

Since the tax cuts, [[IRS]] revenues increased from $1.78 trillion in 2003 to $2.56 trillion in 2007 with a 46.3% increase of individual income tax receipts. Surging $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts, it is the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119189497675953035.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref>

During this same time period, spending mandated by Congress has also increased by more than 29 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars, representing an 11.4 percent increase in federal spending as a percentage of [[Gross domestic product|GDP]]. This spending has doubled the federal debt, increasing it from 58 to 66 percent of GDP. Defense spending increased 61 percent, and non-defense by 23 percent during the eight years since 2000. The largest non-defense spending increase has been for federally-funded medical expenses, at 54 percent.<ref>[http://www.aier.org/research/commentaries/750-big-government-under-the-bush-administration Big Government Under The Bush Administration], AIER, 16 November 2008</ref> In total, Congress and the White House has increased government expenditures by the largest percentage since the administration of President [[Lyndon Johnson]], but McCain has opposed every earmark put forward in the Democratic and Republican congresses, even ones Bush supported. Part of the huge spending increases are directly traceable to the economic repercussions of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the economic downturn in its aftermath, and increased defense and Homeland Security spending. However, this appears likely to be eclipsed by the spending plans of [[Barack Obama]], who pledged on 6 December 2008 to invest "record amounts of money" in infrastructure, a plan which some members of Congress are estimating at $400 to $700 billion.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us/politics/07radio.html?ref=us Obama Pledges Public Works on a Vast Scale], New York Times, 6 December 2008</ref>.

McCain's policies have caused general economic growth. This is partially due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2007, although the [[NASDAQ]] is still down considerably from the levels it was at before the Dot-com bubble burst. Corporations showed profits growing by double digits growth.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/us/2006-05-08-mart-usat_x.htm</ref> Even the working class benefited from the Bush economy, as unemployment hit an all time low in March 2007.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/economy</ref> McCain supported a minimum wage increase, one of the platforms for the Democrats in the 2006 Congressional elections, after the House and Senate included McCain's request of provisions for small-business tax breaks.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001784.html</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011001666.html</ref> Tax policies have been favorable to reducing the [[Capital Gains Tax]], with a subsequent surge in investment.

===Earmarks===
John McCain staunchly opposes [[earmarks]] as wasteful spending. In his 28 years in federal government, McCain has never requested an earmark.

===Education===
McCain supports [[school vouchers]] and [[charter school]]s. His voting record shows support for reducing the federal government's role in [[education]]. He voted for school vouchers for Washington, D.C., education savings accounts, and against $5 billion for grants to local educational agencies. McCain sponsored the Education A-Plus bill in 1997 and again in 1999, which allowed parents to open tax-free saving accounts for their children's school supplies. McCain also co-sponsored the Child Nutrition Act, which would provide [[federal funding]] for at-risk children. He has publicly stated he supports [[intelligent design]] teaching in schools.<ref>http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/politics/90069 "On Tuesday, though, he sided with the president on two issues that have made headlines recently: teaching intelligent design in schools...McCain told the Star that, like Bush, he believes "all points of view" should be available to students studying the origins of mankind."</ref>

===Health Care===
McCain's record and stated positions on [[health care]] are based on true conservative principles. He is against socialized health care and health coverage mandates. McCain supports tax credits for personal health savings accounts and enhancing competition in the health care industry to improve quality and lower costs. He also supports allowing citizens to purchase out-of-state health insurance. In an October 2007 statement, McCain said: "In health care, we believe in enhancing the freedom of individuals to receive necessary and desired care. We do not believe in coercion and the use of state power to mandate care, coverage or costs." McCain is a member of the Republican Main Street Partnership. <ref>[http://www.republicanmainstreet.org/healthcare.htm Pro Healthcare]</ref>

===Energy===
John McCain has stated "ethanol subsidies, tariff barriers and sugar quotas drive up food prices and hurt Americans. However, we cannot take the wrong direction and cut off trade for American goods."<ref>[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4dbd2cc7-890e-47f1-882f-b8fc4cfecc78.htm], McCain Economic Plan</ref> “America’s most vital interests call us to the mission of energy security, and so does our sense of honor. And the straightest, swiftest path to energy security is to produce more, use less, and find new sources of power — so that no commodity can determine our security, and no crisis can undermine our economy,” McCain said in Houston, TX, June 16, 2008. He proposes to remove federal obstacles to offshore drilling. Among his major initiatives is the removal of the 27-year old federal moratorium on states’ abilities to explore and drill for oil and natural gas.<ref>[http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/17/mccain-slaps-obama-on-energy-calls-for-more-drilling/], McCain slaps Obama on energy, June 17th, 2008</ref> In addition, he wants the states to receive incentives and royalties to drill. The current ban on offshore drilling covers an estimated 80 percent of U.S. coastal waters."We've seen the impact of it in the form of food prices, in the form of gasoline, in the form of threats of inflation and indeed indications of inflation, and we must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil." <ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080616/ap_on_el_pr/mccain] , http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080616/ap_on_el_pr/mccain , AP McCain urges end to ban on offshore drilling , June 16, 2008</ref> He indicated, though, that the end of the ban on offshore drilling would have mostly psychological effects in the short term. At a town hall meeting, McCain stated, "I don't see an immediate relief, but I do see that exploitation of existing reserves that may exist -- and in view of many experts that do exist off our coasts -- is also a way that we need to provide relief. Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial."
He would support incentives for building new nuclear power plants. <ref>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/24/1163504.aspx</ref> John McCain wants more nuclear reactors to increase America's energy independence. He is calling for the construction of 45 new reactors by 2030. Also, McCain wants to increase federal funds for clean coal technology by 2 billion dollars to reduce dependence on foreign oil. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91CMT0O0&show_article=1] , http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91CMT0O0&show_article=1 , AP McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors, June 18, 2008</ref>
McCain supports increasing ethanol imports and more production of hybrid vehicles. He is co-sponsor of a Senate cap-and-trade bill designed to limit greenhouse gas emissions. He has consistently voted for preserving the budget for ANWR but against drilling for [[oil]] in the [[Arctic National Wildlife Refuge]] (ANWR), because of environmental concerns. Conservationists differ from conservatives that 2000 acres for oil drilling is not enough to impact [[polar bears]] in the region.

===Environment===
McCain's position on [[global warming]] issues has put him at odds with conservatives. His [[environment]]al proposals are mostly sound modern thinking by someone that understands the enormity of the problem. McCain says that we can go green as a nation without bankrupting America. Per his website, Senator McCain "wants to leave a better future for our children."
On January 2007, McCain said, "we continue to learn more about the science of climate change and the dangerous precedence of not addressing this environmental problem. The science tells us that urgent and significant action is needed." On October 30, 2003, he co-sponsored the Climate Stewardship Act (S.139), which was defeated. McCain is a member of, and was endorsed by, the Republicans for Environmental Protection organization. His conservative stances include voting to confirm Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior and he is in favor of renewable energy such as solar, hydro, and wind. "Wind power is one of many alternative energy sources that are changing our economy for the better, and one day they will change our economy forever."

===Immigration===
John McCain says that he will secure the borders first and many [[immigration]] issue are still needed but will have to come later. In 2007, McCain worked to provide border security efforts with a temporary worker program and an eventual path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants. Conservatives wanted nothing to do with the proposal and in June 2007, Congress' efforts collapsed. McCain said of the outcome,"I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders." <ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-11-03-610628094_x.htm] , http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-11-03-610628094_x.htm, AP McCain emphasizes border security, November 4, 2007</ref> "..I support the same solution. But we've got to secure the borders first" says McCain

On Jan. 5, regarding the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, Senator McCain announced that anyone who says he supported amnesty is "a liar, is lying." The senator stated "I do not support, nor would I ever support, any services provided to someone who came to this country illegally, nor would I ever and I never have supported [[Social Security]] benefits for people who are in this country illegally. Any assertion to the contrary is absolutely false." During the comprehensive immigration reform debate, Senator McCain voted to table an amendment that would have prevented illegal immigrants from receiving Social Security who "are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity."<ref>http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00130</ref> Senator McCain stated in a May 29, 2003 interview, "Amnesty has to be an important part because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have raised children here and pay taxes here and are not citizens." Arguing amnesty is not a free pass or a reward for law breaking, McCain stated, "Well, because amnesty, according to the dictionary, is forgiveness. The proposal that we had- would require fines, would require back in the line, would require deportation for some. It would require others to go back to the country of their origin" <ref>[http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/John_McCain_Immigration.htm] , Ontheissues.com, John McCain on Immigration</ref> At the [[Republican]] debate at the Reagan Library, McCain stated he supports the deportation of 2 million illegals who have committed crimes in the USA.

Conversely, in a June 2008 meeting with Hispanic leaders in Chicago, McCain indicated he would push legislation to overhaul federal immigration laws if elected. According to one attendee, Rosanna Pulido, head of the Illinois [[Minuteman Project]], ""He's one John McCain in front of white Republicans. And he's a different John McCain in front of Hispanics..." <ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/20/mccain-discusses-immigrat_n_108297.html McCain Discusses Immigration With Hispanic Leaders</ref> <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-06-19-4020801806_x.htm McCain Meets With Hispanic Leaders</ref> Pulido further stated, "He was telling one group of people one thing and the Hispanics another, I'm a conservative and I think he's throwing conservatives under the bus."<ref>http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/title----mcca-1.html McCain Double-Talk on Immigration?</ref> Due to his support, members of the Minuteman Project, participating in the Minuteman Project Caravan, traveled to Washington, D.C. to register their disapproval. They made an entry into McCain's Guest Log Book asking him to uphold the Constitution and enforce the law. After making the entry, the group was forced to leave by a senior staffer for Senator McCain or be reported to the police. <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1643181/posts Minuteman Project Thrown Out of McCain's Office</ref>

Senator McCain's position on illegal immigration has arguably resulted in the most criticisms from conservatives. On May 12, 2005, McCain joined Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] (D-[[Massachusetts]]) as co-sponsor of the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act. The bill would legalize and eventually grant citizenship to the estimated 12–20 million [[illegal alien]]s in the United States and have them immediately start collecting social security and other government benefits. The bill never came for a vote on the Senate floor. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 are two additional compromises based on the original McCain-Kennedy bill. McCain has consistently voted for visas for skilled workers. McCain voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006 and has said border security should be a bigger priority then the illegal aliens who are currently here.

===Global Trade===
McCain has actively supported reducing barriers to trade and has shown leadership in the [[Senate]] on Free Trade Agreements (FTA). Senator McCain supports both pending FTAs for Columbia and [[South Korea]]. <ref>[http://useconomy.about.com/od/candidatesandtheeconomy/p/McCain_Trade.htm], John McCain and Trade</ref> He voted for and defends the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

===Social Security===
McCain is a strong supporter of private [[Social Security]] accounts.

===Tax Reform===
In 2001, McCain gained attention as one of only two Republicans who voted against President Bush's tax cuts. He opposed accelerating the cuts in 2003, saying, "I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportional amount that went to the wealthiest Americans. I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit." He has now changed his stance, by voting to make the tax cuts permanent, and says he would do the same as President. In 2002, Senator McCain was one of only two Republicans to twice vote against the permanent repeal of the Death Tax. He has also refused to sign a pledge put forth by Americans for Tax Freedom not to impose any new taxes or increase existing taxes. However, many of McCain's votes has shown support for lower taxes, such as eliminating the marriage penalty, a 1997 vote to cut capital gains taxes and he introduced measures that would require a sixty-vote majority to pass a tax increase.

==Foreign Policy==

===National Security===

McCain urges the Senate to pass FISA. “For months, House Democrats, the [[ACLU]], and the trial lawyers have held up legislation to modernize our nation’s terrorist surveillance laws. Today, the House passed a compromise bill to end this impasse. While I would have preferred to see the Senate bill enacted, which I voted for earlier this year, I am pleased Congressional leaders and the Administration were able to reach an agreement to reform our current surveillance law and not let FISA expire in August. I hope [[Senate]] Democrats will allow this matter to quickly be considered by the Senate and sent to the President for his signature. I will support this measure and hope that politics will be put aside in favor of this vital national security matter.” <ref>[http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=a7f9dc6c-da0e-459d-dd6c-91e20a46e1e5] , McCAIN URGES SENATE PASSAGE OF FISA
, June 20, 2008</ref> Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was established in 1978.

McCain has voted in support of the [[Patriot Act|USA PATRIOT Act]] as well as National Missile Defense. However, he has joined [[liberal]]s in support of immediately closing [[Guantanamo Bay]], and moving all the prisoners to Fort Leavenworth. On October 3, 2005, he introduced the McCain Detainee Amendment which prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners, including prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. The bill was passed and signed by President [[George W. Bush]]. McCain has recently criticized the practice of [[waterboarding]], saying "they should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture." McCain voted against HR 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which included provisions that would have prevented the CIA from water boarding prisoners.

===Afghanistan===
After the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] McCain was a strong advocate for military action in [[Afghanistan]], saying:

''We did not cause this war. Our enemies did, and they are to blame for the deprivations and difficulties it occasions. They are to'' ''blame for the loss of innocent life. They are to blame for the geopolitical problems confronting our friends and us. We can help'' ''repair the damage of war. But to do so, we must destroy the people who started it.'' <ref>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001375</ref>

McCain is currently calling for 15,000 additional troops to address the situation in Afghanistan, similar to his victorious 2007 troop surge in Iraq.

===Iran===
McCain has said that "We continue to be concerned about [[Iran]]ian influence and assistance to Hezbollah as well as Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons." He tried to ban Iran from playing in the 2006 World Cup, citing Iranian President [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]]'s [[Holocaust]] denials.

===Iraq===
[[Image:610x.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Senator John McCain with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, 03/17/08]] McCain voted with the majority [[Republican]] Party and 29 Democrats of the Senate in favor of the 2002 "[[Iraq War]] Resolution" authorizing President George W. Bush to go to war against Iraq and overthrow the [[Saddam Hussein]] regime. In 1998, McCain voted in favor of HR 4655 Iraq Liberation Act, signed by then President Clinton. <ref>[http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm], http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm, HR4655 Public Law: 105-338, October 31, 1998</ref> HR 4655 declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government. McCain went on to became a critic of the management of the war, arguing that there wasn't enough troop strength in the area. However, he never became a defeatist advocating surrender. McCain publicly stated that he had "no confidence" in then-Secretary of Defense [[Donald Rumsfeld]]. However, he refused to call for his resignation, saying that "the President picks his team, and the president has the right to stay with that team if he wants to." McCain became one of the strongest leading advocates in the Senate for the 2007 troop surge, which increased the number of American troops by 20,500, deployed to provide security to [[Baghdad]] and Al Anbar Province. On February 4, he criticized a non-binding resolution opposing the troop buildup, calling it a reckless "vote of no confidence" in the U.S. Commanders and in the military. Additionally, he voted against all measures aimed at withdrawal of U.S. forces and voted against cutting off of war funds. McCain rightly believes that Congress should not micromanage the war and to give the military everything they ask for to successfully complete the mission. He has mentioned in a town hall forum that staying the course in Iraq for 'a hundred years' would not bother him if no American soldier's were losing their lives. This became an issue for Democratic political strategy. The DNC lead by chairman [[Howard Dean]] repeatedly tried to use false statements in justifying attacking McCain.<ref>[http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/mccains_100year_war.html]http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/mccains_100year_war.html, Washington post Fact Checker, April 2, 2008</ref> What McCain said is very different from what the liberal media and the DNC were reporting. Asked in Derry, NH of the willingness to keep troops in Iraq for 50 years, he said "Make it 100" and

{{QuoteBox|"That's fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."}}

===Russia===
Senator McCain has strongly criticized [[Russia]]n President [[Vladimir Putin]]. During a primary debate he sad, ""He bullies his neighbors and he wants to get a control of the energy supply of Western Europe. This is a dangerous person. And he has to understand that there's a cost to some of his actions." In 2005 McCain and [[Connecticut]] senator [[Joe Lieberman]] drafted a resolution banning Russia from attending the Group of 8 (G8) international forum. McCain is also a strong supporter of ballistic national missile defenses.

===Cuba===
McCain forcefully supports the [[Cuban embargo]] and believes it should be maintained until certain specific political freedoms are restored to the country. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&fta=y&adxnnlx=1222106556-zea3cQG12OakFI9P97dogQ</ref>

==Social Issues==
===Abortion===
{{QuoteBox|"If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next President of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement."}}

Sen. John McCain has more than a twenty year anti-[[abortion]] record, first in the [[U.S. House of Representatives]], then in the U.S. Senate. McCain voted 11 times on anti-abortion and other [[pro-life]] issues in the House. Senator McCain has voted 119 times on anti-abortion and other pro-life measures in the Senate. <ref>[http://www.naral.org/assets/files/mccain_fact_sheet.pdf], http://www.naral.org/assets/files/mccain_fact_sheet.pdf</ref>

McCain's record in the Senate on abortion is pro-life. He voted for the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. McCain has also voted against government funding of birth control and sex education.<ref>http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00214 Voted Nay on an amendment to authorize grants to carry out programs to provide education on preventing teen pregnancies</ref> <ref>http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00075 Vote against allocation of $100m for prevention of unintended pregnancies </ref><ref>http://www.nowpublic.com/quiet-campaign-against-contraception Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain's campaign officials boast that he has "consistently voted against taxpayer-funded contraception programs." And Mr. McCain reports that his adviser on sexual-health matters is Sen. Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, who leads campaigns claiming condoms are unsafe and opposing emergency contraception.</ref> During his first Presidential campaign for the 2000 election, McCain said the following on [[Roe v. Wade]], "I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." <ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/feb/07021908.html McCain's "</ref> He has since changed his position, saying Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

John McCain:
* Voted against a [[Roe v. Wade]] resolution
* Co-sponsored and voted for the Federal Abortion Ban
* Supported H.R.1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act
* Voted for four anti-abortion U.S. Supreme Court judges
* Voted for six anti-abortion lower court judges
* Supported H.R.3913, to prohibit federal funds for abortion services in any case
* Voted to make it a federal crime for anyone but a parent to cross state lines for abortion termination
* Voted in favor of a national network of parental notification.

====Quotations====
“I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned.” <ref>Ann Althouse, Rudy & Mitt Hem & Haw on Abortion, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 24, 2007.</ref>

*"I have many, many votes and it’s been consistent. And I’ve got a consistent zero from NARAL throughout all those years…."<ref>John McCain for President 2008, On the Issues: Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life</ref>
*"My record is clear, and I think the important thing is you look at people’s voting record because sometimes rhetoric can be a little… misleading…. As you know I don’t support Roe v. Wade…. I thought it was a bad decision, and I think that the decision should be made in the states"<ref>John McCain for President 2008, On the Issues: Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life</ref>
*“I’m proud that we have Justice Alito and Roberts on the United States Supreme Court. I’m very proud to have played a very small role in making that happen.” McCain explained further that he “will try to find clones of Alito and Roberts” to fill future court vacancies.<ref>[http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=26539], Letter from Sen. John McCain to Pro‐Life Community Janary 23, 2008</ref>

===Gun Control===
McCain's record on [[gun control]] is mixed. He co-sponsored the Gun Show Loophole Closing and Gun Law Enforcement Act of 2001. This act would reduce the number of gun shows, require gun-owners to purchase trigger locks, and allow federal agents to arrest those who violate federal gun laws. However, McCain has frequently voted in support of the Second Amendment, such as voting against background checks at gun shows and voting in support of prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. In August of 1999, McCain said he was open to voting for an assault weapon ban, depending on the details. However, he still voted against the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and the efforts to renew it, as well as the Brady Bill.

A top official of the [[National Rifle Association]] said McCain has been a reliable ally of gun owners despite divisions with the powerful lobbying group on some issues. NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told The Associated Press "...We're not foolish enough to ignore the vast areas of agreement in which John McCain has been a friend to gun owners." <ref>[http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml], http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml, NRA chief stresses common ground with McCain, May 14, 2008</ref> The Republican presidential nominee has voted against a ban on assault-type weapons with restrictions which were objected.

===Same-sex marriage===
In the speech on the Senate floor July 13th, 2004, McCain stated “Mr. President, most Americans believe, as I do, that the institution of marriage should be reserved for the union of a man and a woman." <ref>http://www.friendsofmccain.com/news/dspnews.cfm?id=143</ref> John McCain revealed his decision based on super majority requirements and the current political realities within Congress. “By my count, there is not at this time even a small majority of senators who would vote for Senator Allard’s amendment, much less the 67 votes required by the Constitution. That won’t change, Mr. President, unless public opinion changes significantly. The [[Founders]], wisely, made certain that the Constitution is difficult to amend, and, as a practical political matter, can’t be done without overwhelming public approval. And thank God for that. Were it any easier I fear we could not make the claim for the Constitution’s enduring success that I have just made." Further, he explained his approach to the amendment's ultimate success “If a constitution is to be amended, Mr. President, it should be a state constitution." McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court effectively created a ruling to grant same-sex partners equal rights to [[Marriage]] and to be recognized by the state. A spokesman for Republican John McCain, who opposes gay marriage, said the Arizona senator "doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions."

===Evolution===
Sen. McCain, much like his former rival Barack Obama, denies the truth of the creation account found within Genesis. He is pro-Darwinist and opposed to teaching intelligent design in public schools.

==Personal life==
[[Image:Cindy McCain.jpg|thumb|Cindy McCain]]
McCain has been married twice. His first marriage, to Carol Shepp, ended in [[divorce]] in 1980 after 15 years, of which he spent five in captivity. McCain publicly acknowledges the responsibility for the breakup as his, stating in a 2008 interview with Pastor Rick Warren that "My greatest moral failing, and I have been a very imperfect person, is the failure of my first marriage". .<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/rules021299.htm</ref> His second and current wife is Cindy Lou Hensley, to whom he has been married for 28 years. His son John Sidney IV is a Midshipman at the [[United States Naval Academy]], Annapolis, and his son James is a non-commissioned officer in the [[United States Marine Corps]], who is serving in [[Iraq]] as part of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]]. Also, the McCains adopted a ten-week old baby girl in 1993, who they named Bridget, from [[Mother Teresa]]'s orphanage in [[Bangladesh]].<ref>[http://celebrity.rightpundits.com/?p=3183 Bridget McCain Biography] Rightpundits.com</ref> <ref>[http://www.newsanalysisindia.com/109022008.htm Bridget vs Sonia: McCain vs Rajiv Gandhi] News Analysis India</ref>
Cindy McCain was in the country as part of the American Voluntary Medical Team <ref>[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-041408-cindy-mccain-bio,1,2151434.story Bio of Cindy McCain]</ref> in response to the 1991 [[Bangladesh]] cyclone.
===McCain's family===
*Wife Cindy
*4 sons
**Douglas
**Andrew
**John (''"Jack"'') Sidney IV
**James
*3 daughters
**Sidney
**Meghan
**Bridget
*Parents
**[[Admiral]] John Sydney McCain, Jr. (from [[Indiana]])
**[[Roberta McCain|Roberta Wright McCain]] (from [[Oklahoma]]).

== Books ==
* ''Faith of My Fathers'' (Random House; 1999) ISBN 0-3755-0191-6
* ''Odysseus in America'' (Scribner; 2002) ISBN 0-7432-1156-1
* ''Worth Fighting For: A Memoir'' (Diane Publ. Co; 2002) ISBN 0-7567-6759-8
* ''Medal of Honor'' (Artisan; 2003) ISBN 1-5796-5240-9
* ''Why Courage Matters: The Way to a Braver Life'' (Random House; 2004) ISBN 1-4000-6030-3
* ''Character Is Destiny: Inspiring Stories Every Young Person Should Know and Every Adult Should Remember'' (Random House; 2005) ISBN 1-4000-6412-0
* ''Hard Call: Great Decisions and the Extraordinary People Who Made Them'' (Twelve; 2007) ISBN 0-4466-9911-X

==Further reading==
*McCain, John [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=513224&in_page_id=1811 ''My six years of hell: John McCain recalls life as a prisoner of war in Vietnam''] 8 February 2008 [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 9 February 2008

==See Also==
* [[John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign]]
* [[Previous Breaking News/John McCain|Articles about John McCain from previous "Breaking News"]]
* [[White House]]
*[[Cindy McCain]], spouse of John McCain
*[[Roberta McCain]], mother of John McCain

== External links ==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQsckD9trn4&eurl=http://evangelicalsformccain.org/meetthesenator.htm ''John McCain: Courageous Service''] - Streaming video documentary hosted at YouTube, including footage of McCain's time as a POW and the Forrestal incident.
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9542249 John McCain Biography]
*[http://evangelicalsformccain.org/index.htm Evangelicals for McCain] - Christians, Families and Patriots for John McCain
*[http://studentsformccain08.blogspot.com/ Students for McCain 2008]
*[http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/mccains-mom-pop.html McCain's Mom Pops Off]
*[http://www.rd.com/national-interest/people-and-politics/our-interview-with-sen-john-mccain/article.html Presidential Candidate John McCain on the Issues]
*[http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270 Voting record]

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

{{2008 presidential candidates}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:McCain, John}}

[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:American war heroes]]

User:DReynolds

2009-01-28T18:15:32Z

DReynolds: New page: And how are you on this fine day?

And how are you on this fine day?

Talk:Toroid

2009-01-28T15:54:00Z

DReynolds: New page: Should this be here? Seems like an odd topic for an entire article... --~~~~

Should this be here? Seems like an odd topic for an entire article... --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 10:54, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Tolerance

2009-01-28T15:51:38Z

DReynolds: Quick clean-up. Removing out-of-place images. Neither really fit the topic and one isn't even in english.

'''Tolerance''' has two contrasting meanings in U.S. politics.

#respecting the right of others to hold differing beliefs
#accepting views that differ from one's own

As a value which supports our [[First Amendment]] rights of freedom of religion, freedom of press and freedom of speech, the civic virtue of tolerance requires us to grant to others the same rights we claim for ourselves. Each person is permitted to hold and espouse unique or minority views which may be obnoxious to others. "I may not believe in what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

This sharply contrasts with the idea that we must respect, accept or agree with views we despise. For example, an employee of a company should not be required to attend a [[sensitivity training]] session and declare in front of other employees that he has no objections to [[homosexuality]].

Many social reformers deliberately blur the distinction between the two types of tolerance and promote the usage of ''tolerance'' as a synonym for "approval".

The idea that "tolerance" implies accepting views that differ from one's own is anathema to U.S. tradition and is often used in the context of forbidding those with traditional religious views to express their disapproval of minority opinions. It turns the concept of tolerance on its head: it is [[intolerance]] in the name of tolerance.

One of the definitions of tolerance is "The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others."
<ref>tolerance. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance (accessed: April 05, 2007).</ref>

A better definition is "respecting the right of others to hold differing beliefs".

The concept of tolerance often applies to areas of politics, cultural differences, or religious practices.

Americans believe in [[free speech]], but to be tolerant you should ''[[Respect|respect]]'' other people's beliefs. You can still disagree with someone's beliefs or practices.
<blockquote>All religions and their traditions deserve to be examined, but there is a difference between critique and slander. And certainly there is a difference between insightful observations and naive comments." <ref>[http://media.www.emorywheel.com/media/storage/paper919/news/2007/04/03/ArtsLiving/Tolerance.Breeds.Empathy-2819324.shtml Tolerance Breeds Empathy]</ref></blockquote>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Political Terms]]

Bushism

2009-01-28T15:46:10Z

DReynolds: Proposing speedy deletion of this article. It is disrespectful of a former statesman and American patriot.

{{speedy}}
'''Bushism''' is the term coined by [[liberals]]{{fact|date=3nov08}} to refer to incoherent, mispronounced, or completely fabricated words or phrases stated by [[George W. Bush]]. Bushisms include the mangling of the English language, egregious violations of grammar rules, and other odd phrases.

The sheer existence of the term "Bushism" might be taken as a sign that Bush mangles the language significantly more (or more significantly) than other politicians. However, it is well known that all politicians (and public speakers in general) have occasional slips of the tongue. A possible explanation for the existence of the term is that George Bush, being the President of the United States, simply attracts more attention (both by supporters and detractors worldwide) than others.

Some examples:

*"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."<ref>White House transcript, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/02/20010221-5.html February 2001]</ref>
*"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."<ref>White House transcript, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040805-3.html August 2004]</ref>
*"We had a chance to visit with Teresa Nelson who's a parent, and a mom or a dad."<ref>White House transcript, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030909-3.html September 2003]</ref>
*"Is our children learning?"<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092601015_pf.html Washington Post]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

== Related articles ==
*[[Liberal bias]]

[[Category: Liberal Bias]]
[[Category: Political Terms]]

Talk:John McCain

2009-01-28T15:41:38Z

DReynolds:

This article seems to have many unsourced claims and needless speculation. Statements such as "The Bush administration was rumored to have..." or "The media could damage..." are clearly not rooted in provable fact, but merely in likelihoods and possibilities (in the case of the Bush rumor, libelous ones). I suggest the author(s) provide news reports or other reliable publications to directly support the claims and speculation in the article. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 21:56, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Why remove the "this article needs citations" thingy? This article is *clearly* in need of citations, and, quite frankly, serious editing to remove the gossip. A "citations needed" flag gives readers an extra "heads up" to be extra-critical in their reading - important if the site is to be used by high school students. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 01:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Fixed minor spelling mistakes on the page. I also agree that this page is disgraceful to Conservapedia. It has no references cited. It breaks both commandments #2 and #6 as it currently stands, and quite possibly #1. The authors/contributors to the information in this article need to add their citations and make certain they are also not adding their own opinions. Serious revision must be undertaken quickly. --[[User:Dikaiosune|Dikaiosune]] 00:23, 12 March 2007 (CST)

I agree with all of the above. The article also participates in speculation (what the media and Democrats will bring up regarding his health) and it is factually inaccurate (Reagan was 70 when he assumed office, not 72, and so most Republicans would not use that as a defense). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ok... so no one cared enough to remove the uncited opinion from the article so I went ahead and did it. I left the uncited fact because that is less egregious. I have no idea how to make references look nice. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:17, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Myk, it's lookin' good to me. You're building an article of facts with citations, rather than gossip, opinions, and speculation - much improved, IMHO. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== What is this page going to be? ==

Aschafly, all of the things you just listed under electability may be true and verifiable but are they encyclopedic? What encyclopedia has items on how electable someone is? Is this going to be a biography of the man or a list of reasons why not to vote.

His age at primary time is easily discernible by subtracting the year of his birth from the year of his election. His cancer is something easily added to his personal life section (or create a personal life section as I didn't add one thinking it would be gossipy). His conduct during the Keating Five incidient could be cited and sourced and put in his political career section. And, as he is a public figure, the Dobson quote can be placed in a "criticism" section. There is a way to make this at least look like an encyclopedia article rather than a "reason why Aschlafly doesn't want him nominated" page. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps, Andy, you would entertain the idea of changing the title block from "Electability" to something else? Or, in fairness, we should add the same, highly subjective information to each of the potential candidates? Personally I think that would be pissing on our own shoes. If you agree, I can create a "Quick Facts" area for your information, incorporate other pertinent information, and present it as I did in the Margaret Thatcher page. Let me know your thoughts. --[[User:TK|TK]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

We could add Electability as one of the Conservapedia debates, such as "Which of the Republican candidates is most electable?" At the very least, it's something I would be interested in discussing. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, looks as if Geo beat you to it, dude, lol --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sources ==

This is a featured article. The unsourced comment should either be removed or given a citation. It is a clear violation of the Second Commandment. There are only seven commandments, we should follow them. Especially on featured articles. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Gee, I wonder who made it the featured article? If he doesn't care, or doesn't think its that big of deal, and it's his place, why do you? What comment are you talking about? Maybe it was removed before I read this? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Political Record 1-10. And if he doesn't feel it's a problem, great, but I never want to see any other "facts" removed because they didn't have a source. Conservapedia would lend an awfully bad name for conservatives if the leader of the site could just flaunt the rules like that.

::Also, there's no mention that his cancer is in remission, no source for cancer hurting Paul Tsongas, and no where in the article cited does it mention anything about poor fundraising being a sign of weakness. That's commentary.[[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Need for personal/family section ==

The article should mention that McCain has seven children, of whom two are today in the U. S. military. [[Duncan Hunter]] is the only other candidate who can claim even one. [[User talk:Amyz|Amyz]] 18:17, June 8, 2007 (EDT)

Article says he is Baptist. Does that mean he is a member of a Baptist church? If so, which one. And which denomination was he a member of before. This is only important if Obama's UCC affilation is deemed important.

== RE: Political Record ==

I'm not doubting that there are sources for the information in this section, however considering much of it is in opposition to what his election platform is, I think it might be a good idea to show sources. In fact, it would lend a lot of credibility to this site, and raise usefulness. Any intelligent person would have to realize that McCain's position is inconsistent with his track-record. This is what killed Kerry for a lot of people, including me. Who knows what he's going to do when gets to be president, nothing is truthful. At the very least his platform could be considered deceitful being that it would be in conflict with his actual behavior. I would say, it would be out right lying! --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 18:37, 3 December 2007 (EST)

== Fundraising ==

The "Fundraising" section is really irrelevant at this point. Delete it? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 12:34, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Living symbol of the honor and sacrifice of America's armed forces ==

{{cquote|McCain is a living symbol of the honor and sacrifice of America's armed forces, and has the greatest claim of any of the candidates to be Commander-in-Chief.}}
This... doesn't look encyclopedic, I'm sorry. Why don't we say "He is the second-greatest American who ever lived (just after Ronald Reagan)" while we're at it?

I normally would have reworded it (or tried to find a source so we can say "X said that he can be considered..."), but I see that some other bloke just got a 1-week block for edit warring in this sentence, and I don't really want to join him. So I'll just file my protest here and hope that somebody will pick it up. --[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 18:07, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==Another Image==
Not that it's a big deal, but I was wondering if a Sysop can add one or two small images for McCain. Like McCain with Reagan, or McCain campaigning for President.[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]

:I agree, Chip...I will find some, and ask someone to upload them, unless you have something in mind. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:45, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

==Hate speech laws==
McCain supports hate speech laws. Is this really the guy today's conservatives want? [[User:CaptainRoemer|CaptainRoemer]] 11:00, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

On a related note, is the vocal opposition to McCain by some conservative political commentators significant enough to merit mention in the article? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:43, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

: Don't know if any are criticizing him now. We keep current here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::Ann Coulter's still pretty critical of him. Her most recent column, after mentioning that it's the end of the road for Hillary, follows with "Now we just have to get rid of the other two" and describes the remaining choice as being between "a young liberal who is friendly with terrorists or an old liberal who is friendly with Teddy Kennedy." Again, not sure if it's significant enough to merit inclusion, but she's a fairly influential media personality.

::--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:58, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, but Ann Coulter is a joke of a media personality. Every time she opens her mouth people wince. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 11:49, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

::::This is not the Ann Coulter article. And whatever he supports he's what we have so we gotta stick by him.

== Technically ==

He hasn't clinched. Regardless of the difference in numbers, as you said yourself ASchlafly---the media can't appoint the nominee. He isn't the nominee until the convention or until he has no further opponents. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:35, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:He is technically the 'presumptive nominee', the same status as Obama. Can we change the wording so that it is accurate? I would do it myself, but I've seen too many people get banned for changing articles like this. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 18:40, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

==Abortion==

This section is not flattering, maybe the reality of his position. However, I just read the article on Life News that is credible. As it currently stands, no reference points are made and a different subject, embryonic stem cell is inserted. Please advise for I am to completely change this section unless told not to.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 09:53, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:Because it's not flattering, but true, you want to remove it? Keep the quote, and I'll find a reference for it now. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:58, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::Jareddr, you still need a reference "McCain is also against government funding of birth control and sex education." This section does not reflect his true record on abortion. I will add to but will not replace current article. I can clearly tell you have nothing but discontent for McCain.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:48, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:::About the same as your discontent with Barack Obama. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:51, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: touché--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:54, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Jared from Subway, like the changes?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:46, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Actually, since they were complete copy and pastes and none of it was your own original work, no, I don't like the changes. First clue that it was a copy and paste---your first edit after pasting it was going through and changing all the "anti-choice" phrases to "anti-abortion". Why, I asked myself, would you write an entire section using one phrase and then change it? Quick google search took me to the NARAL source of the material. If you would like to do a complete rewrite to bring within the guidelines, that would be acceptable. But as it was, it was a violation of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines#Copying_from_other_sources CP Commandment #1]. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Sorry, you are wrong and I'll fight to change it back.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:19, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You are claiming you wrote the entire section you added [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_McCain&diff=472712&oldid=472465 here] on your own? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You can't take from the article the sentences with umbiguous meaning and claim copy. e.g. 'McCain cast 11 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues'. Do I have to change to 'McCain voted 11 times on abortion and other child-in-womb measures'. ? No Way. Next you'll be claiming I have turn 11 into eleven because of plagarism.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:50, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: You seem to be backing up to a position of unambiguous statements. Are you admitting the greater point that the passage was taken whole from another publication in violation of CP Commandment #1? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Sorry, it is a cite reference needed issue and not a delete.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== 2nd paragraph, first sentence ==

"John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues" this is a common democrat strategy to link Bush and McCain. I had changed it to John McCain and the Republican party... Reverted back to original. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Actually, the citation showed that the change I made was properly referenced. And speaking of common strategies---it's Democratic, not democrat, when using as an adjective. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Proof a democrat has edited this section to show the connection between Bush and McCain. When in fact, McCain has had more than two decades of relationship with Republicans in congress and only 7.5 years with Bush. Change required without warring please.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:42, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Happy to have both statements in there. You provide your citation about the voting relationship of McCain and his party, (and of course, remove any "Maverick" references, if there are any), and I'll provide my citation about the Bush relationship---which is important information since he is the incumbent president. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:54, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Well John McCain has voted alongside George W. Bush 90% of the time. That's pretty close. That's not a liberal bias, that's just how it is.

==2007 Fundraising==
This paragraph is complete liberal bias and should be removed--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

JP, I have made a few edits, albeit minor ones, to some existing pages so as to honor the 90/10 policy. My apologies for not taking note earlier. I'm in the process of making more edits. As for this paragraph, I'm a little wary of removing something like this (granted, it's not here anymore so I can't see what it said) because there was a lot of controversy surrounding McCain's fundraising protocol that was addressed by both liberal and credible sources. Do we really want to sweep something under the rug because it doesn't look pretty? That's stooping to liberal level...Even Wikipedia addresses the apparently negative aspects surrounding Democratic figureheads, thus if we don't do the same, my concern is that we are going to be seen as less than Wikipedia. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 14:47, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Re: Reversion==
"I'm not sure we should create a new category; the article extols his honors" I didn't. The category was already there. That's also not the purpose of categories. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:The only other person in the category was a Russian astronaut who never fought in a war. If it was in wide use, I would understand. It's not meant to say anything negative about your choice to put it in, only that it doesn't seem appropriate in the wider picture. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

==Immigration==
Jareddr seems to think Huffington post citations are exceptable for CP. We don't simply repeat self-serving liberal claims here and I am not talking Minute-men. Find another citation or I delete again.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:13, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:Re-read the section. I've added AP report, USA Today, and ABC News. They all repeated the same remarks by the woman in question. I'm going to be adding further remarks the she made in an interview with ABC News. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Fine with me--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Conflicting Facts==
Which of the following is true? John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues -or- After George W. Bush was elected President in 2000, McCain began to disagree with the President on many issues. Both of these on the same page are conflicting. Anyone beside jareddr want to comment?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Polygamist==

Whoa. He was married to his first wife at the same time that he recieved a marriage certificate? Does this mean that, legally speaking, he was married to two people at the same time? Or, at the very least, does it mean he was in(volved with) Cindy before he had divorced his wife? I'm not trying to stir up controversy here, I swear on that, but I was just curious because if so, I think it speaks a lot about his commitment to her and creates a better picture of his character. Thanks. [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 20:30, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

The technical term is bigamy, since he was only married to two women at the same time. And yes, he was married to both of them at the same time. [[User:Knullmaskin|Knullmaskin]] 12:36, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

== NOT A BIGAMIST! ==

This article seems to have borrowed some lines from the Bush smear campaign. John McCain divorced his first wife Carol (April 2, 1980) and married Cindy (May 17, 1980) about six weeks apart. There is, and never has been, any controversy about his marriage except for those who say that he did not work hard to resolve issues with his first wife, and that he had little care for her.

Those statements are all lies. McCain came back from Vietnam a changed man. He was eager to rebuild his life and wanted to begin a strong, bold career change. Politics came as second nature to him, and as some have stated,<ref>Alexander, Paul. ''John McCain: Man of the People'' 2003. pg. 93</ref> McCain was resolute on having more children and on improving his condition. His wife, who was struggling with the effects of a life-changing car accident, was unable to meet many of the stressful challenges that faced McCain after the war, and their marriage was said to have fell apart mutually.
<references/>
--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 18:50, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

== McCain quote ==

'''When questioned during the 2000 presidential campaign about his experience in captivity, he replied, "I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." Later, when asked about whether he meant an ethnic slur, he replied, "I was referring to my prison guards, and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend some people because of the beating and torture of my friends."<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/02/18/MN32194.DTL</ref>'''

I removed this quote from the 2000 election section. It is unimportant trivia, and in many ways, it only represents a journalist's spin on an ambiguous statement. More importantly, it reveals little to nothing about the political issues or beliefs that McCain had at the time. Nonetheless, I am sure there are those who will disagree and who want this quote re-instated, so post feedback below:

:It seems a pretty unambiguous statement. Where's the ambiguity and how exactly would you spin it? I think anyone who uses such racial slurs reveals something about themselves. What section of his entry would you like to put this in instead? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:06, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

::The statement was spun against him by Bush and many liberal pundits then and now. What you think about people who use racial slurs is misleading and inappropriate; you are suggesting that what he said was a slur directed at race, while he explicitly stated that it was not. Also, it is put forward without context or resolution, especially because he apologized and it is written in a PR format. Rather, it may help to identify the basis that it holds in the context of the 2000 election, ex: California was considered a swing state in the primaries, for instance.--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 22:27, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

:::I think the use of a slur, however you want to deem it was directed, is important, and I attempted to put it within the time line you insist upon. As far as my views on those who use slurs, how do you feel about them? Do you condone the use of a slur word, even when the user has to go on to spin/explain that it wasn't directed at a race? He even acknowledges that it's offensive, "in language that may offend some people." If he's not afraid to use the term, then I think people should be aware of that fact. Perhaps our ideas of what a dictionary is are different. I believe it should be a fact-filled resource, and you'd prefer to put those aside and use laudatory statements instead. Maybe we can compromise and just find a good section for the remarks, perhaps a Quotes section? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:34, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

::::First and foremost, this is not a personal matter between us. We are working together on an encyclopedia, and your attempts to call me racist or culturally insensitive are unwarranted, uncivil, and downright disgusting. Slandering others is not and should not be your reason for being here. That being said, I would like to remind you that McCain was a longstanding supporter of Vietnam-American relations, and cultivated a very favorable opinion among Vietnamese Americans. The statement in question was not a matter or racism, but rather, or political correctness. Apparently, you haven't made the distinction, as you said "If he's not afraid to use the term, I think that's a problem" whereas the more factual approach would be "he still has hatred towards his prison guards, and expresses it in ways that are reckless". Furthermore, given the coverage of the 2000 election, I would find it hard to justify placing the quote inside that section; there simply isn't any context explaining the significance or historical background. Perhaps if the campaign was explained in better terms, and I mean far more extensively, this statement could be put in the section within appropriate context.--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 09:31, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::You were actually the one who first made this a personal matter when you stated, "What you think about people who use racial slurs is misleading and inappropriate;" I wasn't even making a judgment about the quote in the entry. I was including the information so that other people could come to their own conclusions. If you don't want it in the 2000 election section, perhaps we should put it amongst his Vietnam service section. I think immediately concluding his POW section would be a good spot, as it directly relates to his captivity and prison guards. Would you like to place it there or shall I? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:40, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Oh, and can you please point to the spot where I called you a racist or culturally insensitive? I don't recall using either of those words, so I'd be interested in you locating that quote. If, on the other hand, you can't find the spot where I called you either of those, then I do expect an apology, as it was an unwarranted, uncivil, and completely false accusation on your part. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:42, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

== Czechoslovakia ==

Since the article mentions McCain's positions on Iraq and Iran, how about mentioning his views on [[Czechoslovakia]]? He's mentioned twice in speeches in the last week concerns about events going on right now in Czechoslovakia.... (Czechoslovakia has not existed at all since 1993).

== Ctrooprers edits ==

Although I reverted the edits, I tend to agree with them as the sections he removed are not really appropriate for an encyclopedia. Certainly they would be appropriate in a very lengthy essay about the presidential compaign but I don't think it's necessary here. I suggest we try to get a consensus over the next 48 hours and so if no-one objects I'll delete the comments.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:45, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:Some of them are valid in the context that McCain has been getting more press lately regarding his gaffes, not because they are simple mistakes, but because of concerns about his age and fitness to serve for the next 4-8 years. The Iran/Al-Qaeda gaffe was noteworthy because Senator Lieberman had to interrupt him and correct him in front of reporters. In the past week he also talked about tensions on "the Iraq/Afghanistan border". McCain has made comments I can research (read them on Huffington) denying his prior positions and quotes, which are either complete reversals of position or lapses in memory. Are these actual signs of unfitness? I'm not sure about that, but including them in the McCain article under the heading "Concerns about age" would be entirely appropriate since it has been discussed in the press ans Sunday talk shows as well. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:58, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:: I disagree that these should be filed under "Concerns about age", because I don't think they're necessarily age-related. Rather, Shia v. Sunni is particularly important, and for him to make the mistake twice brings questions to his knowledge and criticisms of Obama over foreign policy. But to put them under "concerns about age" trivializes them and makes it seem petty, IMO. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:01, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

: I absolutely object. I think two of the quotes are very appropriate for the article. The first is relevant in that Obama was being criticized here for the use of the word "bomb" as opposed to "bomb'''s'''", and saying "57 states" instead of "47 states". Also, McCain's criticism of Obama and foreign policy, when McCain has repeatedly confused Sunni and Shia, and who makes up the majority of the Iranian population and Al Qaeda. If you want to delete the second one, I won't be terribly opposed to it. And the third is important in that much of McCain's campaign centers around his military service. When Wes Clark made his remarks recently about military service as a qualification for president, there was an uproar. I think it is, therefore, very relevant when McCain talks about military service---especially when he's said something that flies in the face of what he now claims. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:01, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::Re the Obama Criticism. Remember that that was in the main page, which is basically just a trivia/blog section, whereas this article is part of the encyclopedia proper, and thus must be accurate and trustworthy like all the other pages are. Therefore I don't think its fair to compare the Obama gaffe with that here. I suggest that the first should be left in as being relevant to his ability to perform the presidency, but the second and third should be removed as trivia.

:::The second example, misstating "57 states" instead of "47 states" was not part of the trivia/blog section, but is in the article. And it wasn't a misstatement, but he stated it on two consecutive days, so you know his campaign corrected him after the first instance.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:29, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

While I commend everyone for your work and interest, we should remember this generic article is about John McCain. Saying who he is, how he got there, and what he believes is fine, but individual elements and speeches during his Presidential run should probably be handled under the Presidential campaign articles. It could certainly be grouped there in ways that could flow more easily. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:37, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

==Mention of NY Times Op-Ed rejection under Iraq Heading==

I'm not sure the rejection of a single Op-Ed piece merits a mention in an encyclopedia article on McCain - It's already covered in CP under [[Liberal Bias]] anyway, and seems trivial in this context. If its inclusion here can be justified, then it should be moved to a different heading like "McCain and the Media" instead of "Iraq", since the nature of the Op-Ed piece the Times was looking for spanned more than Iraq. It should also be revised, because in it's current form it's misleading as to why the original piece was rejected. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:42, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
:I agree, its trivial fluff and it's prejudicial content is greater than its probative value.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:49, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::I have removed the section. The story itself is irrelevant to McCain's political beliefs, and in consideration of the longstanding cooperation that the New York Times has provided to the Senator, I feel that there is no wrongdoing or substantial political swipe connected to this. I appreciate the well-cited, researched information, but placing the day-to-day events of what is included or excluded in a newspaper does not connect well with the article. It would be more appropriate for the Presidential campaign, but even in that context, it is rather weak and inconsequential.--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 11:18, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

== McCain vs. Obama ==

Based on the obvious bias towards McCain shown in the difference between the two articles, why not just SAY that Conservapedia endorses McCain? Both men have flaws; if you lead with the flaws in the Obama article, and suppress McCain's flaws due to bias, how is this an encyclopedia and how is it "trustworthy?" Yes, I am a liberal, but I may vote for McCain based on experience, but until the election, it would be nice to see unbiased versions of the articles. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 10:16, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:We are keeping the McCain article as unbiased as possible as a stand-alone piece. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:25, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::And the Obama article? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:26, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Should be discussed on the Obama page. We do the best we can with the John McCain article on this, the John McCain page. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:34, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Yes, but the original question pertained to both the McCain and Obama article. You only answered about the McCain article, and quite clearly stated about keeping it as unbiased as possible. You have the ability to give an answer to me about the Obama article here, but specifically chose not to relate it to the question, but instead said take it elsewhere. Since the original question pertained to both, I hope that you will answer both---or let me know and I'll post it on the Obama talk page and you can answer it there instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:38, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::This is the McCain article. I answer questions on John McCain and how to make this article the best it can be. Feel free to post the question on Obama's talk page since, ostensibly, that is the article where you have the most concerns. As I no longer frequent that article, you will not receive a reply from me. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:58, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

==Divorce==

My edit to the Personal Life section of the article should not be reverted, as it is a valid contribution to the page. It is part of his personal life, and it is note-worthy. In the interest of keeping the article unbiased, both the positive and negative should be included. --[[User:AlrightThen|AlrightThen]] 20:48, 8 August 2008 (CDT)

:Hmm, so men don't cheat on their wives anymore. They "have difficulties with" them. Glad you guys are working so hard to defend the institution of marriage. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 19:55, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Both of the above comments are incomplete, and it's impossible to glean what your points are. Try to be clearer. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:58, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

This issue has come up in the past. Please see my talk page under McCain Edit and the reasons why your edit is inappropriate. Then please move on to constructive edits. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:13, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

== Bridget McCain ==

There seems to be conflicting information regarding Bridget McCain's birth year (1991 or 1993). According to the other reference Jpratt uses, "rightpundits.com", the site states, "Cindy McCain was touring 3rd world countries with Mother Teresa in 1991 to provide medical attention to needy children. During this tour, Cindy and Mother Teresa toured an orphanage in Bangladesh where Cindy picked up a baby that was only a few months old." Also, under the Bio section, "Bridget McCain was born in 1991 in Bangladesh." [http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=1636 Bridget McCain is John McCain's Daughter]. Any suggestions for a way to resolve the differing information? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:26, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: The India link wasn't enough for ya? Google search 1-70k for 1993, 1-58k for 1991-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:37, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:: The India link, which was confusing and not very clear, I would match with the rightpundits site I provided. So two sites with differing information. And if the Google results were 70k to 12, then I would consider that evidence. But 70k v. 58k isn't a strong case for one or the other. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:51, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh, and if you google "Bridget McCain" 1991, you get 779 results. Doing the same with 1993 yields 546 results. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:52, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh, if your Google search is limited to english only sites, you get 58k Bridget McCain 1991 and you get 71k Bridget McCain 1993-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:55, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

==Suggestion for an administrator==
This article has become so long, I think it would look nicer if there were more pictures. I was hoping one of you could upload these into the article. http://blog.reidreport.com/uploaded_images/rice-mccain-741881.jpg under "foreign policy" and this under "2008 Presidential campaign." http://www.topnews.in/usa/files/John_mccain_returns_to_NH.jpg If not that's fine, but I would appreciate it. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 20 August 2008

: You need to check out who owns those pictures first and whether it's OK with them for others to copy them. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:31, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I just got them from a blog while searching Google images. Hard for me to find out who "owns" them. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 20 August 2008

O.K., I emailed Top News.com, which is where I got this image, http://www.topnews.in/usa/files/John_mccain_returns_to_NH.jpg. They said I could use it because it's under "creative commons license." [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 21 August 2008

== education ==

On the main page, much was made of Obama's lack of educational achievements. [http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/] That article mentions that McCain actually graduated in the bottom 1% of his class at the Naval Academy. I think that this information that should go into the McCain article. --[[User:DrHubertJNugz|DrHubertJNugz]] 15:38, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
:[[Obama]] article: [...]He graduated magna cum laude with his J.D. in 1991[...]
:So yes, ASchlafly is censoring the truth, even though his edit summary claims that Obama didn't release his college performance. ''Magna cum laude'' is a really good performance. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 10:08, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::You will have to take it up with Andy. Based on the idea that Obama has not opened up his college record for review, a decision was made to remove that information on McCain. It it were permissible, I would want to see the wording, "near the bottom of his class". It seems less sensational that way. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:41, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::You mean [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia%3ADesk%2FAbuse&diff=513169&oldid=510916 this Andy]? Yeah, right, the only result I can think of is hitting my head against a brick wall. Since when does Obama's college record have anything to do with disclosing McCain's? Obama says "57 states", it's jumped all over. Obama says "my Muslim faith", its jumped all over. McCain doesn't remember how many houses he owns, but its vehemently denied into his article. Pretty simple to see what's going on, but I shouldn't be the one (powerless) who stands up to it. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 14:50, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::::That is just b.s. SamuelHTD. Obama need not disclose but since McCains has, it is fair game? This is a site with conservative POV but that doesn't mean liberals have not included 'not-in-the-best-light' statements on McCain's page. Do we need to include every liberal attack against McCain? Hell no. BTW, I am not expecting your return comment since you're gone. ta ta-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:07, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'm baaaack, your [[parthian shot]] failed. If you don't include the information because the other candidate didn't disclose yadda yadda, what's with the hubbub over Obama's "alleged" birth, with birth certificate provided, compared to McCain's ''lack of'' birth certificate, and doesn't even show on the [http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j186/DonaldDouglas/Americaneocon/PH2008050201443.jpg record of births]? Going by your logic, we should either a) post that McCain can't prove his birth record, or b) remove all the gossip and ideology regarding Obama's birth? [[User:SamuelHTD|Sam]] 10:36, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::For what it's worth, the [[Joe Biden]] article mentions quite a bit about his academic record, including the current cost of the high school he attended over 40 years ago, and the fact that he graduated ''"from the Syracuse University College of Law in 1968 near the bottom of his class"''.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 11:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

=="Allard's amendment"==

In the Same-sex marriage section, it includes a quote where McCain refers to "Senator Allard's amendment", but the section makes no reference before this to what Senator Allard's amendment is. Perhaps the section could be cleaned up a bit, and a short description included. I know many people can derive a general sense of the bill's content through context, but younger readers might find this a bit confusing, and I didn't want to perform major "article surgery" without an idea of what the "operation" should be! [[User:Mcliff|Mcliff]] 14:22, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
:Many of those sections near the ends need some work. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:34, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
::Agreed. I'll try to clean them up today.

===Prisoner-of-War===

:::Also, does this need to be written this way "Prisoner-of-War"? I'm not used to seeing it written this way, with hyphens and capitalization. It's fine to keep War capitalized in the title, but it's written as "prisoner of war" in the article too, and it seems to me that it's not a proper noun. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prisoner+of+war] [[User:Mcliff|Mcliff]] 14:42, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

== Biased introduction paragraph ==

Whether or not you support John McCain should not bias your summary of John McCain. Using phrases like "prominent maverick" or "influential leader" should be cited if there is actual solid proof of their validity. If not they should be removed since they have been presented as facts. I am not saying they are not true I am only saying they are misleading without proper citation. Any claim one makes should be cited if one is presenting it to be fact.

:Hopefully there is information in the article itself that would help one to see the validity of the statements. It would be hard to 'cite' the entire article. That John McCain was considered to be the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate on the 2004 ticket should tell you that he's a maverick. As far as being a leader, any of the numerous bills that he has put forth and pushed for already show that. When you tackle an issue like campaign finance reform, that would annoy both parties, and you actually get it to take a position of prominence under your leadership, then we are allowed to acknowledge that as leadership. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:06, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== Confederate flag ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_McCain&diff=539642&oldid=539635 What is the reason for this revert?] [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:19, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:It was somewhat negative.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 18:23, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::I was surprised by your response until I looked at your edit history. I am trying to have a serious discussion here and help build an encyclopedia. I doubt anyone is interested in helping you be snarky. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== McCain & Evolution ==
JakobL says McCain is clearly against evolution. I think he understands it but feels not appropriate for Science class. What says you? --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 13:44, 4 November 2008 (EST)

This link:
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics08/2008/01/john_mccain_on_teaching_evolut.html
indicates that McCain is something of a theistic evolutionist. - [[User:Martib|Martib]] 14:25, 4 November 2008 (EST)

John McCain's view of evolution is not "nuanced." He is a darwinist who rejects God's influence in our world. We criticize Obama for being muslim- but John McCain is hardly a conservative and denies the very nature of a Christian God. Let's call a spade a spade. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 10:41, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-01-28T04:57:23Z

DReynolds:

{{Controversial}}
Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
[[/archive4|4]]
[[/archive5|5]]
[[/archive6|6]]
[[/archive7|7]]

== Demanding Major Change ==

I'm not well educated on Obama enough to write an article on him, and even if I did I would not know where to start, but come on! Someone step up to the plate and correct this article. We atleast need a rewrite that presents a case for him being a christian. It can include all the Rev. Wright stuff you want, but if Conservapedia wants to become "The trustworthy encyclopedia" it has to convey both sides.

As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.

: It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small "c" want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::Reminiscent of those who assert the title of catholic with a small c, which in fact means something wholly other than a Catholic (i.e., a Roman Catholic) with a large C. (All Christians are in fact catholic with a small c if I understand it's fairly broad meaning.) --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 23:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't think you can "demand" anything here. This is not a place where you can get what you want with the well-worn liberal tactic of stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum.
: If you have proof that Obama is a Christian, then let us see it. As far as I can tell, he is completely uninterested in Christian fellowship of any kind, which to me is very telling.
: It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:
: '''Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'''' (Matthew 7:22-23)
: When and if Barack Hussein Obama shows some evidence of having been washed clean in the blood of Christ, then we can talk. I'm not holding my breath. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::DeanS, you have proof, it's been shown to you multiple times. All the people seem to be interested here is raising a conspiracy theory. They are so set in their ways that arguing against them will yield no results. That's the whole thing about conspiracy theorists: it doesn't matter what proof you show or how complete it is, they will find some hole, real or imagined, and fill it in with whatever belief they hold to actually add strength to their theories. A quick review of the page reveals 3 telling conspiracy theories that are held in belief by the people who hold power on this website: 1) That Obama is a Muslim (he isn't) 2) That Obama wasn't born in Hawaii (He was), and 3) That the majority of Obama's campaign contributions came from anonymous donors (they didn't). That's why this page has been locked from editing, because it has become a war zone and is unlikely to change if it was unlocked. The only solution at this point is to try and gleam what facts you can from this article, and do your own independent research for more facts concerning Obama. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 09:14, 6 January 2009 (EST)
::: First of all, I'm David, not Dean. Secondly, Obama certainly doesn't ''act'' like any sort of Christian I care to know: he supports [[abortion]], he is a radical [[socialist]] (possibly a [[Communist]]), and he tells falsehoods. I don't know if he is a Muslim or not, but it seems quite likely, and the page has a lot of evidence showing that he is. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 11:44, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::First, my apologies on the name. Secondly, I'm not claiming that Obama is a good Christian, just that he most certainly is not Muslim. The evidence on this page, many of which are blatant falsehoods, are hardly conclusive proof of anything. I have no doubt that if I held any user here under the same scrutiny that Obama has, I could gather enough "evidence" to make a case that they are any religion I choose them to be. Thirdly, just because he may not be the type of christian you want to know doesn't make him not christian. There are many Christians that I [[Ku Klux Klan|don't care to know]]. Does that make them not Christian?--[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 12:13, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Atheism ==

I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that "Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it "as a choice, not an epiphany."<ref>http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama</ref> It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.

In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?

Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama Arab-American ==

This article should, at some point, actually say that Obama is African-American, making him the first black president. If you really want to leave room for speculation about Warren G. Harding's ancestry, you could write "first openly black president" or something. But Obama's blackness is clearly a large part of his personal and political identity, and is probably going to be remembered as one of the most historically significant aspects of this election. An article on Barack Obama should contain a direct statement of this information, period.

The editors should also consider putting that information in the first paragraph. I understand that there is no established rule about the ordering of information in a Conservapedia article. However, an uneducated reader looking at this article would learn how long his campaign was before learning that he is the first black president, which doesn't make much sense to me. [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 16:20, 9 January 2009 (EST)

There is much distortion in the media about Obama being African-American. '''Obama is actually Arab-American''', and I agree that this page should reflect his race.

Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). --[[User:Cwcopela|Cwcopela]] 14:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:Does it really matter? It's not the technicalities that define what race Americans perceive Obama as - He looks more black, than white and arabic and that's how people will perceive him - They won't perceive him as another rich religious white guy or as an arab because of technicalities like that. --[[User:Atheuz|Atheuz]]

:*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)

== Small comments ==

Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a "family" section in this biography, it seems rather lacking on this point? For the rest it seems very informative, but rather cluttered. Would it be more logical to use a chronological build-up for this biography, such as placing the parts relating to his presidency more to the end of the biography, and his earlier endeavors to the front? Perhaps it would help if the contents table was moved up, at least to end up higher than the first muslim president bit? Let's hope I'm not asking any all-too-stupid questions! ;-) Regards, [[User:AVanbeek|AVanbeek]] 22:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't see any of your suggestions as an improvement. Obama's presidential ambition predates the other items you mention, and his personal beliefs are the most significant. Encylopedias, like newspapers, prioritize presentation based on significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: Shall I go ahead then, and erase "Family" Sections on George W. Bush and McCain's articles? Their great accomplishments surely predate those insignificant sections. [[User:AMurdoc|AMurdoc]] 13:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::Why not go ahead and make some positive contributions to this encyclopaedia by creating wanted articles, rather than attempting to be satirical? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 14:18, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Lincoln's Bible? ==

Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/</ref>. I think it's fairly safe to say that it will not be a koran. I also think it is safe to say that this is exactly the kind of trickery a manchurian muslim would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely muslim" section?

[[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)

: I agree, it is safe to say it will not be a Koran. I think i'ts also safe to say this is exactly the kind of "trickery" a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely Christian" section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)
: So Obama is damned if he does use a Bible, and damned if he doesn't. Seems a bit unreasonable. None of those other candidates were ever accused of being "Manchurian Muslims" just because they DID use a Bible to get sworn in. Then again, none of those other candidates had brown skin and a funny name, right? [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 12:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)
::None of the other candidates hid from questions about their past, it's Obama's own fault. Nobody ever said his name was funny except Obama. The brown skin comment is over the top racist ploy. You know very well that there are more respected, patriotic, qualified 'brown skin' people that are deserving of presidency, Obama isn't one of them. FYI- slanderous allegations are deserving of a permanent block here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:03, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion? Do those count?

:::I'm not accusing anyone of racism per se. I'm just pointing out that no other presidential candidate has ever had to prove to the country that he is not a Muslim. And let's be honest - that's because all the other presidential candidates have been white guys named George or Bill or Ron or Jimmy, and this one is a black guy named Barack. If people WANT to believe he's a Muslim (the authors of this article clearly do) it's easier to do so. If you can't see the connection between his race/name and the popularity of the belief that he is a Muslim, you're not looking hard enough.

:::Anyway, this is all a moot point. He's not a Muslim. As time goes by after Obama takes office, this page will look increasingly loony. I guess if Obama really turns out to be an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent poised to sabotage the United States in a plot straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, I will be the one looking loony. But I think I'll take that chance.[[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 17:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)

== References ==

Barack Hussein Obama (born in Honolulu,[1][2][3] August 4, 1961) served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2004-2008) and then, along with his running mate Senator Joseph Biden, won the presidential election[4] after twenty-three months of campaigning, raising an unprecedented $750 million and spending over $700 million of it,[5]. Post-election, Obama indicated that he would make an unprecedented speech within his first 100 days from a Muslim capital.[6] (7][8]

Obama has espoused the idea of "spreading the wealth,"[10]
in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay income taxes.[11] His health care plan requires employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will require many into a single payer system.[12] To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of others.[13] During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.14]
{{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009

==Picture==
[[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)

: Interesting, Steven. But where did you get it from? The uploads should reflect the source and claim of ability to use it, unless before 1923 (in which everything is public domain).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)

::Oh yes. sorry, i got it from the msn.com do i need promission to take photos from there? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 14:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)
==References (please leave at bottom of page)==
{{Reflist}}

== Obama/Muslim Support ==

In the May be a Muslim section, it says that he had an increased support of Muslim voters. How does this prove he is Muslim? While this should be kept, It should be moved to another section.

== I know we lost a week... ==
But we can't stay in some alternate universe where G.W.Bush is still president forever, especially if this article is going to link to the front page. We need to update this article to show that Obama is now president. I would do so, but its locked. As it has been. For quite some time. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 23:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:The Lord's Prayer

2009-01-17T21:38:26Z

DReynolds: New page: The Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew versions seem unnecessary. I think we should perhaps link to them elsewhere. The article, as it stands, is kinda bloated. --~~~~

The Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew versions seem unnecessary. I think we should perhaps link to them elsewhere. The article, as it stands, is kinda bloated. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 16:38, 17 January 2009 (EST)

The Lord's Prayer

2009-01-17T21:37:06Z

DReynolds: Removed image. Doesn't seem relevant to the subject at hand...

The '''Lord's Prayer''', known also as the Our Father or Pater noster<ref>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09356a.htm</ref>, is a form of [[prayer]] specifically established by [[Jesus]] himself. Its most familiar English form, in the [[King James Version|King James translation]] of the [[Bible]], is as follows.

:Our Father which art in heaven,

:Hallowed be Thy name.

:Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

:Give us this day our daily bread.

:And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.

:And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:

:For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.

:[[Amen]]

([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 6:9-13 KJV)

The Lord's Prayer is by far the best known prayer among [[Christians]] worldwide, and has been translated into hundreds of different languages. It is worth remarking, however, that while [[Jesus]] himself specifically instructs His followers to pray in private, this prayer is frequently recited in public, and has been incorporated into the services and liturgy of many Christian denominations:

:"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

(Matthew 6:5-7 KJV)

A parallel account at [[Gospel of Luke|Luke]] 11:2-4 follows a similar pattern. The fact that it is not identical indicates that Christ's intention was not to provide a static prayer that would be repeated verbatim but rather a model, or outline, of appropriate topics to be prayed for. This is supported by Christ's admonition to his listeners:

:"And whenever you pray, you must not keep on repeating set phrases, as the heathen do, for they suppose that they will be heard in accordance with the length of their prayers." (Matthew 6:7 ''The New Testament in the Language of the People'' Charles B. Williams)

Both prayers include the following elements:

*Request for God's name to be hallowed, or sanctified
*Request for God's Kingdom to come
*Request for personal needs to be met
*Request for forgiveness of [[sin]]s
*Request for avoiding temptation, falling prey to [[Satan]]

This prayer would not have been innovative or revolutionary to Christ's listeners as these would have been things they should have already been praying for, each element being solidly based on the Scriptures then available to the Jews.

According to Harper's Bible Dictionary, the doxology at the end of the prayer is missing the oldest and best manuscripts and is not original to the Lord's prayer. Translations that do not add the doxology include:

* The Holy Bible - Douay-Rheims
* The New Testament in the Language of the People
* The Oxford Annotated Bible - Revised Standard Edition
* The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
* [[Good News Bible]] - Today's English Version
* Holy Bible - [[American Standard Version]]
* The Emphatic Diaglott Interlinear Translation of Vatican Manuscript #1209
* The Complete Bible - An American Translation

== Greek version ==

In [[Greek]] the Lord's Prayer is called Πάτερ Ἡμῶν; in [[Latin]] its name is Pater Noster. Two versions are found in the [[New Testament]]: one in the [[Gospel of Matthew]] and the other in the [[Gospel of Luke]].

Though both are substantially the same there are slight differences.

The prayer as found in Ἐυαγγελίον κατὰ Μαθθαίον (Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine):

: '''6:9''' Οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς:
: Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐω τοῖς οὐρανοῖς
: ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου
: '''6:10''' ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου
: γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου
: ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς
: '''6:11''' τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον
: '''6:12''' καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν,
: ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν1 τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν
: '''6:13''' καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν,
: ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.

1. sometimes the present form ἀφίεμεν is found in place of the perfective ἀφήκαμεν.

==The Interlineal transliterated Aramaic and Hebrew Versions==

Aramaic: Avvon d-bish-maiya, nith-qaddash shim-mukh.

Hebrew: Avinu shebaShamayim, yitqaddesh shmekha

English: Our Father who art in Heaven, Hallowed be Thy Name

Aram. Tih-teh mal-chootukh. Nih-weh çiw-yanukh:

Heb. Tavo Malkhutekha. yei'aseh r'tzonekha

Eng. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done

Aram. ei-chana d'bish-maiya: ap b'ar-ah.

Heb. kmoshebaShamayim 'af baAretz

Eng. In Heaven, so on earth

Aram. Haw lan lakh-ma d'soonqa-nan yoo-mana.

Heb. Et lekhem khukeinu, ten lanu haYom

Eng. The bread we need, give us this day

Aram. O'shwooq lan kho-bein:

Heb. uslakh lanu et khata'einu

Eng. And forgive us our sins

Aram. ei-chana d'ap kh'nan shwiq-qan l'khaya-ween.

Heb. kfi shegam anakhnu salakhnu laKhayaveinu

Eng. as we also have forgiven those in debt to us

Aram. Oo'la te-ellan l'niss-yoona:

Heb. Ve'al t'vi'einu lidei nisayon

Eng. and do not bring us into the hands of trial

Aram. il-la paç-çan min beesha.

Heb. el-la khalletzeinu min haRa'

Eng. But save us from Evil

Aram. Mid-til de-di-lukh hai mal-choota

Heb. ki lkha haMalkut

Eng. for yours is the Kingdom

Aram. oo khai-la oo tush-bookh-ta

Heb. veha'Autzma vehaTif'eret

Eng. and Might and the Majesty

Aram. l'alam al-mein. Aa-meen.

Heb. Le'Olam va'ed. Amen.

Eng. Worlds without End. Amen

Matthew 6:9-13

== References ==

*Harper's Bible Dictionary (p. 574-576)

== See also ==

*[[Rosary]]
*[[Hail Mary]]
*[[Jesus Christ]]

[[category:New Testament]]
[[Category:Christian Theology]]

Talk:Godwin's law

2009-01-17T21:30:09Z

DReynolds:

There is some credibility behind Godwin's law, so I'll leave it alone.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Is this a real "law"? It seems like a thinly veiled attack on our evolution articles. I move for its deletion. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 16:30, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Oval Office

2009-01-17T17:57:15Z

DReynolds:

I think "office" is capitalized. This should be moved to [[Oval Office]]. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:35, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Do we have a better picture? This one shows less of the office and more of Bush's head. And its blurry. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 12:57, 17 January 2009 (EST)

File talk:WashingtonDC1.gif

2009-01-17T17:55:55Z

DReynolds: New page: I think we should kill this photo. It isn't a good view of either structure. There are far better images available. --~~~~

I think we should kill this photo. It isn't a good view of either structure. There are far better images available. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 12:55, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Canada

2009-01-14T15:17:23Z

DReynolds:

==No Room For Unsubstantiated Claims==

Why is it necessary for me to keep correcting the work of vandals? This page is not for comparing Canada to the United States. This is a page for reporting facts about the country. If I was so inclined, I could come up with some really nice things to say about Canada that make us look much better than the United States- but I don't. It's people that come in here and try to drag down my country that make their country look bad. Lose the attitude of superiority. This is not "An American Site". This is a wiki which is open to users around the world. If this site is to gain credibility, then it has to be balanced. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== About Canada ==

This is an encyclopedic entry on Canada. This not a page designed to highlight how the US is better than Canada. Please take your heads out of your hind quarters. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Marijuana ==

On the subject of Canada exporting pot to the US, I don't see the big deal. It is fair to include that, as it is something that we aim to improve. You say we supply your 5% like its a bad thing? --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

You should have seen waht was there before I softened it up a little. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 00:11, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Canada's Response to SARS ==

Comparisons of the incidence of SARS in different jurisdictions is problematic, because it depends on health care professionals diagnosing the illness. In the US, for example, an unknown respiratory illness was reported which might have been diagnosed as SARS in Ontario. In fact, no real diagnosis of a "syndrome" can be made, because a syndrome is merely a collection of symptoms. Only when a virus or other cause is identified can a true diagnosis be made. The best known example of this is AIDS, which was later found to be caused by HIV infection.

During the epidemic, Chinese and American health officials may have wished to minimize its perceived gravity, while Toronto officials were more concerned with containing the actual illness. At the same time, the Canadian and Ontario governments largely ignored the problem, which they saw as a local matter.

The main article implies that Canada had a higher mortality rate for SARS because of its public health care system. While that is an interesting hypothesis, it would be helpful if the writer could provide a comparison of the treatment given to SARS victims to show how improved care in Ontario's hospitals could have improved the rate.

:I agree whole heartedly. However, the problem we are left with is that what is there now is a compromise from the original contribution. A very bitter user contributed a handful of sections that made Canada look like the worst country in the world to live, and was rife with tabloidization. We need more editors to squeeze out those with fuzzy logic. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 15:44, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

The Sars section should be removed. It is one of the least relevant things about Canada or even Toronto. It's not topical. I'm sure even Torontonians have forgoten about it.

==Top 10 places to live in the world==

We really need a citation for that. According to whom? A travel magazine? The UN? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Human Trafficking ==

I do not believe that this fits in the article on Canada. It provides no information on Canada as a country, it just highlights some opportunities for improvement. It's not something that anyone would allow done to an article on the United States, so why allow it here? --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 15:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Silliness in this entry ==

Why is it that most of the recent changes in this article have been people adding foolishness, malarkey, and drivel? That people like Crocoite, TK, Fox, Karajou, and RobS have had to devote so much time to repairing this article (and kudos to them for doing so) is particularly frustrating when you consider that there are still no entries for the NWT, Nunavut and most of the provincial capitals. As well, most of the articles about the provinces are quite minimal and need to be augmented. In addition, there is virtually no mention on Canada's significant contributions to WWI and WWII in those articles. There is lots of work to be done here so if you are thinking of vandalizing an entry out of boredom or a desire to see your name in print, why not channel that energy into posting something productive?
--[[User:Regulas|Regulas]] 07:57, 6 June 2007

:Excellent comment Regulas. From your entry above, it appears you could make a significant contribution to this article and I encourage you to do so. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 10:24, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== previously reverted edits ==

I was curious: I am a Canadian, and so I thought it might be interesting to read this article. I came across a small problem, being from Montreal. I noticed that the article accuses Canada of having lower standards of education indirectly, quoting McGill's grading scheme - which happens to be unusual in Canada. Most of the schools in Canada follow a grading system identical to or similar to the U.S. system (which is not cited), and McGill also does not pass a student with a D, which makes the effective failing grade 54%, which is minimally different from the U.S.'s 59%. I recommend that this particular passage be removed, as it is highly misleading. May I remove it? I do not want to be accused of vandalism or of arbitrarily removing information. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 23:33, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...I don't think you actually have to walk on eggs so gingerly, Nihiltres! Please make common sense edits, and cite your material properly, and there won't be a problem. ''If there is, please let me know.'' I do suggest, coming from a family that has many teachers, that 54% verses 59% isn't what any teacher would call minimal. In that 5% of difference are how many students? I am merely trying to point out things that people take for granted saying on WP, won't skate here, in our Conservative world. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:57, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I'm sure that there's good reason to make the change, just I'm not sure how to find a source for what would seem to be a norm - people do not usually write news reports saying that "life is normal." I'll try to find a couple of sources for the correction, perhaps using the grading schemes of other schools. As for walking on eggs, I plan to do that while here - offending Conservapedians is the last thing that I want, as it reinforces negative feelings where cooperation and friendliness might otherwise reign. I think that if Conservapedians want a problem on Wikipedia fixed, commenting on the talk page with a courteous explanation of the problem might prove effective at solving many problems of bias or correcting factual inaccuracies. The [[Golden Rule]] is what I have in mind here. :) [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 11:07, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

There actually is no "Canadian grading system" because, as the article points out, education is a provincial responsibility. In fact it varies among institutions within individual provinces. Generally speaking, institutions with lower grades required to pass have higher marking standards. An example is that passing grades at community colleges are usually higher than at universities. --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 17:02, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

== Sea to sea not from the bible ==

In none of the references of this article is it claimed the origin of the expression "sea to sea" is grounded in the bible, thus I have modified this line.

"The country's motto is "A Mari Usque Ad Mare", or "From Sea to Sea" (taken from Psalm 72:8 - "He shall have dominion from sea to sea.") [1]"

to be

"The country's motto is "A Mari Usque Ad Mare"

[[User:Qc|Qc]] 16:57, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually, it is, Canada's Motto is based on "From Sea to Sea" from Psalm 72:8. (See http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm2_e.cfm) There was a Private Member's Bill in 2006 (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/03/10/northern-motto060310.html) to change it to "From Sea to Sea to Sea" (That is the [[Atlantic]], [[Pacific]] and [[Arctic]] Ocean's that proposed a change, but it did not pan out, like most Private Member's bills.

I would suggest we change it back, but I'll add the reference from the Canadian Heritage Website.
--[[User:Thornhiller|Thornhiller]] 19:38, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== Canada's Economy ==

Why isn't there any mention of its nominal gdp ? it's close to 1.5 trillion dollars, between Spain and Brazil.
ppp gdp is good to use when you're comparing the economies of poor countries to rich countries but it's not realistic. What makes more sense, Iran's economy is the same size as Australia's, or it's much smaller than Denmark's ?

==culture and education==
The section on education grade scales is incorrect, it is up to individual schools, and universites to decide their own grade scales. Also, how is stating Canada doesn't do well in the summer olympics relevant to our culture?

==Canadian Healthcare==

Is this meant to be a joke? I'm not sure exactly where you're getting these figures for wait times, but as a former administrative employee in a Montreal hospital, I can most assuredly say that the figures are not in the least bit accurate. Non critical surgeries do have wait times, but they are substantially less than the "four to eight months" this article claims. Critical life threatening surgeries are seen to immediately.

Non surgical care (which is not mentioned in this article yet of great importance) is also leaps and bounds above established private services. My grandmother, who is currently 98 years of age, has broken her hip twice in the past five years and received an outstanding level of care from hospitals (free service), care homes (also free), physiotherapists (once more, free) and social caretakers who go to her house (you guessed it, free)both times.

In addition, the cost and availability of pharmaceutical products is not discussed. Medicines essential to life are freely distributed at hospitals, prescription medications are available at pharmacies for a nominal service charge (which is rarely far above 20$ in my experience), whereas over the counter drugs are readily available at prices equal to other First World nations.

I would ask that this article be improved and the facts straightened out, because this sounds very much like a broken Ronald Regan recording. [[User:MrCrawford|MrCrawford]] 14:27, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:If you have good sources for what you stated, you are welcome to make improvements. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:29, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==style points==
I used ''The Canadian Style'', item 2.16 for the plural of "lieutenant governor" [[User:Canuck|Canuck]] 23:49, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

== In the spirit of the main page... ==
Should we add a section on "Canadians and uncharitableness"? ;)--[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 10:17, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Tony Blair

2009-01-14T15:10:07Z

DReynolds:

{{Prime Minister
|image=Tblair.jpg
|seq=73
|term_start=May 2 1997
|term_end=June 24 2007
|previous=John Major
|party=Labour Party
|next=Gordon Brown
|birth_date=May 6 1953
|birth_place=Edinburgh
|death_date=
|death_place=
|spouse=[[Cherie Blair|Cherie Booth]]
|spouse2=
|religion=[[Roman Catholic]]
}}
'''Anthony Charles Lynton Blair''', more commonly known as '''Tony Blair''', (born May 6, 1953) is a former [[Prime Minister]] of the [[United Kingdom]]. The [[Labour Party]]'s longest-serving Prime Minister, he served from May 2, 1997 to June 27, 2007, succeeding the Conservative Party's [[John Major]] and preceding [[Gordon Brown]]. Blair is also the only person to have led the Labour Party to three consecutive general election victories, and the only Labour Prime Minister to serve more than one full consecutive term.

He was elected to the Labour Party leadership in 1994 following the unexpected death of his predecessor, John Smith. As well as being leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister, Blair also served as the [[Member of Parliament|MP]] for Sedgefield, a constituency in [[County Durham]] in north-east England.

While the Labour Party is a self-described "democratic, [[socialist]] party"<ref>[http://www.labour.org.uk/how_we_work Labour: How we work]</ref>, Blair coined the phrases "[[New Labour]]" and "[[The Third Way]]" to distinguish his own pro-[[business]] policies from the more [[collectivist]] platform of his predecessors. He was criticized by some more left-wing members of the Labour Party for "selling out" to conservative thinking, particularly in his support for the [[United States]] in the [[Iraq War]]. On the other hand, Blair's policies were decidedly [[liberal]] by American standards: they have included increases in taxation, increases in government spending (particularly on public schools and Britain's [[National Health Service|public healthcare system]]), the introduction and subsequent increases of a minimum wage, and support for equal rights for gay people.

Following his departure from office, Blair converted to [[Roman Catholicism]]- a conversion he had no previously made for fear of political repercussions

== Personal ==
The son of a barrister and lecturer Leo Blair, Tony Blair was born in [[Edinburgh]], but spent most of his childhood in Durham. At the age of 14 he returned to Edinburgh to finish his education at Fettes College. Blair was known as a cheeky, rebellious, and argumentative schoolboy, and at 17 he was threatened with expulsion for persistently breaking school rules.<ref name="bbc">[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6506365.stm The Tony Blair Story] BBC News 10 May 2007</ref>. After leaving Fettes with three A levels he studied law at [[Oxford University]], and went on to become a barrister (Lincoln's Inn) himself, before entering politics. Blair married his wife, [[Liverpool]]-born Cherie Booth QC a barrister and daughter of the actor Tony Booth, in 1980, and they have four children.

Blair is a competent guitar player and at university was a member of a rock band called Ugly Rumours. His favourite music includes [[The Beatles]], [[The Rolling Stones]], [[Led Zeppelin]], [[Free (band)|Free]], [[Bruce Springsteen]], [[U2]], [[Coldplay]], [[The Foo Fighters]], and [[Simply Red]].<ref name="bbc" />

While Blair rarely discusses his religious faith in public - and had been advised by his spokesman Alistair Campbell that "We don't do God, Mate" <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/05/05/dl0501.xml A Question of Faith] Daily Telegraph 5 May 2003</ref> - he is a convinced Christian. His wife Cherie is a Catholic and Blair converted to Catholicism in 2007.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7157409.stm Tony Blair joins Catholic Church] BBC News 22 December 2007</ref>

==Blair's political career==

A combination of the Labour Party's new-found moderation, Blair's personal popularity and the deep unpopularity of the Conservatives under [[John Major]] resulted in a landslide victory for Blair and his party in the 1997 general [[election]], ending 18 years of [[Conservative]] government. Labour easily won re-election in 2001 and in 2005, although with losses.

In December 2006, Blair became the first active Prime Minister to be interviewed in a police investigation, <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6292033.stm Honours police quizzed McConnell] BBC News 23 January 2007</ref> and again in January 2007<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6320399.stm Blair interviewed again by police] BBC News 1 February 2007</ref>, over allegations he had illegally ''nominated'' donors to the Labour Party for peerages - the so called "Cash for Honours" scandal. The government stressed that he was being interviewed only as a witness however, and the nominations of the money lenders were rejected by the independent appointments' commission.<ref name="bbc" /> However the allegations were a popular story in the media, and dogged his final months in office. Tony Blair was superseded by [[Gordon Brown]] as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in June 2007.

==Blair's policies==

During Blair's tenure as Prime Minister, the [[Labour party|Labour]] government made the Bank of England independent, allowing them to set the nation's interest rates (which had previously been set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer), and has introduced a national [[minimum wage]], in 1998, which has gradually been increased over time. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have gained their own legislatures, and limited attempts have been made to devolve power to the regions of England (although outside of [[London]] these have not been successful). Blair's government has also banned fox-hunting, cigarette smoking in public places and public demonstrations within 1 kilometre of Parliament, as well as preparing the way for a national identity card and increased the time that suspects can be held in police custody without charge to 28 days. His government was also notable for legislating an equal age of consent for homosexuals, civil partnership laws, and the abolition of Clause 28 (a measure introduced by the previous Conservative administration which prohibited the promotion of homosexuality in schools).

One of the most controversial aspects of Blair's premiership was been his commitment to and support of the Iraq war, which strongly divided opinion, both in Parliament and among the British people. His strong support of America and President [[George W. Bush]] in particular have set him apart from most European leaders, especially with the parties of the left, including his own Labour Party, which have shown opposition to America's policies. This came at considerable political cost with his own popularity suffering greatly, and the Government lost considerable support in the 2005 general election as a result.

==Blair and the media==

In the 1990s in particular, Blair was seen as a charismatic leader, with formidable media performing skills. His most famous television appearance was his tribute to [[Diana, Princess of Wales]] on the morning after her death in August 1997, in which he described her as "the People's Princess" and "the Queen of Hearts". Blair has, however, acquired a reputation for excessive news management, and even for dishonesty, particularly after the Iraq War.

Blair was criticized by more liberal opponents for his close association with conservative News Corp. owner [[Rupert Murdoch]], and the positive press they believed he received in return.

He is also the only Prime Minister to provide his own voice in an episode of ''[[The Simpsons]]'', in the episode "The Regina Monologues".

== Controversy ==

Blair's political opponents accused him of abusing his power as prime minister (head of government), and acting more like a president (head of state). Blair frequently had to ignore Parliament, especially when supporting America and the policies of [[George W. Bush]]. As a result of his support for America, the far-left populace of Britain disapproved of Blair's actions: his national approval rating dropped as low as 23%.

==See also==

* [[British politics]]
* [[Labour Party]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Blair, Tony}}
[[Category:United Kingdom Prime Ministers]]

Talk:Bernard Madoff

2009-01-13T21:22:31Z

DReynolds: New page: == Silver Lining == Great to see someone finally noticing the positive effects of the Madoff scheme. Thank God these baby-hating organizations can no longer harm our unborn. --~~~~

== Silver Lining ==
Great to see someone finally noticing the positive effects of the Madoff scheme. Thank God these baby-hating organizations can no longer harm our unborn. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 16:22, 13 January 2009 (EST)

User talk:DeanS

2009-01-13T21:20:42Z

DReynolds:

Archive:
[[/1|01]]
[[/2|02]]

== Happy New Year, Dean! ==

{{cquote|'''Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right!'''--Oprah Winfrey}}
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 23:23, 31 December 2008 (EST)
:Thanks Terry. Happy New Year to you as well. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:04, 1 January 2009 (EST)

== Images ==

Dean, I saw you protected [[:Image:20080919-2 p091908jb-0025-1-515h.jpg]] (amongst others). Couldn't we have a a policy of having descriptive file names for images? That image name is not only too long but tells us nothing about the image. If I had been fortunate enough to have merited sysop rights then sorting out the image library would have been my first pet project. I can only hope that some keen adminstrator will try and clean it up. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 10:54, 1 January 2009 (EST)
:I like your idea BrianCo. Why don't you propose your idea on Andy's talk page. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:57, 1 January 2009 (EST)

== upload file not working? ==

the "upload file" command says some sort of "internal error" do you know what's up? [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:01, 6 January 2009 (EST)

*Sit tight, the proper authorities have been notified. We regret any inconvenience. ;-) --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 03:07, 6 January 2009 (EST)
:Thanks Terry. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 03:09, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::It isn't me, Dean...I am running my new bot, ''Sheriff-bot''. TK will be back later. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 03:12, 6 January 2009 (EST)
:::Ok. You can tell me about this ''Sheriff-bot'' offline. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 03:15, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Thank you! ==

for helping out with [[Fiji]]! --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 08:50, 6 January 2009 (EST)
:You're welcome Kotomi. Thanks for your contributions to Conservpedia. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:25, 6 January 2009 (EST)

==Wikiproject:News Wanted Pages==
Let's add the medal people can earn on the page as incentive. Plus, I will attack some more of those words <s>tomorrow</s>Thursday to try and generate interest.--Jpatt 01:36, 7 January 2009 (EST)
:We could ask Rod Weathers to generate a medal like the others he made. I created a couple of articles tonight. It's good if we're leading the way in creating these articles. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:41, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Dean, thanks much for your tremendously insightful news posting a few minutes ago. It topped another day of insights on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:31, 8 January 2009 (EST)
:Andy, that insightful post came from ''Jpatt'', one of our new admins. I just made a few small corrections to the news items. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 00:03, 9 January 2009 (EST)

== Please block ==

Please could you block the blasphemous vandal DanielP? Thanks--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:13, 9 January 2009 (EST)
:Done. Thanks for the alert. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:16, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::No problem - thanks for the swift response. I think AlbertW has reverted most of the vandalism.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:17, 9 January 2009 (EST)

== Great block ==

Great block, Dean. No one has to block all the sub-accounts that were just created. The vandal simply wasted his time. You've blocked his IP for those accounts also with your first block.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 9 January 2009 (EST)
:Thanks Andy. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:53, 9 January 2009 (EST)
::I don't know that I agree, Andy. The accounts could be used by different IPs and I found that one of the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=newusers&user=&page=User%3ATimL&year=&month=-1 socks], TimL, made an [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gravitation&curid=8247&diff=606088&oldid=604847 edit] almost three hours after DavidJ's IP was blocked. He then got blocked by Dean. So I took the initiative now to block all those socks, just to be safe. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 11:52, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::: Thanks, Foxtrot!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 10 January 2009 (EST)
Glad to be of service :-) -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 12:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)
== Governors ==
Thanks for adding on to Washington. Originally I was sticking with just the state governors and not the territorial ones, but I suppose more information is better! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 18:24, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:I first saw the list and noticed Gregoire wasn't on there. Then I saw the full list on the state website and decided to fill in the blanks. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:27, 10 January 2009 (EST)
::Looks like I found a severely dated source, huh? I'll check more carefully. Thanks again! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 18:31, 10 January 2009 (EST)

== Mainpage picture size, My apologies, no offense intended ==

DeanS,

I did not notice that you had reversed my edits as far as the picture sizes to the main page. I was somewhat tired when I was doing the editing. My apologies.

Secondly, I did not notice that the picture sizes I chose were making the right and left columns unequal in width. For various reasons, I do agree with you that right and left columns on the main page should be somewhat equal in width. Therefore, I made the pictures smaller. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 05:35, 11 January 2009 (EST)
:Thank you Conservative. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 06:28, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== With Apologies ==
Sorry about the atom article. The formatting seems weird, but I only made it worse. Sorry. I'm a wiki noob.--[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 16:20, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Purity ring

2009-01-13T21:18:48Z

DReynolds:

A '''purity ring''' is a [[ring]] worn primarily by Christians as a symbol of their desire and vow to remain [[chaste]] until [[marriage]]. The popular [[Jonas Brothers]] and their fellow [[Disney Channnel]] star [[Selena Gomez]] are known for wearing purity rings.

==See also==
*[[Silver Ring Thing]]

[[Category:Marriage]]

Talk:Saddam Hussein

2009-01-13T21:16:02Z

DReynolds:

== Several Problems Here ==

Aside from the Saddam-friendly flavor of this article, which makes it seem a virtual paradise, and him an "enlightened" elected official instead of the despotic dictator he was, I find it disturbing Saddam isn't shown to be the master genocide practitioner of the region. Like feeding political opponents into industrial shredders carted into the dining room for his guests amusement.--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Given the nostaligia of reactionaries in the US Congress and elsewhere for the good old days under Saddam, I suggest we let them paint the picture of the fascist paradise they want to return to after timetables for US withdrawl are met. Alternatively, these reactionaries and supporters of fascism among the American left may assist a more theocratic style regime ''ala'' Iran or Saudi Arabia once funding gets cut off for any further US invovlement. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Classic Conservapedia==

This is a gem of an article. So wonderfully simplistic. [[User:Mralph72|Mralph72]] 08:56, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== So, is the truth a problem? ==

"Saddam saw himself as a social revolutionary and a modernizer, following the Nasser model. To the consternation of Islamic conservatives, his government gave women freedoms and offered them high-level government and industry jobs. Saddam also created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf region not ruled according to traditional Islamic law (Sharia). Saddam abolished the Sharia law courts, except for personal injury claims."

All of this is true, would the more ideological among us prefer it to be hidden in a deeper article? Maybe they could write one. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:30, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

==American Support of the regime during its worst atrocities==
Despite Saddam's brutal crimes, the United States supported him until the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. They even supplied him with chemical agents which may have been used to gas his own people. Human rights are only an issue if they further our own interests --[[User:DemocraticRevolution|DemocraticRevolution]] 22:25, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

==Hussein/Osama Link==

The second sentence in this section needs to go. If you intend to throw in that the Administration attempted to prove a connection between Osama and Hussein, you need to explicitly state it in that sentence; something can't be 'alleged' without someone alleging it, and it's bad journalism and bad scholarism to leave that antecedent undefined. Second, the external reference for that sentence needs to go as well, because it does not reflect upon the actual statement. That reference inconclusively tries to prove that there was a link between Hussein and Osama.

I suggest the following rewrite - change the sentence to "Leading up to the war, some members of the Bush Administration cited a link between Hussein and Osama as a rationale for the war, although critics adamantly insisted that such a link was non-existent. [reference to a quote from both administration and critics] A credible link was never proven." [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 08:24, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Please see [[http://regimeofterror.com]] for more on Saddam Hussein and terrorism. {{unsigned|Ikez78}}

== First names ==

I don't think it is quite as simple as changing Saddam to Hussein. Take a look at [http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/words/saddam_hussein.html this] --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 23:00, 5 February 2008 (EST)
:I'll give you that the controversy exist, but if there is a choice we should simply treat this article as we do any other article.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:21, 5 February 2008 (EST)
::I am not trying to make your editing task any more difficult. However, I am not sure what you mean by saying that we should treat the article as we do any other. Surely we would normally use what we generally refer to as the surname. Neither Saddam nor Hussein appear to be a surname as we understand it.

::Anyway, I just thought I would mention it when I saw your edit. I leave it in your capable hands. --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 23:26, 5 February 2008 (EST)

==Add category==
Please add this to category, [[:Category:Iraq]] -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 07:55, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

== Execution Controversy ==
Well, this article needs expanded pretty significantly (it only really covers his actions in war), but I think we should really add the controversy surrounding the supposed "abuse" he suffered prior to his hanging. It illustrates the left's desire to victimize criminals in order to criticize the death penalty.--[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 16:16, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Iraq War (disambiguation)

2009-01-13T21:11:33Z

DReynolds:

"'''Iraq War'''" may refer to three major Iraqi wars:

#[[Iran-Iraq War]] (''1980 -August 1988, [[Iraq]] invades [[Iran]], which fought it to a stalemate over an 8 year period'')
#[[Gulf War]] (''2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991, [[United States]] liberates [[Kuwait]], and enters [[Iraq]]'')
#[[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] ( ''2003-present, [[United States]] and ally forces remove the [[Saddam Hussein]]'s Ba'athist regime.)
[[category:Disambiguation Pages]]

Tony Blair

2009-01-13T21:11:04Z

DReynolds:

{{Prime Minister
|image=Tblair.jpg
|seq=73
|term_start=May 2 1997
|term_end=June 24 2007
|previous=John Major
|party=Labour Party
|next=Gordon Brown
|birth_date=May 6 1953
|birth_place=Edinburgh
|death_date=
|death_place=
|spouse=[[Cherie Blair|Cherie Booth]]
|spouse2=
|religion=[[Roman Catholic]]
}}
'''Anthony Charles Lynton Blair''', more commonly known as '''Tony Blair''', (born May 6, 1953) is a former [[Prime Minister]] of the [[United Kingdom]]. The [[Labour Party]]'s longest-serving Prime Minister, he served from May 2, 1997 to June 27, 2007, succeeding the Conservative Party's [[John Major]] and preceding [[Gordon Brown]]. Blair is also the only person to have led the Labour Party to three consecutive general election victories, and the only Labour Prime Minister to serve more than one full consecutive term.

He was elected to the Labour Party leadership in 1994 following the unexpected death of his predecessor, John Smith. As well as being leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister, Blair also served as the [[Member of Parliament|MP]] for Sedgefield, a constituency in [[County Durham]] in north-east England.

While the Labour Party is a self-described "democratic, [[socialist]] party"<ref>[http://www.labour.org.uk/how_we_work Labour: How we work]</ref>, Blair coined the phrases "[[New Labour]]" and "[[The Third Way]]" to distinguish his own pro-[[business]] policies from the more [[collectivist]] platform of his predecessors. He was criticized by some more left-wing members of the Labour Party for "selling out" to conservative thinking, particularly in his support for the [[United States]] in the [[Iraq War]]. On the other hand, Blair's policies were decidedly [[liberal]] by American standards: they have included increases in taxation, increases in government spending (particularly on public schools and Britain's [[National Health Service|public healthcare system]]), the introduction and subsequent increases of a minimum wage, and support for equal rights for gay people.

Following his departure from office, Blair converted to [[Roman Catholicism]]- a conversion he had no previously made for fear of political repercussions

== Personal ==
The son of a barrister and lecturer Leo Blair, Tony Blair was born in [[Edinburgh]], but spent most of his childhood in Durham. At the age of 14 he returned to Edinburgh to finish his education at Fettes College. Blair was known as a cheeky, rebellious, and argumentative schoolboy, and at 17 he was threatened with expulsion for persistently breaking school rules.<ref name="bbc">[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6506365.stm The Tony Blair Story] BBC News 10 May 2007</ref>. After leaving Fettes with three A levels he studied law at [[Oxford University]], and went on to become a barrister (Lincoln's Inn) himself, before entering politics. Blair married his wife, [[Liverpool]]-born Cherie Booth QC a barrister and daughter of the actor Tony Booth, in 1980, and they have four children.

Blair is a competent guitar player and at university was a member of a rock band called Ugly Rumours. His favourite music includes [[The Beatles]], [[The Rolling Stones]], [[Led Zeppelin]], [[Free (band)|Free]], [[Bruce Springsteen]], [[U2]], [[Coldplay]], [[The Foo Fighters]], and [[Simply Red]].<ref name="bbc" />

While Blair rarely discusses his religious faith in public - and had been advised by his spokesman Alistair Campbell that "We don't do God, Mate" <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/05/05/dl0501.xml A Question of Faith] Daily Telegraph 5 May 2003</ref> - he is a convinced Christian. His wife Cherie is a Catholic and Blair converted to Catholicism in 2007.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7157409.stm Tony Blair joins Catholic Church] BBC News 22 December 2007</ref>

==Blair's political career==

A combination of the Labour Party's new-found moderation, Blair's personal popularity and the deep unpopularity of the Conservatives under [[John Major]] resulted in a landslide victory for Blair and his party in the 1997 general [[election]], ending 18 years of [[Conservative]] government. Labour easily won re-election in 2001 and in 2005, although with losses.

In December 2006, Blair became the first active Prime Minister to be interviewed in a police investigation, <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6292033.stm Honours police quizzed McConnell] BBC News 23 January 2007</ref> and again in January 2007<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6320399.stm Blair interviewed again by police] BBC News 1 February 2007</ref>, over allegations he had illegally ''nominated'' donors to the Labour Party for peerages - the so called "Cash for Honours" scandal. The government stressed that he was being interviewed only as a witness however, and the nominations of the money lenders were rejected by the independent appointments' commission.<ref name="bbc" /> However the allegations were a popular story in the media, and dogged his final months in office. Tony Blair was superseded by [[Gordon Brown]] as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in June 2007.

==Blair's policies==

During Blair's tenure as Prime Minister, the [[Labour party|Labour]] government made the Bank of England independent, allowing them to set the nation's interest rates (which had previously been set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer), and has introduced a national [[minimum wage]], in 1998, which has gradually been increased over time. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have gained their own legislatures, and limited attempts have been made to devolve power to the regions of England (although outside of [[London]] these have not been successful). Blair's government has also banned fox-hunting, cigarette smoking in public places and public demonstrations within 1 kilometre of Parliament, as well as preparing the way for a national identity card and increased the time that suspects can be held in police custody without charge to 28 days. His government was also notable for legislating an equal age of consent for homosexuals, civil partnership laws, and the abolition of Clause 28 (a measure introduced by the previous Conservative administration which prohibited the promotion of homosexuality in schools).

One of the most controversial aspects of Blair's premiership was been his commitment to and support of the Iraq war, which strongly divided opinion, both in Parliament and among the British people. His strong support of America and President [[George W. Bush]] in particular have set him apart from most European leaders, especially with the parties of the left, including his own Labour Party, which have shown opposition to America's policies. This came at considerable political cost with his own popularity suffering greatly, and the Government lost considerable support in the 2005 general election as a result.

==Blair and the media==

In the 1990s in particular, Blair was seen as a charismatic leader, with formidable media performing skills. His most famous television appearance was his tribute to [[Diana, Princess of Wales]] on the morning after her death in August 1997, in which he described her as "the People's Princess" and "the Queen of Hearts". Blair has, however, acquired a reputation for excessive news management, and even for dishonesty, particularly after the Iraq War.

Blair was criticized by more liberal opponents for his close association with conservative News Corp. owner [[Rupert Murdoch]], and the positive press they believed he received in return.

He is also the only Prime Minister to provide his own voice in an episode of ''[[The Simpsons]]'', in the episode "The Regina Monologues".

== Controversy ==

Blair's political opponents accused him of abusing his power as prime minister (head of government), and acting more like a president (head of state). Blair frequently had to ignore Parliament, especially when supporting America and the policies of [[George W. Bush]. As a result of his support for America, the far-left populace of Britain disapproved of Blair's actions: his national approval rating dropped as low as 23%.

==See also==

* [[British politics]]
* [[Labour Party]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Blair, Tony}}
[[Category:United Kingdom Prime Ministers]]

Atom

2009-01-13T20:51:55Z

DReynolds:

[[Image:Atoms1.jpg|thumb|right|Subatomic resolution of atoms by AFM]]
An '''atom''' is
a [[particle]] of [[matter]] indivisible by [[chemical]] means <ref>[http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Glossary.html Glossary of Nuclear Terms] </ref> which form the building blocks of molecules.
Although the word "atom" comes from the Greek term for indivisible, ''átomos'', atoms are actually made up of three different kinds of subatomic particles; some of these are composed of yet smaller particles.

In the atomic [[nucleus]] there are positively charged [[proton]]s and electrically neutral [[neutron]]s. Spinning around the nucleus are negatively charged [[electron]]s. [[Hydrogen]], in its most common [[isotope]], has only one proton and no neutrons.

Protons and neutrons are comprised of [[quark]]s and are contained closely together in the center of an atom, forming the [[nucleus]]. Electrons move in the space around the nucleus, and are arranged around it in a series of layers, known as [[electron shell|shells]] or energy levels. Since protons and neutrons are approximately 2000 times as heavy as electrons, the vast majority of an atom's mass is found in the nucleus. Currently quarks and electrons are considered truly elementary particles. Atoms are mostly empty space, as the relative size of the nucleus compared to the area of the lowest electron shell is about that of a pea in a stadium. Another common analogy for the atom along the same lines is the "fly in the cathedral", where the cathedral is the whole atom and the fly is the nucleus.

Those who understand electrical theory might notice that positively charged particles packed closely together would repel one another. The nucleus stays together because of what is known as the ''strong nuclear force''. The quantization of this force is a tiny particle called a "gluon".

===Atomic Number=== ----

[[Image:Isotopes.jpg|right|thumb|Isotopes]]
Chemical elements are made up of atoms with certain properties. The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom (known as the [[atomic number]]) determine the properties of the atom, and the element it constitutes. For example, [[Hydrogen]] has one proton, and therefore an atomic number of 1. [[Oxygen]] has 8 protons in its nucleus and has an atomic number of 8. Under normal conditions, atoms contain an equal number of protons and electrons.

===Ions===
----

Atoms are normally electrically neutral; they have no charge. However, electrons in the [[valence shell]] can be gained or lost (depending on the element and the conditions) to form an [[ion]]. An atom that loses electrons becomes positively charged and is known as a cation. An atom that gains electrons electrons becomes negatively charged and is known as an anion. Anions of the common elements fluorine, chlorine, bromine and iodine are known as fluoride, chloride, bromide and iodide (replacing -ine with -ide), respectively.

Many common substances are made up of ions. For example, [[sodium chloride]] (NaCl), otherwise known as table salt, is made up of [[sodium cations]] (Na+) and [[chlorine]] anions (chloride, Cl-) in equal proportions. The negatively charged chloride ions are attracted to the positively charged sodium ions, forming an [[ionic bond]]. This results in a lattice structure, which is responsible for sodium chloride being crystalline in its solid state.

===Isotopes===
----

Atoms of the same element that have different numbers of neutrons are known as [[isotope|isotopes]]. Some isotopes are more stable than others, and occur more often in nature, but there is no "standard" number of neutrons in a given element. The atomic weight of an element is a weighted average of the number of neutrons and protons (number of protons remains constant in a given element) in all naturally occurring isotopes. Many isotopes are [[radioactive]] and [[decay]] over time.
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Physics]]

==References==
----

<references />

Atom

2009-01-13T20:50:41Z

DReynolds:

[[Image:Atoms1.jpg|thumb|right|Subatomic resolution of atoms by AFM]]
An '''atom''' is
a [[particle]] of [[matter]] indivisible by [[chemical]] means <ref>[http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Glossary.html Glossary of Nuclear Terms] </ref> which form the building blocks of molecules.
Although the word "atom" comes from the Greek term for indivisible, ''átomos'', atoms are actually made up of three different kinds of subatomic particles; some of these are composed of yet smaller particles.

In the atomic [[nucleus]] there are positively charged [[proton]]s and electrically neutral [[neutron]]s. Spinning around the nucleus are negatively charged [[electron]]s. [[Hydrogen]], in its most common [[isotope]], has only one proton and no neutrons.

Protons and neutrons are comprised of [[quark]]s and are contained closely together in the center of an atom, forming the [[nucleus]]. Electrons move in the space around the nucleus, and are arranged around it in a series of layers, known as [[electron shell|shells]] or energy levels. Since protons and neutrons are approximately 2000 times as heavy as electrons, the vast majority of an atom's mass is found in the nucleus. Currently quarks and electrons are considered truly elementary particles. Atoms are mostly empty space, as the relative size of the nucleus compared to the area of the lowest electron shell is about that of a pea in a stadium. Another common analogy for the atom along the same lines is the "fly in the cathedral", where the cathedral is the whole atom and the fly is the nucleus.

Those who understand electrical theory might notice that positively charged particles packed closely together would repel one another. The nucleus stays together because of what is known as the ''strong nuclear force''. The quantization of this force is a tiny particle called a "gluon".

===Atomic Number===
----

[[Image:Isotopes.jpg|right|thumb|Isotopes]]
Chemical elements are made up of atoms with certain properties. The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom (known as the [[atomic number]]) determine the properties of the atom, and the element it constitutes. For example, [[Hydrogen]] has one proton, and therefore an atomic number of 1. [[Oxygen]] has 8 protons in its nucleus and has an atomic number of 8. Under normal conditions, atoms contain an equal number of protons and electrons.

===Ions===
----

Atoms are normally electrically neutral; they have no charge. However, electrons in the [[valence shell]] can be gained or lost (depending on the element and the conditions) to form an [[ion]]. An atom that loses electrons becomes positively charged and is known as a cation. An atom that gains electrons electrons becomes negatively charged and is known as an anion. Anions of the common elements fluorine, chlorine, bromine and iodine are known as fluoride, chloride, bromide and iodide (replacing -ine with -ide), respectively.

Many common substances are made up of ions. For example, [[sodium chloride]] (NaCl), otherwise known as table salt, is made up of [[sodium cations]] (Na+) and [[chlorine]] anions (chloride, Cl-) in equal proportions. The negatively charged chloride ions are attracted to the positively charged sodium ions, forming an [[ionic bond]]. This results in a lattice structure, which is responsible for sodium chloride being crystalline in its solid state.

===Isotopes===
----

Atoms of the same element that have different numbers of neutrons are known as [[isotope|isotopes]]. Some isotopes are more stable than others, and occur more often in nature, but there is no "standard" number of neutrons in a given element. The atomic weight of an element is a weighted average of the number of neutrons and protons (number of protons remains constant in a given element) in all naturally occurring isotopes. Many isotopes are [[radioactive]] and [[decay]] over time.
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Physics]]

==References==
----

<references />