Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Genesis

2010-02-25T20:48:50Z

Eoinc: /* The Creation */ more boring vandalism - someone block this guy please?

[[Image:Creation of the sun.JPG|right|thumb|250px|''Creation of the Sun'', by [[Michelangelo]]]]
''For the rock band Genesis, please see [[Genesis (band)]]''

'''Genesis''' [Hebrew: '''בראשית'''] ([[Greek]]: "birth", "origin"), is the 'book of beginnings', and the first book of both the [[Judaism|Jewish]] [[Torah]] and the [[Bible]], recounts the beginning of the [[universe]], living things including [[homo sapiens|mankind]], and mankind's [[Society|social]] and [[Culture|cultural]] formations. It stands as the introduction of the entire body of the Bible, of the creation of the original nation of [[Israel]], and of the earliest promises of the coming [[Jesus Christ|Redeemer]].

The Hebrew word for God is plural, and the creation of man was by a plural form of God (Genesis 1:26: "And God said, Let '''us''' make man in '''our''' image, after '''our''' likeness"). The meaning of the plural form was not fully understood until the emergence of Christianity and the acceptance of the [[Holy Trinity]].<ref>http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-plural-nouns-pronouns-verbs-adverbs.htm</ref>

==Name==
The [[Hebrews]] had called the first book of [[Moses]] by the name of ''bereisheet'', meaning "in the beginning", based on the three words which start Genesis. The [[Septuagint]], the ancient Greek-language translation of the [[Old Testament]], rendered this title under the name ''he biblos geneseos'', from which came the current title of ''Genesis'', meaning "origin".<ref>Unger, 1966, p.396</ref>

==Overview==
The fifty chapters of the book of Genesis can be divided into two parts: the early, primeval history of man from the [[Creation]] to the fall of the [[Tower of Babel]], and the [[Patriarchs|Patriarchal History of Israel]] from [[Abraham]] and his son [[Isaac]], grandson [[Jacob]], and Jacob's sons, primarily [[Joseph]], although there is a continuous genealogy connecting both parts.

===The Creation===
''For more detailed treatments, see [[creation week]], [[creation story]], and [[Biblical creation account]].''

''In the beginning, God [[creation|created]] the [[heaven]]s and earth''. This is one of the most famous statements in the Bible, and it starts the account of God's creation. Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 involved the first seven days in history:<ref>Not all Christians accept that the days were literal days. See also [[Creation Week]], [[Gap theory]], and [[Old Earth Creationism]].</ref>
*The first day, the creation of the heavens and the Earth, and light ({{bible ref|Genesis|1|1-5}}).
*The second day, the creation of a "firmament" or ''expanse'', separating the waters ({{bible ref|Genesis|1|6-8}}).
*The third day, the creation of dry earth and plant life ({{Bible ref|Genesis|1|9-13}}).
*The fourth day, the creation of the Sun, the moon, and the stars, to mark the seasons ({{bible ref|Genesis|1|14-19}}).
*The fifth day, the creation of the creatures of the sea and the fowl of the air ({{bible ref|Genesis|1|20-23}}).
*The sixth day, the creation of the animals of the land, and the creation of Man ({{bible ref|Genesis|1|24-31}}).
*The seventh day, on which God rested from his task of creating ({{bible ref|Genesis|2|1-3}}).

The rest of chapter 2 through to the end of chapter 4 tell the story of Adam and Eve, the [[Garden of Eden]], and Adam and Steve's sons [[Cain]], [[Abel]], and [[Seth]].

The fall of mankind into [[sin]] began when the serpent questioned one of God's commands, namely not to eat of the [[tree of knowledge of good and evil]], and convinced Eve to eat the fruit, followed by [[Adam]]. The result of disobeying this command resulted in the driving away of Adam and Eve from the Garden to live a life of subsistence farming, and eventually dying. Eve was additionally cursed with painful childbearing, and to be subservient to Adam. All of these curses were also applied to Adam and Eve's descendants. {{bible ref|Genesis|3|15}} is cited as being the first reference to the coming [[Messiah]].

Chapter 5 is a [[chronogenealogy]] from Adam to [[Noah]] and his sons.

===The Flood===
Chapters 6 to 9 tell the story of the [[great flood]].

The wickedness of mankind becomes so great that God 'repents' of His creation and decides to destroy it all through a [[flood]]. Only Noah is righteous before God, and He instruct Noah to build an [[Noah's Ark|ark]] to carry himself, his family, and pairs of every creature on earth and in the air. God then destroys the earth with [[water]], the ark riding the waves until the waters abate and it comes to rest at the mountains of [[Ararat]]. God makes a promise never to destroy the earth by flood again, and shows Noah the sign of that covenant, a [[rainbow]].

Noah is also the first planter of a [[vineyard]], and during a drunken sleep one of his sons ([[Ham (son of Noah)|Ham]]) sees him naked. Noah awakes with the knowledge as to what he had done, and places a curse upon Ham's son Canaan, declaring that Canaan and his descendants would be slaves to the his brothers [[Shem]] and [[Japheth]]. All three sons would have their names and their descendants listed on the [[Table of Nations]], which is contained in chapter 10.

===Abraham===
Chapters 11 to 23 and the start of chapter 25 tells the story of Abram

Abram leaves the city of [[Ur]] with his wife, Sarai, on a journey towards [[Canaan]], where God has shown him what He was going to do: ''I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves.''

Sarai, being unable to have children, tells Abram to take [[Hagar]], his [[Egypt]]ian maid, as his [[wife]]. Hagar becomes pregnant with [[Ishmael]], and God makes a promise that the child will be "a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man and every man's hand against him," with descendants beyond number.

God also makes a covenant with Abram: Abram will have many descendants as well as possession of the land of Canaan. Abram's name is changed to "[[Abraham]]”, and Sarai becomes "[[Sarah]]." A sign of the new covenant is the [[circumcision]] of all males. Abraham is also told that Sarah will bear a son who will be named [[Isaac]], and it is through Isaac and his descendants that the covenant will be established; although Ishmael is to be a great nation, he is left out of God’s covenant.

Two [[angel]]s appeared to Abraham and told him that Sarah, barren for years, will bear a son. They also tell him that the wickedness of the cities of [[Sodom]] and [[Gomorrah]] is very great, and God will shortly punish them.
Abraham asks if the cities can be spared if so much as ten righteous men are found inside.

The two angels are received by Abraham's nephew [[Lot]], much to the consternation of the townspeople who surround the house and demand sexual acts with the strangers.
The townspeople are blinded, and the angels warn Lot and his family to flee immediately for the mountains and never look back. Both Sodom and Gomorrah are consumed by [[fire]] and [[brimstone]].
Lot’s wife turns back to look and is turned to a pillar of salt.

Sarah gives birth to Isaac, and at her insistence demands that Hagar and Ishmael are driven into the wilderness. While Ishmael is near dying, an angel speaks to Hagar and promises that God will not forget them, and will make the descendants of Ishmael a great nation.

God puts Abraham to the test by demanding the sacrifice of Isaac. Abraham sets out to obey God by carrying out is request.
But just as he is about to thrust the knife into Isaac, God restrains him, and promises descendants beyond numbering. Abraham dies later, "full of years", and is laid to rest in the Tomb of Machpelah in [[Hebron]], which he had purchased shortly before as a place of rest for Sarah.

===Isaac and Jacob===
Isaac had prayed to God that He would give his wife [[Rebekah]] a child, even though Rebekah was unable to get [[pregnancy|pregnant]]. God grants Isaac's request, and Rebekah gives birth to the twins [[Esau]] and [[Jacob]]
However, prior to the birth God predicted division between the two, with the elder serving the younger. Esau, the elder, despised his own birthright and sold it to Jacob for a bowl of red porridge, allowing Jacob to enter his father’s tent and deceitfully take the blessing intended for Esau. He flees to [[Haran]], the home of his uncle [[Laban]]. Along the way he has a dream of a ladder to Heaven, where God tells him of prosperity for himself and his descendants. Jacob names the spot [[Bethel]] in commemoration.

Jacob had two wives, [[Leah]] and [[Rachel]], and two [[concubine]]s, [[Zilpah]] (Leah's handmaid), and [[Bilhah]] (Rachel's handmaid). Together they bore Jacob twelve sons:
*From Leah: [[Reuben]], [[Simeon]], [[Levi]], [[Judah]], [[Issachar]], [[Zebulun]].
*From Rachel: [[Joseph]], [[Benjamin]].
*From Zilpah: [[Gad]], [[Asher]].
*From Bilhah: [[Dan]], [[Naphtali]].

===Joseph===
Joseph was Jacob's favorite son and was given a special colorful [[coat]], which provoked jealousy in his brothers, who were also angered by Joseph's dreams indicating his brothers would bow down before him.
So his brothers took the opportunity one day to sell him into [[slavery]] and claim to a distraught Jacob that Joseph was killed by a wild animal.

His ability to explain [[dream]]s while a slave in Egypt came to the attention of [[Pharaoh]], who was troubled by a dream of seven skinny [[cattle|cows]] and withered stalks of [[corn]] which ate seven fat cows and healthy stalks of corn. Joseph interpreted the dream as that of Egypt going through seven years of plentiful [[harvest]]s, followed by seven years of severe [[famine]], and followed it up by recommending that Pharaoh appoint a wise man over Egypt to ensure enough is collected and stored during the plentiful years to act as a hedge against the years of famine. Pharaoh responds by appointing Joseph himself to this position.
During the famine "all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth."

Jacob, not knowing Joseph was still alive, sent his sons to buy [[grain]] in Egypt. The brothers appeared before Joseph, but did not recognize him.
Joseph however, recognized them, and after a series of tests which convinced Joseph their characters had changed, revealed himself to them, convinces them that what happened in the past was God’s plan, and told them to bring Jacob and their families to live in Egypt.

Genesis ends with the blessing of Jacob’s children, his death, and the death of Joseph, who exhorts his brothers to carry his bones to the [[Promised Land]] when they eventually reach there.

==Authorship==
Biblical tradition within and without the [[Old Testament]], [[Jesus]] in the [[New Testament]], as well as extra-Biblical writers such as [[Josephus]], [[Origen]], the early church fathers and many others, have claimed [[Moses]] as the author of Genesis, written during the time of the [[Hebrew]] wanderings in the Wilderness, between 1440-1400 B.C. Certainly, Moses was well able to have written Genesis in Hebrew, [[Akkadian]], or Egyptian. He was well educated and trained in the Egyptian court. [[Archaeology]] demonstrates that such a man would have the education necessary to accomplish this during that time in history. <ref>Unger, pp. 35-35</ref>

The higher critical view is that Moses did not write Genesis. Some biblical scholars identified five separate authors of the five 'books of Moses'<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora.htm Who Wrote The Pentateuch, The Five Books of Moses?]</ref><ref>[http://lectionary.org/EXEG-English/OT/EOT01-Gen/Authorship-Genesis%20&%20Pentateuch.html Introduction to Genesis & the Pentateuch]</ref>. This idea is called the ''Documentary Hypothesis''. Although unidentified, each of these authors has been given the name of a letter:
* J who calls God ''YHWH'' (the ''Jehovist'' account), and who possibly wrote in the south of [[Kingdom of Judah|Judah]], written c. 850 B.C.
* E who uses ''Elohim'' ('the gods', 'the spirits') as God's name, and possibly wrote in [[Ephraim]], written c. 750 B.C.
* D who wrote the book of [[Deuteronomy]], about 650 B.C.
* P who wrote an alternate history in what was called the ''Priestly Code'', about 550 B.C.
* R who joined the writings of J, E, D and P to form a single work.
**(Though recent Scholarship has moved toward a four source hypothesis, with the Priestly writer functioning as final contributor and editor.)
Under this hypothesis, looking at the Creation story
* Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 were written by P.
* Genesis 2:4 was written by R
* Genesis 2:5 through 4:26 were written by J.
This idea has gained in popularity among critics since it was first proposed in the late 19th century. However, it is inevitably a product of modern rationalistic research and the application of literary criteria. Opponents of this research point to the fact that it is difficult to reconcile with the historical, miraculous, and prophetic elements which they claim to be basic to the first five books of the Bible.<ref>Unger, p. 397; Young, pp. 183-276</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Sistine Chapel]]
*[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]
*[[Midrash]] for the treatment in Jewish literature of the offering by Abraham of his son Isaac.
*[[Genesis (Translated)]]

{{Old Testament Books}}

==References==

<references/>

==Sources==
*Holy Bible, King James Version (''Thompson Chain Reference''), B.B. Kirkbride Bible Co. Indianapolis, IN 1982.
*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Dictionary'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL 1966.
*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Handbook'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL 1967.
*Young, Edward J. ''Introduction to the Old Testament'', W.B. Eardmans Pub. Co. Grand Rapids, MI 1949.

==Links==
*[http://www.creationapologetics.org/table.html Table of Nations chart]
*[http://www.creationapologetics.org/creation.html Creation timeline]

[[Category:Old Testament Books| 1]]
[[Category:Book of Genesis| ]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Synoptic Gospels

2010-02-25T20:46:58Z

Eoinc: links

The '''Synoptic Gospels''' are the Gospels of [[Gospel of Mark | Mark]], [[Gospel of Matthew | Matthew]] and [[Gospel of Luke | Luke]]. The word ''synoptic'' is Latin, derived from the Greek roots ''sun'', meaning "with", and ''opsis'', meaning "seeing". The sense of the word is therefore "seen together", as the three Gospels share so much of their content. Much of the material in Mark's Gospel, which is thought to be the earliest of the three, is expanded upon in Matthew and Luke. John's Gospel, in contrast, follows its own narrative. Biblical scholars have postulated the existence of an additional hypothetical Gospel account named ''Q'' (for the French word ''Quelle'', meaning "source"), from which the authors of Mark, Matthew and Luke all drew some of their material.

[[Category: Christianity]]
[[Category: New Testament]]

Synoptic Gospels

2010-02-25T20:45:08Z

Eoinc: cat

The '''Synoptic Gospels''' are the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke. The word ''synoptic'' is Latin, derived from the Greek roots ''sun'', meaning "with", and ''opsis'', meaning "seeing". The sense of the word is therefore "seen together", as the three Gospels share so much of their content. Much of the material in Mark's Gospel, which is thought to be the earliest of the three, is expanded upon in Matthew and Luke. John's Gospel, in contrast, follows its own narrative. Biblical scholars have postulated the existence of an additional hypothetical Gospel account named ''Q'' (for the French word ''Quelle'', meaning "source"), from which the authors of Mark, Matthew and Luke all drew some of their material.

[[Category: Christianity]]
[[Category: New Testament]]

Synoptic Gospels

2010-02-25T20:43:42Z

Eoinc: a start

Gospel of Matthew

2010-02-25T20:35:50Z

Eoinc: reverting unoriginal parodist

The '''Gospel of Matthew''' is the first book in the [[New Testament]]. It is one of four [[gospel]]s. It tells the story of the life of [[Jesus]] as conveyed by [[Matthew]], one of Jesus' [[disciples]]. Matthew is one of the [[synoptic gospels]], meaning part of the grouping of Matthew, [[Gospel of Mark|Mark]], and [[Luke]]. The three share a common structure which shows an interrelationship. It is generally believed today that Mark came first and Matthew and Luke borrowed his structure, but church tradition held that Matthew was first and some still follow this idea. There is reference by the church fathers to a gospel of Matthew originally being written in [[Aramaic]]. If this is the case, the original of that work has been lost to time.

==Authorship==
The Gospel of Matthew does not name its author, but the ancient church fathers were unanimous that the author was Jesus' disciple Matthew. Mark and Luke both use the name [[Levi]], Matthew's other name, but the book of Matthew does not.

==Written to==
Matthew writes to [[Jew]]s. He has more quotations from the [[Old Testament]] than any other gospel, uses Jewish terminology, and traces the lineage of Jesus back to [[Abraham]].

==Place of Writing==
The Jewish theme would seem to suggest [[Palestine]], although others have thought [[Antioch]] Syria, which was a strong base for the early church.

==Date==
There are different thoughts on when it was written. If Mark was written first, then depending upon when Mark was written, Matthew would have to have been written after it. Dates from the late 50's all the way to the 70's or beyond are speculated. Some believe that based on the Jewish character of Matthew, that it must have been written when the church was still mostly Jewish, and so they believe it was written in 50 or so and was the first gospel subsequently drawn upon by Mark and Luke.

==Purpose==
The purpose of Matthew is to show that Jesus is the [[Messiah]] who has come according to the Old Testament scriptures. Indeed, Matthew includes 9 additional proof texts that the others Gospels do not. Matthew is also known for the use of sermons, such as the [[sermon on the mount]]. It is these sermons that contribute to Matthew's size more than the any extra content or stories within the text.

==See also==
[[Gospel of Matthew (Translated)]]

{{New Testament Books}}

[[Category:New Testament Books| nt1]]
[[Category:Gospels| nt1]]

Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance

2010-02-25T20:25:16Z

Eoinc:

{{Debate}}

'''As suggested, I created a debate page about this subject. The debate can be continued here. This is what has been said so far.''' --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:36, 24 February 2010 (EST)

----

== Canada embarrasses itself at Olympics ==
Hello. First off I'm new to Conservapedia and mainly I joined so I could fix small errors in articles, such as spelling mistakes etc. That being said, I am interested in further explanation of how having socialist policies and legalizing gay marriages is linked to Canada performing below (some) expectations at the Olympics. Also, what is the law liberals should pass to stop something? The Liberal party itself cannot pass any laws as the Conservative party is in power.[[User:Hhollis|Hhollis]] 10:43, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Liberals hate the free market and loathe the competitive spirit. The ''sine qua non'' of socialism is control, control, control. It's no surprise that such a system produces less than excellence. As to promoting the [[homosexual agenda]] with gay marriage, and then in schools, it sends many people down a road of failure rather than into traditional marriage that is so successful in producing excellence, including excellent athletes.

:The reference to liberals passing a law to fix this defect was satirical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 24 February 2010 (EST)

I am not sure I understood the argument, it may be because of my limited knowledge of the English language. To clarify: is your hypothesis only limited to the upbringing of an athlete (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes have had a non-liberal upbringing), do they extend to the politics and morals (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes have liberal values in the political and moral sphere) or, finally, are you talking about countries and not individuals (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes come from countries and cultures which promote liberal or socialistic values)? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 11:31, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Maquissar, it's not that complicated. The percentage of excellent athletes who are in traditional relationships or marriages is very high. The percentage of those misled by the [[homosexual agenda]] who then break athletic records is very low. Impose the latter on a country and expect to produce athletes who are not as competitive with other nations that don't impose the misguided value system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::I would be very interested to see where you are getting these percentages Mr. Schlafly. Do you have a source for that information? As for your original argument that somehow socialism and gay marriage impacts an athletes performance, well that's just silly. It seems to me that you try to link two completely unrelated things to somehow push your beliefs about gay marriage and socialism. Yes, Canada has many social programs. Yes, many Canadian support gay marriage. How that affects Canadian athletes is beyond me. It sounds like you're grasping at straws.--[[User:Cjohnston|Cjohnston]] 12:13, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Oh, ok, thanks for the answer. I do not have any comments on the subject of exceptional homosexual athletes, as I haven't done any extensive research on the subject. But about liberal values, socialism, and sports, I don't agree. It seems to me that there are and there have been many exceptional athletes who did not have conservative values in either morals or politics, and also many exceptional athletes who came from socialistic or even communist countries. Some examples:

Non-conservative moral values:

Exceptional athletes who were libertines, or who divorced more than twice:
---Diego Armando MARADONA (soccer)
---Tiger WOODS (golf)
---Cassius CLAY (boxing)
---George BEST (soccer)
---Joe LOUIS (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who committed very serious crimes like rape, kidnapping, robbery, or murder:
---O.J. SIMPSON (football)
---Mike TYSON (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who were drug users:
---Diego Armando MARADONA (soccer)
---Marco PANTANI (cyclism)
---Ray Sugar LEONARD (boxing)
---Joe LOUIS (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who are agnostic or atheist:
---Lance ARMSTRONG (cycling)

Socialist or communist countries successful in sports:

---The SOVIET UNION won the 1956, 1960, 1972, 1976, 1980 and 1988 Summer Olympics, and came second almost every other time it partecipated. It produced several outstanding athletes in all different disciplines.

---CUBA always fared very successfully at Olympic games in spite of its small size.

---EAST GERMANY, when it existed, fared very successfully at Olympic games.

---ROMANIA produced many fine athletes in the time it was still part of the Eastern bloc, and came second in the 1984 Olympics, the only Communist country that took part to those games.

---BRAZIL is a socialist country, yet it still produces many of the world's greatest soccer players.

This is just a list which didn't take too much time to research, and I am sure that other names could be added to it. Also, I am not very familiar with American sports, so my list takes into account only American athletes whose fame is large enough to have spread to Italy. My point is, there doesn't seem to me that there is a clear correlation between liberal moral values, liberal political values, socialism, and failure in sports. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 13:10, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::Okay, now this argument that socialism breeds a lack of competitive spirit and sub-par athletes is really just silly. Let's look at the data ... Since we started off talking about the Winter Olympics, the all-time medals leader is Norway with 290 medals (103 of which were gold) and Norway has a pretty vibrant national welfare system. Second place is the United States with 237 medals (84 Gold) and third all-time is the Soviet Union with 217 medals (87 of which were gold). So, the Soviet Union won just twenty fewer medals and three more gold medals despite the fact that they competed in only 9 Winter Olympic Games and the United States competed in 21 Winter Games.<ref>http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/all-time-standings/index.html</ref>.

:::If one looks at the Summer Games, in the eight games in which the United States and Soviet Union both competed, the United States trailed in the medal count six times to the Soviets.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/historic/2004.html</ref> The U.S. also trailed the post-Soviet "Unified Team" in 1992 in both the Summer and Winter Games.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/historic/1992.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/medals-application.html</ref> Furthermore, if one weights the all-time medal counts for the Soviet Union and the United States<ref>http://tvnz.co.nz/content/1860710</ref> to account for the fact that the Soviets only participated in 9 Summer Games to the United States's 25, the Soviets have a clear margin of victory in both the total medal count and the gold medal count. Finally, in 2008, the U.S. trailed in the gold medals category (though, admittedly, not in the total medal count) to China -- again a country with some socialist tendencies.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/tracker/</ref>

:::So maybe it's time to put this one to bed. Just because you're a "socialist" doesn't mean you can't run fast or jump high.--[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 13:30, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Folks, you take [[liberal denial]] to, shall we say, Olympic heights. Your misuse of statistics fails to match the time period of effect to the time period of the cause. First open your mind and admit that the cause-and-effect is quite possible. I doubt you can get to the starting gate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:41, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::How have they misused statistics? And also, if we look at medals per capita [http://simon.forsyth.net/olympics.html here], we see that the leading nations are all fairly socialist countries. [[User:CharlieT|CharlieT]] 13:45, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::: I admit that cause-and-effect is quite possible. Actually, I BELIEVE in cause-and-effect. However, looking at the effects (e.g., the results in sport competitions of socialists and liberals) I don't find your hypothesis ("Liberalism and socialism fail - or are vastly inferior than conservativism - to create exceptional athletes") to be true. I am willing to admit that the mistake could be in my use of logic. Could you please explain how these statistics were misused? And what do you mean by "match the time period of effect to the time period of the cause"? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 13:48, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Andy, you're right; I'm having trouble getting to the starting gate since, on its face, your assertion that a country that embraces socialism breeds poor-quality athletes seems rather obtuse. I disagree that I misused the statistics, but if you would like to point out specifically how I did so or offer a better analysis of them, I welcome your interpretation of the data. That's why I provided links to all of the raw data I used -- so have at it. Furthermore, your response was vague and I'm not sure what you mean by matching the time period of the cause with its effects in this particular instance. But, as I wait for you to clear up what you mean, I'll take a crack at what I THINK you mean.

::::Though there have certainly been outliers, I think we can all agree that most Olympians are rather young, especially in sports requiring more vigorous activity. These sports, moreover, would seem to be more prone to the dilution of competitive spirit you have described. Since the first Olympics in which the Soviet Union competed was in 1952 and the Bolshevik Revolution was in 1917, any athlete under the age of 35 would have been born and raised under Soviet Socialism. They would have been indoctrinated with Soviet ideals in their schools (which you claim above is a key cause of the less-competitive effect). And the Soviet Union had, relatively early on, one of the most liberal divorce systems in the world. So one could infer that Soviet athletes were raised in a system that was less tied to notions of "traditional marriage" (another of your key causes above). Can we all agree that the Soviet Union was the MOST socialist society that we have yet seen? If so, and given the above points, one would expect to see the Soviet Union do markedly poorer in Olympic competition than the freer-market, traditional-marriage United States. Yet, the Soviets performed better in six of the eight Olympics in which both countries competed and performed better on the whole over the course of the 36 years in which the Soviet Union took part in the Olympic Games. Similarly, as time went on, one would expect the Soviet Union to decline in relation to the United States in competition as a greater percentage of the athletes were born under socialism. And, yet, Soviet performance was remarkably consistent over time. And, considering that the United States outperformed the Soviets in their first meeting in 1952 but then trailed the Soviets in 1956, the Soviet athletes actually IMPROVED as their ranks were filled with socialist-born athletes.

::::So, the question remains, what exactly is the "time frame" for this particular cause and effect? Given the number of articles on the news page that compare Obama to Stalin and the current liberal government to Soviet Socialism after only one year in power, one could argue that the effects of socialist indoctrination occur quickly indeed. Or, take the Canadian case: The Canadian government legalized homosexual marriage in 2005. And, I'll be generous and spot you an additional 20 years in which the homosexual citizens and interest groups gained enough ground to sway the government. That gives us a total of 25 years, which is still less than the 40 years between the Bolshevik Revolution and the first time the Soviet Union outperformed the United States in the Summer Games. Given that the Soviet Union is surely more socialist and has more indoctrination power at its disposal than Canada, the Soviet athletes in 1956 should have been much more steeped in the socialist agenda than Canada in 2010.

::::Well Mr. Schlafly, I have attempted to answer your criticism (as far as I understand it) and I have compared the United States's Olympic performance to that of the Soviet Union, both when they competed against each other and over the entire course of their participation in the Olympic Games. I don't know what other time frame of cause and effect is available. Again, I encourage you to show statistical evidence to refute my own and have provided the data necessary to do so. But, until you provide some evidence to the contrary, I remain skeptical that the Canadian loss to the U.S. in hockey can be explained by socialism or homosexuality. You seem to be acting just as the liberal government in Australia did in enacting gun control. To quote yourself, above: "The liberal newspapers jumped on a statistically insignificant tragedy to demand sweeping gun control for law-abiding citizens." Are you sure that you are not jumping on a statistically insignificant event (Canada's loss to the United States in ONE hockey game or their general failure to live up to medal predictions in ONE Olympic Games) to demonize a particular country's governmental system or a particular ideology. Sounds a bit like [[Liberal Deceit]] to me. Yours, with an open mind, --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 15:00, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Rubashov, if you won't open your mind and accept that a cause-and-effect is possible, then it is obviously a fool's errand for anyone to debate the issue with you. Indeed, all of your analysis is suspect based on your refusal from the get-go to allow the possibility of what you then claim to analyze. The Soviet Union, by the way, was a COMMUNIST country that forcibly handpicked and developed athletes specifically to excel in the Olympics. Any sports fan knows that and I find it disingenuous for you to omit it. Your analogy has no application to a free society like Canada's.

:::::I will respond to others willing to engage in open-minded discussion of this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 24 February 2010 (EST)
:::::While all were born in Canada, only two are living in Canada right now, everybody else plays for a US team. The coach is the coach of the Red Wings. While an effect might be claimed, I think if might be better to wait and see for the medal round. [[User:Rcgallup|Rcgallup]] 16:15, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Wow, a dismissal and a deflection all in one. You’re right, Andy, that I remain unconvinced that Socialism and non-traditional marriage in a society leads to sub-par athletes. The reason? I have brought to bear thirty-six years of evidence of Soviet excellence in the Olympic Games (the Olympics were your field of choice, by the way) and you have a single hockey game that Canadians lost to the United States. I have no problem with cause and effect; I’m a historian so cause and effect is kind of what I do. I do have a problem with unsubstantiated cause and effect; it is intellectually lazy. It is not my job to prove YOUR hypothesis. Since you are a lawyer by training, let’s put it this way: the burden of proof is yours. I have brought a wealth of evidence to court and you have brought nothing, who do you think the judge or the jury will believe? So, until you show me how my analysis of the data was flawed and offer counter evidence to my interpretation, I remain unconvinced.

::::It is possible that you could prove your point better than I could prove mine, but I think it is unlikely. Arguing that the Canadians losing to the United States in a hockey game is proof that somehow the zeitgeist of Canada is lacking to the United States is a bit like saying that when the Suns beat the Thunder in NBA basketball last night it was proof that Phoenix is a better city than Oklahoma City. The only problem is: What if Oklahoma City wins the next time?

::::But, since you have deflected our discussion, let’s get back to the points you just made and then maybe later you’ll answer my original analysis:

<blockquote>
::::1) “The Soviet Union, by the way, was a COMMUNIST country.... Your analogy has no application to a free society like Canada's.”

::::::So, the point here is that the Soviet Union was not socialist BECAUSE it was communist? Or too socialist to be socialist? I really don’t think you believe that. I don’t think you believe that because your encyclopedia tells me that the Soviet Union was socialist and that communism is a form of socialism: “[The [[Soviet Union]]] was the most powerful established socialist states in history;” “In Communism (the primary variant of [[socialism]]) the central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality;” “First there is Marxian [[Socialism]] or Leninism as revised by Lenin and practiced in the Soviet Union by Stalin (and his successors);” and “Economically, [[communism]] advocates a socialist economy in which the government owns the means of production.”

::::::Communism is a form of socialism, though certainly not all socialists are communists. If you don’t understand that communism is a form of socialism (and I think you do), you need to go back to Princeton and ask for your money back. Nonetheless, your argument is that socialism causes a lack of competitive spirit in athletes and causes them to fail in international competition. Thus if a socialist country (even an EXTREME socialist one) bests or does as well as a free market country (especially over an extended period of time) in international competition, then your argument has been proven false. Just as if you said “all pies are yummy” and then discovered that you did not like rhubarb pie, you would have to revise or discard your original assertion.

::::::p.s. If the Soviet Union really wasn’t socialist, then we really should should stop comparing Obama’s “socialism” to Stalinism.

::::2) “... [The Soviet Union] forcibly handpicked and developed athletes specifically to excel in the Olympics.”

::::::Are you saying that the success of Soviet athletes in international competition is attributable to being chosen and trained by the state? That government intervention in the lives of its citizens, deciding who will be trained to excel to the detriment of other potential athletes produced better athletic results that a free market system based on the competition of all athletes to decide who was the most able competitor? You’re saying that socialism works better than a free market system? If you really believe that (and I don’t think you do), I await your vocal support of the public healthcare option.

::::3) “...a free society like Canada's.”

::::::Wait, you just said above that Canada was not a free society but a socialist one. As you put it: “The sine qua non of socialism is control, control, control. It's no surprise that such a system produces less than excellence.” The crux of your argument was that the U.S. outperformed Canada because Canada is socialist and because it “loathe[s] the free market.” So is Canada socialist or isn’t it?

</blockquote>

::::Well, Andy, this has been an interesting and dare I say fun discussion. You always ask for logic and I think I have given it to you in spades. I await with excitement your response and hope, at some point, that you will provide evidence of your original assertion rather than deflection. Yours, still with an open mind,--[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 17:38, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Rubashov, as I said, it's a fool's errand to argue with someone who lacks an open mind. When you admit that it is ''possible'' that socialism and the homosexual agenda have a negative affect on a free nation's success at the Olympics, then let's discuss. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste time replying to a closed mind.

:::::Maquissar, you seem willing to discuss the hypothesis with an open mind, and the flaw in your analysis is that you are comparing different countries having different climates and interests in sports to each other. That's not nearly as valuable as comparing the same country to itself under different policies of that same country. Indeed, some have already blamed Canada's policy of "own the podium" for its failures. No one seems closed-minded about that, although certainly some may disagree. Why the closed-mindedness by others about negative effects from socialism and the homosexual agenda?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 24 February 2010 (EST)

*'''This is 2010! I can hardly believe my eyes that there are actually people arguing in favor of Communism, or excusing it. Obviously the users doing so are way too young to have actually lived under their regimes, and very ignorant about "Reeducation Camps" where family members were in many cases held to force athletes to comply, or punish those who the authorities felt didn't try hard enough. The Chinese still are doing it. Check Amnesty International, hardly a conservative organization. Trolls be gone!''' --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:15, 24 February 2010 (EST)
:With all respect, Rubashov was not arguing in favour of Communism, but pointing out the lack of a link between socialism/gay marriage and poor athletic performance which Mr. Schlafly failed to properly cite. I believe the bending of information to suit your own ideals is something of a liberal trait. You'll likely ban me now too, but the truth is more important.

::::::Andy, first of all, I begin by saying that I am not discussing the correlation between endorsement of gay marriage and sports, because I don't have any data to work on, and anything I say would be pure speculation. For the sake of this argument, I will restrain my reasoning to socialism. You say that a country should be compared to itself under different policies, and not to other countries; I agree, as tradition, geography, and racial characteristics also play a heavy role in sports performance. No matter their political or social values, for instance, I doubt Tahitians will ever win a medal in winter sports. Also, I understand that this is not mathematics, and that a certain degree of randomness may induce fluctuations. England, regardless of political or social changes, may gloriously win the soccer World cup one year, and lose it ignominiously four years later.

Yet, if socialism DOES play a significant negative role in athletic performance, it should be expected that countries will, ON AVERAGE, normally fare worse during socialism. Of course, changes will not be immediately apparent; a country which has a socialist revolution in 2011 will not have a decreased athletic performance overnight, and a socialist country which changes to another type of government will not suddenly become better. If my reasoning is wrong, please do correct me.

Now, let's analyze the available data, and let's see if this is indeed the case. Please know that I do not already know the answer: I am looking at data as we speak, and posting it "raw". To each of us the duty of drawing his own conclusions.

Please also keep in mind that the 1980 Olympic games were in Moscow, and the 1984 Olympic games were in Los Angeles. The US and 64 other countries boycotted the Moscow games, and the Eastern bloc (except Romania) boycotted the Los Angeles games.

I'll not consider the 1948 Olympic Games, as some countries did not partecipate, and most countries were still recovering from the damages of a World War. If this exclusion is wrong, please point it out.

ROMANIA.
Communist period (1945-1989)
1952: 4 medals (1 gold)
1956: 13 medals (4 gold)
1960: 10 medals (3 gold)
1964: 12 medals (2 gold)
1968: 15 medals (4 gold)
1972: 16 medals (3 gold)
1976: 27 medals (4 gold)
1980: 25 medals (6 gold)
1984: 53 medals (20 gold)
1988: 24 medals (7 gold)
Free-market period (1989-present)
1992: 18 medals (4 gold)
1996: 20 medals (4 gold)
2000: 26 medals (11 gold)
2004: 19 medals (8 gold)
2008: 8 medals (4 gold)

POLAND.
Communist period (1945-1989)
1952: 4 medals (1 gold)
1956: 9 medals (1 gold)
1960: 21 medals (4 gold)
1964: 23 medals (7 gold)
1968: 18 medals (5 gold)
1972: 21 medals (7 gold)
1976: 26 medals (7 gold)
1980: 32 medals (3 gold)
1984: absent
1988: 16 medals (2 gold)
Free-market period (1989-present)
1992: 19 medals (3 gold)
1996: 17 medals (7 gold)
2000: 14 medals (6 gold)
2004: 10 medals (3 gold)
2008: 10 medals (3 gold)

I will not do this for every nation, as this would take too much space. Those of you who are interested in the debate, find some records and analyze the available data, and then draw your own conclusions. For the sake of statistics, however, let's take a democracy and not a communist dictatorship.

UNITED KINGDOM
Conservatives in Power (1951-1964)
1952: 11 medals (1 gold)
1956: 24 medals (6 gold)
1960: 12 medals (2 gold)
Labour in Power (1964-1970)
1964: 18 medals (4 gold)
1968: 13 medals (5 gold)
Conservatives in Power (1970-1974)
1972: 18 medals (4 gold)
Labour in Power (1974-1979)
1976: 13 medals (3 gold)
Conservatives in Power (1979-1997)
1980: 21 medals (5 gold)
1984: 37 medals (5 gold)
1988: 24 medals (5 gold)
1992: 20 medals (5 gold)
1996: 15 medals (1 gold)
Labour in Power (1997-present)
2000: 28 medals (11 gold)
2004: 30 medals (9 gold)
2008: 47 medals (19 gold)

Take a look as many countries as you like, keep into consideration the fact that changes shouldn't be evident immediately, but the preeminence of a political and social ideology should take some time to show its fruits, and decide for yourselves: does socialism have an effect on athletic performance? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:03, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Judging by that data, not at all (or even to the contrary). In fact, when I think of certain sports (like nordic sports), socialist countries do tremendously well (even better per capita). I would, however, be disinclined to agree with some of your individual athletic examples (steroid usage can increase athletic performance, so it should not be considered). Additionally, I think it unfair to say that somebody who has provided data has not accepted certain results as a possibility. If this were the case, why provide the data anyway (unless you merely wish to tout the other hypothesis, which seems to be Andy's argument)?

:Rather than quibble about these things, we should attempt a more thorough investigation of the claim. A lot of things on CP get labeled as socialism, but this is a generalization (Surely the Scandinavian socialists would be loathe to call America under Obama socialist). If we look at public (govt.) holdings as a measure of socialism, we can call a lot of countries socialist (most of Europe and in fact much of the free world has public health care). Rather, we should look at countries individually and compare their performance under leftist governments to their performance under conservative governments. I think we should also distinguish between Winter and Summer Olympic games. Spain currently has a socialist government; how have they been doing recently as opposed to previously? China? Italy? I'm sure there are statistically significant political factors that affect athletic performance (e.g. a progressive governmental philosophy would seem more likely to encourage women to perform well in traditionally male sports than would an anti-feminist governing philosophy), but perhaps not the factors we've been analyzing. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 20:51, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::The above medal total is meaningless because the overall medal totals have also greatly increased. The ''percentage'' of medals is what matters. I would expect that Britain's socialism hurt its percentage medal take over the 20th century. Of course the medal take is not going to ebb and flow with every election, but long-run damage to the economy from socialism will likewise be reflected in long-run damage to Olympic competitiveness in a free society. All bets are off in totalitarian, communist nations where the training of athletes is compulsory and a high percentage of the GNP is put into it for national pride.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:29, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::I agree that the percentage of medals is what matters. So what should be done for this particular debate is to verify whether DEMOCRATIC countries - as we have excluded communist dictatorships - have done better or worse, in terms of PERCENTAGE of overall medals, during socialistic periods. This democratic socialistic period should be rather lengthy; for instance, in certain countries there is basically an alternation between the left-wing and the right-wing, which shows, more or less, that the population is more or less equally divided between "socialistic" and "free-market" policies. What we need is a democratic country which moved from, say, 30 years of conservativism to 30 years of liberalism, or vice-versa. What could be valid examples of such countries, if there are any?

:::Also, I must point out something that in my opinion is a logical flaw. In the main page news, you attribute Spain's 0 medals in Winter Olympics to socialism and the endorsement of same-sex marriage. However, you had before remarked that a country must not be compared to other countries, in order for statistics to be meaningful, but to ITSELF. Looking at Spain's history in the Winter Olympics, it has partecipated to every edition since 1936, and yet it has only won ONE gold medal (1972) and ONE bronze medal (1992). Two medals in over 70 years. This leads me to the conclusion that Spain is performing very poorly in the 2010 Winter Olympics not because it has endorsed socialism or same-sex marriage, but because it never was any good at Winter Olympics to begin with.

:::If your hypothesis that the endorsement of socialism and of same-sex marriage hurts the agonistic level of Spain is correct, then we should note a marked decrease of Spain's performance at the SUMMER Olympics over the next years, and a lower ratio of talented spanish athletes in all disciplines. But, as you told me before, it must be compared to Spain's past performances, not to other countries. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 07:38, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::Another thing to note is that, while the Winter Olympics are currently in the news, you needn't confine your study to them if you wish to measure the athletic prowess of any nation. The Summer Games are a rich source of data too, and don't forget other international competitions like the FIFA World Cup. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 08:34, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::I welcome more analysis. But it doesn't take more analysis to recognize how closed-minded many liberals are on this issue. A cause-and-effect is certainly possible, and anyone who refuses to admit the possibility is being irrational. Surely, for example, all should admit that there may be a cause-and-effect between Spain's socialism and its 20% unemployment rate. But I bet liberals won't admit that either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:52, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::: I am open to debate and willing to accept all possibilities; but keep in mind being "willing to admit the possibility" of a theory does not necessarily mean "accepting" said theory. One should always listen to the theories other people put forward, compare them with the factual data he has available, and form his own opinion. The fact that I don't agree with the correlation of same-sex marriage and Spain's poor performance at the 2010 Winter Olympics does not mean I am "a closed minded liberal", but simply that, having examined this matter with an open mind, I do not find myself agreeing with you on this particular point. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 10:07, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::::: Maquissar, I did not suggest that you are a closed-minded liberal, but you seem to be in denial that others are. It doesn't take any analysis to conclude that someone is closed-minded. All that is needed is for him to irrationally reject and refuse even to consider a hypothesis. We even have a simple test for [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:12, 25 February 2010 (EST)
:::::::: I don't think anyone has said that there ''cannot'' be a cause-and-effect relationship between politics and sporting achievement. The dispute is over whether or not there actually ''is'' one. It is logically plausible to suppose that the socialist mindset, which disdains the competition of the free market, could adversely influence the mindset of young athletes (or perhaps that lack of ambition / discipline among athletes and socialist thinking among a population both share a common root cause). The issue now is: does the data support the hypothesis? After all, mere plausibility is not sufficient to establish truth. Judging from the analyses provided above by Rubashov and Maquissar, there does not appear to be a correlation between the hypothesis and the facts. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 15:25, 25 February 2010 (EST)

Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance

2010-02-25T13:34:26Z

Eoinc:

Talk:Animal

2010-01-23T15:39:13Z

Eoinc: reply to Ed

Not qualified to improve this article, other than to make it even shorter...
the article states that animals have no cell walls. If the article means Animal CELLS have no cell walls, I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. I'm an animal, and I'm sure somethings keeping the cytoplasm in my cells!

== Are humans animals? ==

I would just change this, but since an administrator wrote it I'll discuss it here first.

For the purposes of scientific classification, an 'animal' is any living thing that fulfils certain criteria, like being multicellular, eukaryotic, ingesting other organisms for nourishment, and a few other things. According to these standards, human beings are animals. Of course there are many important ways in which we differ from other animals, but for scientific purposes these are of secondary importance to the fact that we are multicellular, eukaryotic, etc...

In the opening paragraph, which describes the scientific definition of ''animal'', it is not appropriate to say that humans do not belong in this category. From a scientific point of view, ''animal'' is a plain description of physical features and not a pejorative description of primitive behavior. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 17:28, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:Those "scientific standards" fail to distinguish between human beings and animals. When secular standards conflict with reality, one of the two must suffer. We at Conservapedia prefer to retain reality at the expense of standards which contradict the truth.

:Granted that the [[human body]] is mammalian, let us not lose sight of what sets mankind apart from animals. We need not adopt the views of [[Nietzsche]] here. Calling a person an [[animal]] is always pejorative; if liberals object to use of the term "[[redneck]]", I can't see how they can tolerate classifying [[human being]]s as animals.

:This discussion is closed, unless you want to contribute to our [[Debate Topics]].

::You acknowledge that the human body is mammalian - ie, that we are mammals. Mammals are one of many subsets of the kingdom ''animalia''. Yes, we differ from every other animal in some very important ways. But, '''for the purposes of describing the physical and biological nature''' of human beings, which is all that the scientific classification is intended to do, being multicellular and eukaryotic is of more fundamental importance than our intelligence, cultural achievements, ethics, or anything else.

:::My possession of a mammalian body no more makes me a "[[mammal]]" than your position of property and use of money makes you a "[[Capitalist]]". In my view, human society and the [[Animal kingdom]] are distinct, by virtue of the fundamental [[God]]-given differences between [[human nature]] and the mere [[instinct]] of animals, as well as the divine commandment or "blessing" to take dominion over the entire [[natural world]].

:::*"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." King James Version, Genesis 1:28
:::*"God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." New International Version, Genesis 1:28

:::You are free to believe [[Feuerbach]]'s view that, "Man is a [[higher animal]] which developed from animals through the process of [[evolution]]." As a writer here, you are free to trace the source of this view, and to tell which scientists agree with it. But please don't assert it as [[truth]]; you might try telling us what percent of biologists or other scientists agree with it, though. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:22, 20 January 2010 (EST)

::It is regrettable that you conflate the meanings of ''animal'' as a neutral term for certain types of organisms, ''animal'' as a colloquial term for non-human animals, and ''animal'' as a pejorative description for a human being who acts upon their most base impulses. As a piece of scientific terminology, no such negative connotations are intended.

::Couldn't the article have the standard scientific meaning of ''animal'', and then state that "colloquially, however, 'animal' is usually taken to mean any non-human animal...etc"? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:37, 16 January 2010 (EST)
::Or, you could have it the other way around, put the Biblical definitions first, and then add that the scientific definition of ''animal'' is any multicellular (etc, etc...), including humans. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:45, 16 January 2010 (EST)

::I find the above statements interesting considering the human bring article that is linked to says: ""Human being" is a term for a human that emphasizes the role of a human not merely as a social animal, but a thinking person." We are social animals, we by all scientific definitions are part of the animal kingdom, this article ignores the established biological taxonomies completely while taking one author's religious views as undisputed fact, when it is obviously not. That is not encyclopedic, nor is it honest. Instead it should be noted in the article that virtually all scientific classification in biology has our species as part of the animal kingdom. The reasons are clear, because we share all the basic definitions in biology of what falls into the kingdom Animalia. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 19:12, 16 January 2010 (EST)

* virtually all scientific classification in biology has our species as part of the animal kingdom

Yes, that sentence should be in the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:40, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Ian, at the risk of being pig-headed, let me point out that "the scientific definition" is merely a viewpoint of [[physical science]]. We take a broader view of [[Science]] here, including the [[social sciences]]. [[Anthropology]], [[psychology]], [[economics]], [[political science]], [[history]] and so on need not adhere to the [[naturalism]], [[atheism]], or even the [[agnosticism]] of modern liberal science.

The assumption that religious or supernatural ideas cannot or should not be studied, is not inherently scientific (see [[methodological naturalism]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:36, 16 January 2010 (EST)

===(extra section break inserted to help things out)===
:I was a bit arrogant to "close" discussion on this point. Sorry! Let's keep talking - and not just because I have something new to say, although I admit that helped me to realize my mistake. :-)

:*Feuerbach's materialism defines the [[human being]] as a [[higher animal]] which developed from [[animal]]s through the process of [[evolution]]. [http://www.unification.org/ucbooks/cncc/cncc-02.htm]

:Conservative thought opposes this view, so on an editorial basis alone any encyclopedia would have to make its readers aware of the controversy over this point. We can't simply say that man "is an animal" on the basis of [[scientific standards]] used in [[biology]].

:Moreover, we need to explain '''why''' biologists assert that human beings are animals. Is it just because the human body is so obviously [[mammal]]ian? Or are they expressing an ideology which denies such ideas as [[life after death]], the existence of the human [[soul]] or [[spirit]], and (greatest of all) the doctrine that God created man in His image?

:There's more here than meets the eye, and I'd rather not let liberals or anyone else sweep these issues under the rug. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:11, 20 January 2010 (EST)

::First I must point out that not all conservatives disagree with the evolutionary theory. I hold many conservative views and I accept fully evolution. For me conservatism is a political concept, while evolution is a concept of science. Other may disagree of course, but that I where I am coming from, I just wanted to mention this so as to be straightforward and honest in my views.

::Biologists assert human are animals based on biological definitions of what an animal is. In basic biological terms animals are eukaryotic, heterotrophic, lack rigid cell walls, are motile (even if at only certain sages of life), it is a very broad category and most people misinterpret the biological term with more colloquial (and often ill-defined) terms for the word. However humans do have all these attributes. The first person to come up with a taxonomic classification for animals was Carl Linnaeus and he place humans in that kingdom, note this was a century before the theory of evolution existed, Linnaeus was a creationist.

::In this view, souls and other metaphysical ideas are not considered as they are not part of biology. I do not object to writing about metaphysical concepts when it comes to humans (us) but those are separate subjects and should have their own entries. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 15:01, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:::As a theological issue I think this matters to my work on the CBP, specifically [[Ecclesiastes_(Translated)#Chapter_3]] 18-22 please go take a look. --[[User:SamF|SamF]] 15:12, 20 January 2010 (EST)

::::Myself, I don't think the actual answer matters to Ecclesiastes, because (according to my analysis) Solomon wrote this book while he was an idolater - so he got a lot of things wrong. (Perhaps this page isn't [[Talk:Ecclesiastes|the best place to discuss this sub-topic further]]...) --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 15:18, 20 January 2010 (EST)

I don't know why you all keep repeating the eukaryotic bit; I wasn't ignoring you. But you seem to be missing the main point I'm making.

There is more to a person than his [[human body]], and biologists have apparently decided not to study or even acknowledge aspects of human beings which make them entirely distinct from animals. In fact, along with Feuerbach and Lenin they have ideologically chosen to assert that humans evolved naturally from animals; that's why we are animals.

We need not propagate the erroneous assumptions of biologists, or their short-sightedness. Science is more than just [[physical science]]. [[Anthropology]] and [[psychology]] are sciences, and they are by no means required to adhere to liberal, anti-religious positions such as [[methodological naturalism]].

Linneaus is free to put humans where he wants. Meanwhile, God has put us where He wants. Pick a side, my friend. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:11, 22 January 2010 (EST)

:"There is more to a person than his human body, and biologists have apparently decided not to study or even acknowledge aspects of human beings which make them entirely different from animals."
::Yes, exactly. There is more to me than my body, but the study of such things doesn't fall within the remit of biology. Biologists study our biological nature, in which we are not all that different from apes and other animals; anthropologists and sociologists study other areas about us in which we are remarkably different. Sociology and anthropology add much to our understanding of our species, but they cannot tell us anything about our biological nature. It's like if we were studying a country, and some people study the history in great detail, others the geography, others the culture, others the language, etc... No one person studies the "whole thing", and it's not shortsightedness on their part; it's necessary so that we can gather as much information as we can. If we all tried to do everything, we would get a broad but shallow understanding. I think you're reading too much into it to say that scientists have some other, ulterior motive to "deny" the things that set us apart from other animals. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)

Talk:Animal

2010-01-16T23:53:26Z

Eoinc: /* Are humans animals? */

Talk:Animal

2010-01-16T23:45:25Z

Eoinc:

Talk:Animal

2010-01-16T23:37:26Z

Eoinc:

Talk:Animal

2010-01-16T22:28:48Z

Eoinc: /* Are humans animals? */ new section

Talk:Best of the public

2010-01-14T18:32:17Z

Eoinc: /* Definition */ new section

== A third "Invisible Hand?" ==

Andy,

I think you may be underestimating the importance of the concept you've articulated. It seems to be that best of the public, when applied to an academic endeavor, creates a third "Invisible Hand"--an "Invisible Hand of Insight," if you will, with the power to lead to deeper and more powerful insights than conventional, expert-dominated processes.

Indeed, it may well be that best of the public is, in fact, the driving mechanism behind '''all''' of the Invisible Hands. Certainly, Smith's Invisible Hand can only function in a free market, where the best of the public is free to produce goods and generate wealth. The Invisible Hand of Marriage only functions in a society where those who believe in the value of the family are free to marry and raise children to share those values--again, the best of the public coming to the fore.

Thus, best of the public would be a central force. When applied to economic matters, it would result in Smith's invisible hand; when applied to social matters, it would result in the Invisible Hand of Marriage, and when applied to intellectual, it would result in the Invisible Hand of Insight.

In fact, best of the public provides a powerful means of explaining exactly why big government liberalism is so harmful. Invariably, dependency on big government intervention interferes with the best of the public, and thus, with the ability of the Invisible Hands to act.

Really, a remarkable piece of insight. It succinctly and concisely identifies the engine behind conservatism. Well done, indeed!

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:18, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:That's brilliant, Ben. You (or the public!) could develop your marvelous insight further!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:38, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::Well, thank you, Andy! I'm honored and flattered that you find it so. I'll certainly work on this (and I hope others will, too)...but perhaps tomorrow, when I'm not nodding off at the keyboard. :) Have a pleasant evening! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:46, 15 December 2009 (EST)

I think there may be Coase theorem implications as well. When property is owned individually, by the public, regardless of what property or who owns it, an economic system flourishes. However when property is owned collectively, even by well meaning institutions run by experts and people who think they know best for others, economic decline and catastrophe are inevitable. It is almost as if an invisible hand guiding the public works better than the all too visible hand of the experts. --[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 23:00, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:I may work this into my final lecture for my Economics class, which I must complete tomorrow (Wednesday). Perhaps students -- and the best of the public here -- can develop it even further!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 15 December 2009 (EST)

== Boston Marathon ==

It's not quite true that "anyone can enter" the Boston Marathon--I cannot,as I have yet to meet their standard of completing a marathon with a time better than 3 hours 10 minutes (the minimum required for a male in my age group). [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 00:54, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:That's a new strict condition. Good point to raise it. I'll replace the Boston Marathon with the New York Marathon to avoid that issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:52, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::It's interesting to note that the Boston Marathon has resulted in few world records--one men's and two women's, none more recent than a quarter of a century ago--and all three of those were controversial in some way. On the other hand, the Chicago Marathon, which lacks the restrictive entry requirements of the Boston Marathon--has had four, and the Berlin Marathon--which prides itself on the number of people who participate, and also doesn't appear to have an entrance requirement--has had 7, the most of any marathon. This would seem to be strong corroborative evidence that the best of the public principle is valid; otherwise, you'd expect the races that only allow "expert" runners to produce the most records. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's an intriguing insight, Ben--you should add it to the article, and I should consider setting my marathon goals "lower" and find a cheap flight to Berlin!! [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 19:40, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::::The Chicago Marathon actually sets so many records because it is held in a very mild time of year, and Chicago is an incredibly flat city. The Fargo Marathon features a similar route without hills, and is used by many to qualify to the Boston Marathon.--[[User:Rcgallup|Rcgallup]] 23:09, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Would somebody please add to our [[Marathon]] article the number and type of records set at each major venue? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:48, 26 December 2009 (EST)

The [[Boston Marathon]] is only for runners who have completed at least one marathon, and they must meet the designated time standard that corresponds with their age group [http://www.marathonguide.com/news/regfeatures/BostonQualifying.cfm]

The [[US Open]] tennis championship runs a free qualifying tournament beforehand, [http://queens.about.com/cs/sports/a/us_open.htm]
but top players don't have to qualify.

The US Open chess tournament has a $135 registration fee (waived for grandmasters).

So there is somewhat of a [[barrier to entry]], but it seems intended just to weed out people who aren't serious about competing. It's not like academic [[peer review]], which is often abused to censor new ideas that challenge the mainstream. In America, many sports and games are genuine arenas of competition where skill and ability can rise to the surface. (I must make an article about this.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:44, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:I think that's a good distinction to make, Ed. If I really wanted to run in the Boston Marathon, I could go out and run around my block to train. Eventually, I'd be in good enough shape to make the grade, and could easily do so by running in a smaller marathon. I wouldn't have to go to "Marathon School," or establish my bonafides; there wouldn't be a panel of marathon runners sitting in judgment to determine whether or not my running technique was worthy of inclusion. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:55, 26 December 2009 (EST)

== Kasparov vs. the World ==

This is a fascinating article and I'm sure you're on to something here. I have another apparent "counterexample", the close consideration of which I hope can lead to new insights on this topic, and I certainly don't expect to refute it. In 1999 the chess champion Kasparov played a match in which his opponent's moves were decided by popular vote. More than 50,000 players participated, but Kasparov emerged victorious nonetheless. Do you have any reflections on this match, and can it help refine the notion of "best of the public"? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 19:47, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:That seems much more like an example of mob rule than of Best of the Public! If the opponent's moves were the ''best'' suggested moves rather than just the ones the mob voted for, I suspect Kasparov would have had a harder time. What we're doing here at CP isn't decided by popular vote of 50,000 random people; rather it is truly the best of the public. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 19:55, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::Daniel raises an excellent point. Simple majority vote doesn't ensure that the best of the public will prevail. If anything, it makes it very difficult. Suppose ten of those 50,000 players were capable of beating Kasparov. All of them saw clearly which moves would defeat him; all of them voted for those moves. Unfortunately, twenty thousand not-so-good players all voted for a different set of moves--resulting in a win for Kasparov. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:03, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::Benp hits it right on the nose. Kasparov's victory just shows he's better than the average chess player, since good and bad players voting on moves will be average. We already knew Kasparov was better than average. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Super point by JimR, and even better responses. As noted in response, we don't decide by majority vote here. The winner of a gold medal at the Olympics is not chosen by popular vote either.

::::The better analogy is if Kasparov played a "best of the public" opponent consisting of a ''Conservapedia''-like, rule-based process for welcoming, accepting, debating and then making each move. Timing would be an obstacle but in the real pursuit of knowledge there are no constraints of chess clocks. Kasparov would lose a contest against the best of the public. Indeed, if the best of the public could use computers, as our best of the public can, there would be no doubt that Kasparov would lose.

::::Thanks for the tantalizing point that illustrates how powerful the "best of the public" is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Ah, you're right of course! But that there could be ten of those (non-expert) players capable of beating him seems extremely unlikely to me -- any such player could turn professional and make large sums of money, and so probably would for economic reasons. On the other hand I am sure that for each move, there were members of the public who found the ideal move, one which would give the best overall chance. Can this fit into the theory? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 20:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Although I am not sure of the exact situation in this particular game, I have seen games played on other forums following this format. What tends to happen is one or two people (self titled "experts" usually) monopolize the conversation and shut out the rest of the people who want to contribute. Since the public views are largely ignored by a vocal minority who are more interested in self aggrandizement than success, the process results inevitably in failure.--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::As an interesting aside, this is perhaps much why Wikipedia is such a failure - a vocal minority want to argue and set aside the persuasive arguments of others primarily for their own sense of well being rather than helping the project.--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Brilliant point. I suppose it is a thin line between the "best of the public" and the "worst of the public"! Wikipedia, with its lack of meaningful rules, approaches the "worst of the public." As with the US Constitution, the rules make all the difference in bringing out the best of the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)

A better analogy with the advancement of knowledge would be Kasparov playing 100 games simultaneously against the best of the public. Kasparov would lose nearly all of those games. Limiting the contests to just one game at a time artificially helps Kasparov in a way that is not realistic in the search for knowledge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:Actually, this is a common event in chess (called a "simul" for short), in which a grandmaster plays a large number of members of the public at once. Usually the master dominates the event, while losing a few games -- in one performance the great Jose Raul Capablanca played 103 games simultaneously, winning 102 of them and settling for a draw in the other. Kasparov has played these too and I don't think he ever lost nearly all. Now, perhaps this isn't the "best of the public" he's up against, but if he's playing against more specialized members of the public, aren't these just more experts? Understand that I appreciate this observation, and I'm just hoping to refine my understanding of it! --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 22:05, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::What I don't think has happened yet, Jim, is the type of process Andy's describing: determining the next move not by majority vote, but by the sort of group deliberation, collaboration, and consideration that routinely takes place here on Conservapedia. As pointed out, time would be a factor in that, since such deliberation takes time. If we remove the time factor, though, it could very well be that the best of the public would be able to collaborate to determine superior moves. Certainly, it would be an intriguing experiment. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::It occurs to me that the most interesting experiment might be one that just cut Kasparov out entirely-- Have a chess match between the mob and the Best of the Public. Let one side's moves be determined by a majority vote and the other's by the Best of the Public. Can there be any doubt who would win? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 22:25, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Having a chess game where the public goes up against the public is an interesting concept, but wouldn't prove anything. It is a fairly safe assumption to make that we don't share brain power or intelligence directly with other human beings. We can collaborate and share ideas, which can lead to new discoveries, but I can't add my brain power directly to BenP's intelligence, and Andy can't use mine. One other thing: what exactly makes the 'best of the public'? Is it Education, scope or depth of knowledge, morals? Is it an amalgamation of traits, and if so, which traits? In my opinion it begets a slippery slope. -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 22:52, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::In response to JimR, I am familiar with those simultaneous matches, and I recall my brother [[User:RSchlafly]] competing in one as a youngster (and as a member of the public) when a grandmaster visited our small town. As I recall, the expert beat everyone except RSchlafly, who was then playing simply as a random young member of the public.

:::::But while that made for a powerful childhood experience, it wasn't what I really meant here. I suggested Kasparov playing 100 games simultaneously against opponents, ''each'' of whom consisted of a process generating the best of the public. If Kasparov focused all his efforts on one or two of those matches, then he might win those, but he would lost perhaps 98% of the matches overall (simultaneous matches are difficult for the person who must hop from board to board). This set-up of course allows the public to harness its greater numbers to its advantage, as often many minds are better than one. But this is a closer analogy to the advancement of knowledge than artificially limiting the contest to merely one chess match between one man and everyone else, a structure that benefits the one man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

To me, the idea of the public, collectively knowing what is a better solution, or having the power to best the so-called experts, mirrors the ideas put forward by Ronald Reagan.

It was Reagan, at his first inauguration, who famously declared that '''"in this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; ''government is the problem.''"''' President Reagan went on to outline his idea that the "common citizen" was more likely to come up with the right solutions to our problems than all the government "experts" combined.

Of course it is a proven fact that all of the great innovations of America have come from the public, not experts or Big Government. Perhaps I am being too obtuse here, drawing a comparison to the ideas of Reagan and Andy's point. To me the similarities seem striking! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 04:42, 18 December 2009 (EST)

==What's the difference between "experts" and "the best of the public?"==
:This is an interesting discussion, though I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between an expert and the "best of the public." Isn't an expert precisely that, someone among the public who was gifted enough at something to go through specialized training and become even better? From my own experience, I had a certain degree of musical talent as a child, but would not have excelled had it not been for great teachers and hours of hard work. I calculated the other day that I've practiced the piano somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000 hours in my lifetime, with probably around 2000 of those being intensive private work with a teacher of some kind. It's probably true that one of my gifted 10-year-old students could play better on a good day than I could on a bad day, but the experience does count for a lot.

:I realize that when it comes to certain problems (the kind of systemic problems Reagan talked about come to mind), common sense counts for a lot more than expertise. But at any rate, I don't see how translating the Bible or playing chess is more a matter of common sense than experience. That's why Kasparov vs. the World shows precisely that talent and expertise can beat amateurs putting their heads together. Having thousands of hours of work under your belt gives you a much more comprehensive perspective, much more depth, than having a few good and untested ideas. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:03, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::I agree completely, and I feel you are exposing an aspect of the problem which needs to come to light. There is a difference between [[expertise]] (as in actually having the skill of playing the piano well) and holding the status of an [[expert]]. Expertise must be manifested, while being called an expert is often only political.

::They awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore, even though he knows nothing about [[global warming]] science and has been scolded by British courts for lying to the public. He's an example of the kind of "expert" who retards progress in science and the humanities.

::The promise of online encyclopedia projects is that contributors with true expertise (such as yourself) will emerge. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:32, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:::Excellent points, but in response to JDWpianist an "expert" is a particular type of person who pursued a particular credentialing path. It usually entails years of specialized learning from ages 16 to 25, at the sacrifice of other activities or pursuits. Typically experts are from middle or upper class families that value credentials. Women who have children during those ages -- the most natural ages for childbearing, are disqualified. Also, criticizing the mainstream or saying something politically incorrect is a disqualification. Only a tiny percentage of the public fits this narrow track of an "expert".

:::The best of the public draws on the entire population, including those who worked full time during the formative age group but developed expertise later, and those who reject the politics of academia. With the far greater numbers and freedom from political restraints (politics in the sense of political correctness), the "best of the public" is far better and yet is remains a largely untapped resource. Obviously there is self-interested opposition by entrenched interests to even developing this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:48, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::(Replying to TK above) An excellent modern example of one person getting the answer when hundreds of government experts were failing is the [[Challenger disaster]]. It was maverick physicist [[Richard Feynmann]] who deduced that rubber sealing rings exposed to excessive cold had cracked. Meanwhile, all the "experts" were going through a process that almost seemed designed to '''hide''' this fact.

::Of course, if Feynmann weren't a celebrity he never would have been able to penetrate the stonewall of the investigation (coverup?), but that's precisely my point. At Conservapedia (and some other online encyclopedia projects), we are opening up the possibility of criticizing the mainstream - and we are showing the mainstream to be wildly incorrect in many instances. The recent exposure of the climate fraud (see [[Climategate]]) is something we've been covering here for over 2 years.

::But it's not just us on the Internet (a purely American invention, by the way). It's American democracy, with [[freedom of the press]], which allows the best ideas to bubble up and reach the surface. No one can put a lid on the truth here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:11, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:::Ed brings up an interesting example, and I can think of a few other cases in the sciences where a non-expert or group of non-experts has had important ideas. It would be an interesting experiment to attempt to harness the "best of the public" toward a specific problem in science. For example, if I set up a Wiki with rules along the lines of CP (or even just used CP), recruited helpful and skilled editors, and had access to the most important data, what is the chance that the editors would be able to improve on the theory of relativity, showcasing the power of the "best of the public"? I think the answer is probably no. But perhaps such a program could succeed with something a little easier first. I more interested in the principle of the thing and the limitations of the BoP methodology. Do you think it would be possible to utilize the best of the public in such a manner, toward a very specific goal? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 10:43, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::::Well, let's take a slightly different example. If you took a group of students and showed them an "unsolvable" math problem, what are the odds that the best of them would be able to solve it, when the solution had eluded the experts for years? Of course, this is a little bit of a trick question, as it actually happened--George Dantzig, a student, copied down two problems from the board. Not realizing that they were on the board as examples of theorems for which nobody had been able to work out a proof, he proceeded to do exactly that. Had he known that the problems were "unsolvable"--in other words, had he been more fully immersed in the subculture of expertise--he likely wouldn't have even attempted to solve them. It might not work so well all the time, but it undoubtedly works. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:52, 18 December 2009 (EST)

'''To Andy:''' That's an interesting distinction, the first time I've heard it put that way. Still one point for me is unclear. Are you saying that the "best of the public," as per your definition, is made up of people who '''do''' have expertise in a field, just not the credentials required for them to be called "experts?" Or are you saying, rather, that one does not need to invest time and hard work in a field at all to contribute meaningfully to it?

'''To Ed:''' There's a certain blindspot that can indeed occur with experts: I'm no conspiracy theorist, so I'll always assume "groupthink" over "coverup" in these types of situations unless extraordinary evidence surfaces. As to this blindspot, I'm reminded of a quote from the great British music-critic Donald Francis Tovey, noting that when approaching certain complex musical passages, analysts can be guilty of "making an exhaustive chemical analysis of a plum-pudding and omitting to ascertain that the cook had boiled it in a cloth." Sometimes the simplest explanations are invisible to the technically-minded experts, but we also can't forget that the right answers are always found by people who know their stuff, whatever their credentials. In other words, Joe the Plumber could not have made any meaningful guess as to what brought the Challenger down. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 18:15, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:JDWpianist, you still seem to cling to the "expert" point of view, as though being "smart" means having superb insights, while not being "smart" means an incapability to do so. In fact, excellence can appear from unexpected places. Bob Beamon set a record for the long jump that lasted perhaps 30 years even though he was not generally a great long-jumper. Or purely mechanically, a broken clock is ''more'' precise than a working clock is, twice a day. Some of the very best songs (e.g., American Pie) have been by artists incapable of anything comparable.

:Whether you understand occasional insights as inspired achievement, the work of the Spirit, or simply luck, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that greatness often comes from outside of the recognized experts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::But how to decide when a broken clock is precise? To check the two times a day, you need another chronometer, i.e., a kind of expert in time-keeping :-)
::It's the same problem as with Perelman's proof: you need someone to recognize that something marvelous has happened.
::Take for instance the ''squaring of a circle''. Every mathematician knows that it is impossible, using only a ruler and a compass. But nevertheless, there are lots of ''members of the public'' who think that they found a way, and are just ignored by the ''mainstream mathematicians''...
::AFAIK, in the beginning of the 20th century, the university of Goettingen employed a mathematician just for the task to refute all the attempts of laymen to proof Fermat's conjecture: many of the public where inspired by Paul Wolfskehl's reward, all of them were wrong.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:56, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::(edit conflict)
::(You can call me John by the way...) Actually, I have a very open mind about this, as it's been clear to me for a long time that creativity and inspiration are very different animals than competence and technique. And all of these are still different from the issue of "credentials" you gave earlier. Your "American Pie" example blurs the lines between these: it was a great song written by a competent professional singer/songwriter. The fact that Don McClean was able to write a song at all shows that he at least knows how to sing, how to play an instrument or two, how to set text to a melody, and how harmony works together with melody. Any one of these are considerable technical achievements, and that's why not everyone can write a song, much less a good one. The fact that he hasn't come up with anything comparably great has little to do with his abilities as a musician, and more to do with a lack of inspiration or creativity.

::My biggest question is still with the definition of expert. Ideas are different things than achievements, don't you agree? Would the Wright Brothers have succeeded without expertise in engineering, math, and a deep understanding of scientific trial and error? Those skills did not fall from the sky. So are you saying that your definition of "expert" is only a matter of credentials, regardless of abilities obtained through practice and hard-earned knowledge? Or are you saying that the "best of the public" don't need credentials '''or''' an ability to turn ideas into achievements? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:21, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:::John, an "expert" is someone who has traditional credentials, is recognized by his peers, and plays the system often to maximize credit for himself. If you're suggesting I'm somehow against learning and hard work, I'm obviously not. Contributions by non-experts typically, but not necessarily always, are by people who picked up their own knowledge through hard work and non-conventional paths. There can be "flashes of genius" too, like the woman who woke up in the middle of the night with verses to the "Battle Hymn of the Republic." If you're determined to deny a role for inspired wisdom, then obviously I'd disagree with you about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:52, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::An expert ''plays the system often to maximize credit for himself''. This addendum to your prior explanation guarantees at least that no one will see himself as an expert under your definition.
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 01:01, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Frank, what are you talking about? Let me tell you about myself. I love math, and my career goal is to become a math professor - do what I love all day and get payed for it? Sign me up! In order to do this, I have to make sure that my work is accredited to me. I freely admit that in pursuing my goal of becoming an expert in mathematics, I will try to make sure that my work is attributed to me. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:11, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::::*at least for me,''playing the system'' seems to invoke only negative connotations
::::::*would you say that Perelman is an ''expert mathematician''?
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:03, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you're defining expert as somebody who is extremely good at something, as you seem to be inclined to do. If you accept our position here, then no, since he [http://top.rbc.ru/society/22/08/2006/94703.shtml doesn't even work in the field]. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:59, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::FrankC, your talk, talk, talk is contrary to our [[90/10 rule]]. Your solitary substantive edit in your last ten is of a trivial nature. Please contribute substantively, for your benefit and that of others.

::::::::In response to your question, Perelman ''rejected'' an attempt by "experts" to honor him as one of their own: he ''declined'' the Fields Medal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::Gee Andy, if you put it that way, who would want to call himself an expert? :)

::::All joking aside, this is a very stimulating topic, and I believe that there are some very vital issues being raised by the whole debate, some of the most vital I've seen on Conservapedia so far. That's why, you'll notice, I came into this thread not with criticisms and complaints, but only with questions.

::::That being said, I'll agree to disagree on your definition and many of the examples on the main page, for several reasons. I'll lay them out for you, and you can feel free to integrate what's valuable to you and ignore the rest:
::::*As my quip at the top implied, this definition has such a negative slant that it basically ensures no one will dare disagree with the formulation "The best of the public is better than a group of experts." It's the classic [http://www.richarddooling.com/index.php/2006/11/08/if-by-whiskey-before-the-campaign-speeches-fade/ "if by whiskey"] problem. When you said up above that I "seem to be clinging to the expert position," I would have to agree with you, but only according to the dictionary definition of expert: "A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject."
::::*This definition lumps all areas of knowledge or skills together. This is especially a problem with fields in which experts, by your definition, simply ''do not exist''. Take your musical examples: it's essentially meaningless to call pop/rock singer/songwriters "the best of the public," because there's no such thing as a credentialed path in pop songwriting. Artists rise or fall from obscurity based on the quality or popularity of their songs, and there's no clique of credentialed pop songwriting academics conspiring to keep anyone out. Therefore, everyone who writes a song or a song text, by your definition, is "the best of the public." These examples, and any others having to do with creative pursuits, are strawmen.
::::*It's the same problem with inventions that represent something radically new. Take the Wright Brothers: at the time they invented the first successful flying machine, there were no "aviation experts." There were lots of ''competitors'', some who had successfully scored government grants, and like with any new invention, there were several competing factions and a lot of harsh words thrown around. This is not the same as a clique of credentialed elitist experts trying to keep the Wright Brothers out of the picture. By definition, whenever something new is invented, your kind of "expert" is nowhere to be found.
::::*Your definition excludes professions where credentials are desirable and even necessary. Obviously, you would prefer a surgeon who's been to medical school performing your triple bypass, or a licensed pilot flying the plane you're on. Perhaps this problem solves itself, because your concept deals mostly with innovations and new insights, whereas these fields I mention require competence and conservatism by definition. Still, it might be a thought worth considering as you sharpen your argument on the main page.
::::*To sum it all up, the definition you created is applied inconsistently in the page's examples. I would recommend narrowing the page's focus to the fields with a real opposition between groupthinking closed-minded experts and open-minded mavericks.

::::For the record, I do think that you're on to something very important with this concept. The dialectic of "inspired wisdom" vs. "entrenched thinking" is a compelling one. As a musician, teacher, and writer on music, I deal with this problem daily in my own work. It's my hope and prayer that after I've become one of those entrenched members of the academic establishment, I'll still have an open mind for ideas that come from outside of the maistream. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:34, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:::::John, you make many points in your comment above. The bottom line is that you deny how wrong, how biased, and how unproductive groups of experts are. For example, in the Wright Brothers case you avoid the basic point and instead remark that there were no "aviation experts" at that time. Aviation is simply a branch of mechanical engineering; it existed and its experts insisted that heavier-than-air flying machines were impossible. Similarly, re: music, your comments are again off-point to the observation that one-hit wonders are better than what the "expert" musicians produce in pop music.

:::::The fundamental insight here is not simply opposition by the establishment, but rather that the best of the public really is better at innovating, at communicating, at open-mindedness, at being free of fear of retaliation, and at honesty than any group of experts is. There are many, many reasons experts are second-best, yet you only recognize one or two.

:::::This debate illustrates how efficient a political explanation is. Liberals ''prefer'' a system of control by experts because experts can be so easily influenced and controlled themselves. The global warming scam is just one of many illustrations. Also, liberals rely on reassurances by experts that, for example, Hell somehow does not exist. It's a misplaced reliance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:05, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I had intended to just let my suggestions stand, but I think you've fundamentally misunderstood my position, so I'll try to clarify it:
::::::Your main point, as I understand it, is that in every field there is a group of credentialed experts who are the gatekeepers of all ideas falling under their domain. Because of their narrow-mindedness and orthodoxy, they are unable to produce any radically new insights. Therefore, people who fall outside of this group, "the best of the pubic" as you call them, will produce the most interesting insights. Have I understood this much correctly?
::::::The problem with this model is, if there's no group of credentialed experts in a certain field, then there's nothing to compare. If "the best of the public" represents anyone outside of this elite group, then without the elite group everybody counts as the best of the public.
::::::According to your definition there '''''is''''' no group of recognized experts in creative fields; you can't go to the university and get a songwriting degree, there are no distinguished professors in songwriting at Princeton (last I checked). In your last post, you said something about "expert" musicians, but then you're falling back on the traditional definition, not your own. The fact that your original definition doesn't work with pop music means that either the definition is flawed, or the examples do not match your definition.
::::::My basic position is, I'm in total agreement with the spirit of your argument: that essentially, the best ideas come from outside of the established modes of thinking. But I believe the main page does not yet express that concept with clear-headed logic, as there are too many examples that do not fit with your definitions. You've embraced a very narrow definition of "expert" and are unable to use it consistently through to the end. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:54, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::John, I don't see logic or specifics in your comment. "Nothing to compare," you say. Of course there's something to compare: the output of experts to the output of the best of the public. And in every field, the latter wins easily, as the many specific examples show.

::::::::You keep returning to music and ignoring all the other fields, but the same observation holds true in music. One-hit wonders are an undeniable phenomenon, and they surpass the best of the experts. The "credentialing" in music includes acclaim by peers and the prestige of insider awards and status, just as in other fields. The Beatles were experts, yet no song they produced was as good or as appreciated as the one-hit wonders.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:17, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::Andy, I guess we're just talking past each other now. That probably means it's time that we agree to disagree and call it a day. Again, congratulations on a fascinating new concept, and good luck as you refine it further. Merry Christmas to you and your family. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:50, 23 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::::That's kind of you John. We can always revisit this issue some time next year. Merry Christmas to you and your family!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:00, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Andy, were the Beatles really experts? Yes, they certainly knew a good deal about music and were payed to make it, but were they trained as musicians? Eventually they became acknowledged as one of the best bands, just as eventually Galois is now recognized as a brilliant mathematician, but does that make them experts? I'd say both are examples of the best of the public! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:38, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:Galois is a superb example to add to the entry. The Beatles were thoroughly embraced and given awards and held out to the public as "experts". Academic training in music seems less significant, as John pointed out. But there's room for debate at the margins.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::Andy and JDW are in partial agreement, and I hope the article can reflect that agreement. But as for me, I'll just say that there have been many times when the "credentialed crowd" has used their credentials as a crowbar to hit newcomers over the head when they challenged mainstream expertise. That's the real story here.

::Now, the challenger can often be a mere beginner. I've lost count of how many situations I've walked into, where I could see clearly what others were overlooking. Some people call this beginner's luck. But there are many situations when an outsider or newcomer has been able to point out a marvelous new approach to an old problem - which, sooner or later, comes to be recognized as having hit the nail on the head.

::I might be departing a bit from the theme of "best of the public" here, but going off on tangents is what I do best around here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:16, 24 December 2009 (EST)

== Linux/open-source an example of this? ==

Is this reasonable to add to the [[Linux]] article? I thought I would ask this here, instead of the talk page for Linux, to hopefully reach more members and get some feedback. Even though many of the developers throughout the [[Open source|open source movement]] could be considered experts (in the colloquial sense that they know their field very well and apply that knowledge with considerable dedication and skill) they are not experts in the modern sense. I would argue that the collaborative efforts of the open source community could be considered the "[[Best of the public]]," as even computer users without programming knowledge file bug reports and use the products daily, therefore increasing the quality incrementally. [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 11:31, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Excellent insight. Please do include this example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::Thank you; I'll include this immediately. [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 12:06, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:::Even Microsoft acknowledges this power:
:::*"The ability of the [[open source|OSS process]] to collect and harness the collective IQ of thousands of individuals across the Internet is simply amazing." [http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html leaked internal memo] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:19, 18 December 2009 (EST)
::::I updated the [[Open source|open source]] and [[Linux]] articles accordingly. Should I add your reference to the open source article, Ed, or leave that to you? I feel we should include it as a great testament to its progress (especially if Microsoft feels partially threatened by it, as other parts of your link seem to indicate).[[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 12:28, 18 December 2009 (EST)

== Perelman ==

I don't know for sure about the rest of the details, but calling him an "unknown" is an exaggeration. Perelman received a PhD from a top university and was already noted for his slick proof of the "Soul theorem" in Riemannian geometry, which had already become commonly taught. No, he wasn't a leading mathematician, but he was not unknown by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 11:12, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:The Perelman example is quite interesting: who ''decided'' that Perelman found a proof? The public? No, a couple of experts... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:08, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::What you have to understand is that "best of the public" doesn't exclude experts, or make light of their expertise. It just acknowledges the very obvious truth that they're not the ''only'' ones with expertise, and allows other voices and other perspectives to be heard. Rather than "I'm an expert, therefore you have to listen to my ideas," it's "You have good ideas, therefore we will listen." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:32, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::(edit conflict)I expected the Perelman example to ruffle the feathers of expert-defenders, precisely because it illustrates the point so well. I don't think "Perelman received a PhD from a top university," though I have an open mind about it (I think he received something other than a PhD from an institution ranked nowhere near the international top). More importantly, Perelman was not given a permanent job, was not recognized as an expert, and indeed was somewhat ostracized by the experts to the point where he was left to produce his great work on his own from his mother's apartment. Then an expert allegedly tried to take the credit!

:::Note that Perelman himself has been highly critical of the expert mentality in mathematics, to the point where he sacrificed much money to turn down the experts' honors. Sorry, not even mathematical experts are better than the "best of the public," despite the discomfort some will have with that revelation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::At the risk of beating the drum too loudly on ClimateGate, it was outside mathematicians (not climate "experts") who showed the [[Michael Mann]]'s denial of the worldwide [[Medieval Warm Period]] was statistically unsound (at best) and really just a crude example of [[academic fraud]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Excellent point, Ed. Could you add an item to the entry about who those outside mathematicians were? (I don't know).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:57, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::::*[[Climategate mathematicians]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I'm not arguing that Perelman doesn't belong on the list, I'm arguing that to call him an "unknown" is simply wrong. He had done other fairly important work before this. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:08, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::You are probably right about his degree not being from a top university internationally; but it was at Leningrad, one of the top schools in Russia. He then held positions at Steklov, SUNY Stony Brook, Berkeley, and Courant. These are all major research centers -- off the top of my head I can name Fields medalists currently at each of them except Courant, and it wouldn't surprise me I'm forgetting one there too. Perelman apparently had job offers from Stanfold and Princeton -- such offers go only to the very top prospects, and certainly not "unknowns". --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:23, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Wow, you're awfully tough on me here, JimR. You can decide for yourself whether you're applying a [[double standard]] in your reaction. Note, for example, in a very well-written article by the liberal Independent, it describes Perelman as an "unknown Russian" right in its headline.[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/has-an-unknown-russian-quietly-solved-a-puzzle-that-has-baffled-the-finest-mathematicians-for-a-century-538077.html] Is that article also objectionable?

::::::::As to your statement that Perelman "held positions," those positions were insulting for someone on track to produce the greatest proof of our time. Those schools may well have Fields medalists in respectable positions, but that's the point: Perelman was never offered a respectable position commensurate with his talent. Your argument is as fallacious as bragging that a brilliant coach was offered a staff position ... as water boy.

::::::::Tell you what: I'll change "unknown" to "little known." OK?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:34, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::Looks good to me. Thanks! --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 19:14, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== Manhattan project ==

The ''Manhattan project'' seems to be an ultimate example for a great innovations of America which came not from the public, but from experts and ''Big Government''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:12, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:But follow the project back to its roots, Frank. You'll find that many of those whose ideas led the government to pursue that line of research are a splendid example of "best of the public." Nobody's saying that experts can't take the ball and run with it, but frequently, it's someone outside their little circle who tosses the ball in the first place. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:38, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== Wright Brothers ==

People seem keen to find counter-examples, so let's talk about some examples. What about the Wright Brothers? They certainly weren't part of any elite fraternity of engineers--neither one even graduated from high school. Their endeavors were greeted with open mockery and accusations of fraud from the "experts" of the aviation community, particularly in Europe. They're certainly one of the finest examples of what American ingenuity and can-do attitude can accomplish. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:15, 19 December 2009 (EST)
:(whacks own forehead in mock despair) I should have thought of that myself! Not only did they make a lighter, more powerful engine, but they weren't professionals at all: mere bicycle mechanics, really. And yet they solved the crucial aspect of [[powered flight]]: controlling the aircraft in the air. Their idea of warping the wings prefigured [[ailerons]], and was the chief reason their flights succeeded while everyone else's ended in crash after crash. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:59, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== Galileo ==

Another maverick, wasn't astronomer [[Galileo Galilei]] largely self-taught? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:01, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:Galileo isn't a clear-cut case. He was more of a political figure who was wrong about some basic stuff (like tides). His own contributions were not substantial.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:48, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::What's about [[Albert Einstein]]? In 1905, he was an unknown clerk at a Swiss patent's office, but the leading experts of his field instantly accepted his work! [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 17:27, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::Intriguing suggestion, but also potentially confusing because Albert Einstein is so widely publicized as the quintessential expert today. Someone reading the entry might think, "If Einstein isn't an example of an expert, then who would be?"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:39, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::It seems like sometimes overcompensation occurs. A member of the public is scoffed at by the experts, turns out to be right, and is eventually put on a pedestal and held to be infallible. I doubt that Einstein would approve of the way people treat his theories as if they were unquestionable. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:04, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::''"If Einstein isn't an example of an expert, then who would be?"'' The same can be said about mathematicians in general - most of the public will shy away from this area. And though the feuds over precedence between mathematicians are legendary ([[Cardano]]/[[Tartaglia]],[[Newton]]/[[Leibniz]]), generally mathematicians are more respected for their work than their positions and titles (Paul Erdős).
:::::But it's a game played by experts in front of other experts: the ''public'' doesn't understand most questions (''Consider a compact 3-dimensional manifold V without boundary. Is it possible that the fundamental group of V could be trivial, even though V is not homeomorphic to the 3-dimensional sphere?''), and even less the answers (''No'').
:::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:34, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: The public is 6 billion people and, yes, many of them are capable of understanding higher math. Your comment, Frank, illustrates the very harm caused by an "experts only" mentality. By false pretending that no one else can understand something, the "experts only" mentality shuts out and censors many people who are brighter and more productive than the arrogant experts ... as Perelman and others like him are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: But Perelman is an expert:
:::::::''an "expert" is a particular type of person who pursued a particular credentialing path. It usually entails years of specialized learning from ages 16 to 25, at the sacrifice of other activities or pursuits.''
:::::::He filled his years of ''specialized learning'' with a degree of a ''Candidate of Sciences'', the soviet version of a Ph.D. He didn't dibble around with mathematics as an amateur ([[Fermat]]), he was a full-time scientist.
:::::::He's an eccentric expert, but an expert nonetheless.
:::::::BTW, the segment of the 6 billion people who understand mathematics way beyond ''higher math'' are called ''experts'' or ''mathematicians'' (well, sometimes ''physicists'').
:::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:12, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Frank, you're simply redefining "expert" more broadly once you see how members of the public achieve more than experts do. In Perelman's case, he didn't even have a math job, and he expressly criticized and repudiated the math experts who control the field. Apparently Perelman has even given up math because of the suffocation (and non-productivity) caused by the math experts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:21, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::*When he proved the theorem, Perelman had a ''math job'' (several, I think...)
::::::::*Aren't you an expert in law? Do you have a ''law job''? If you hadn't, would you be no expert any longer?
::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:23, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::''Justice'' seems to be an interesting test for your principle: though ''juries'' introduce a public element (I don't think that they are meant to be the ''best of the public''), it doesn't seem to be a good advice for a defendant to do without an expert counsel, i.e., a lawyer. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:45, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::...but haven't you just answered your own question, Frank? If expertise was the be-all and end-all of justice, then there would be no need for a jury; the matter would be entirely in the hands of the judge and the attorneys. However, the Founding Fathers, while respecting the expertise of such individuals, ultimately chose to trust in the wisdom of the public to render a verdict. Would you argue that their choice was unwise? I think our system of justice has worked out pretty well, personally. In fact, I think you may have offered up one of the finest and clearest examples of the principle yet. "Best of the public" is ''exactly'' what jury deliberation represents--the faith that a group drawn from the public, without any special credentials or qualifications, can, through deliberation and collaboration, achieve insight. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:27, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::::I like the jury example too. Cases aren't decided by panels of lawyers, but by a (hopefully) representative sample of one's peers, drawn from all walks of life. They don't have to have expertise in law to be given good instructions by the judge as to what laws matter in the case at hand, and they are trusted to use those instructions and the evidence to render a fair verdict. It's not a perfect system, but I feel there are no better alternatives so far. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:02, 22 December 2009 (EST)

== Formatting ==

Would it make more sense to create a section for the examples under the table of contents? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:06, 19 December 2009 (EST)

: That would be great, Ben! Please continue to improve as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:48, 20 December 2009 (EST)

== A different take on this ==

I've been reading this thread and watched the Colbert segment mentioned in the article, and I think I figured out the inherent problem with the phrase "The best of the public is better than a group of experts".

As others have pointed out above, the best of the public are often experts themselves. The definition of "a group of experts" was then qualified to state that it's not expertise that's bad, but the groupthink, stubbornness or elitism that can result when experts in a field have a reluctance to embrace radical change or innovative ideas even when they are proven to be right. That's why I like the open source analogy - Microsoft was content to decide how fast the browser should be improved and in what ways, but the Mozilla project was more innovative because it was driven bottom-up by merit instead of top-down by policy.

Christianity experienced this when Martin Luther posted his Theses. He was certainly an expert on religion and the Bible, but his ideas were out of favor with the ''establishment'' leading the Catholic Church, which was resistant to change. His work didn't invalidate Catholicism, but public acceptance of his insights led to some bad practices being ended by the Catholic Church, and triggered the entire Protestant Reformation.

In short, it's not expertise that's the problem, it's a group of people declaring that they are the gatekeepers for contributions to a field of expertise, and subsequently stifling innovation. What I'd suggest as an alternative is this: "The best innovations of the public can outdo the ''established'' experts". This isn't as catchy as the original, but it seems to hit the core point without sounding as self-contradicting. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 00:30, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:You make some interesting and challenging points, and I hope to respond more fully tomorrow. But as a quick response, I feel you overlook key issues, such as "inspired wisdom" (e.g., Gospel of Mark, or authorship of "Battle Hymn of the Republic") and also how "expertise" can have a blinding effect as well as a beneficial one (e.g., Wright Brothers, Fosbury Flop). In sum, any alternative articulation of the rule would have to explain the many examples, and I'm afraid yours isn't quite there. But thanks for sparking thought about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:21, 22 December 2009 (EST)
::I'm not looking to take anything away from contributions that comes from flashes of insight, but those are really in a different category altogether. It seems like harnessing of the power of individuals shouldn't necessarily depend on some of them having inspired moments of insight or inspired wisdom, because I thought the whole point of the original comment is that the best ideas need to be allowed to surface and circulate regardless of how they came about.
::I'm also not sure I understand how my comments overlooked what you call thee "blinding effect of expertise". What I was trying to say is that when experts form an establishment that acts as the filter, judge and jury of new ideas in a given field, the result can be helpful (i.e. in determining the safety of new drugs before they are allowed to be sold) or harmful (i.e. tying up the use of valuable radio spectrum while "expert" stakeholders with billions at stake decide how it should best be used). In an ideal world there can be any number of experts out there, but little to no barrier for the circulation and promotion of the best ideas from among them. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 08:44, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:::ChrisY, you don't specifically address the many diverse and specific examples of where the "best of the public" is better than any group of experts. And I don't see anything ambiguous or confusing about the phrase the "blinding effect of expertise." Becoming an expert means committing oneself to a particular approach, and that obviously has a blinding effect on innovation and alternative approaches. An alternative approach might even discredit an expert's lifetime of work, which no one would expect him to welcome. It's been observed that innovation cannot occur until the older generation of "experts" passes away, and even that the 40 years of Israelites wandering in the desert was intended to erase the debilitating mindset of slavery. "Experts" have a mindset, and it's less productive than the best of the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:05, 22 December 2009 (EST)

It's typical of liberals to muddy the waters with verbal quibbles. Everyone knows what we meant when we said the public can often outdo the experts. The word ''expert'' is clearly understood in that context, Chris, to mean "established experts" or "acknowledged experts". Only a fool (or an enemy) would think (or suggest) that we meant that having expert knowledge was useless.

If I see any more of this malarkey here, I'm going to start deleting comments and blocking accounts. Kindly confine your comments to points that are relevant to improving the article.

It's one thing to disagree, and that sort of feedback can often be editorially valuable, but to pretend not to understand is [[liberal deceit|deceitful]]. You have been warned. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:17, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:Thanks, Ed, for your sage remarks and policy. Honestly, the more I review the objections here, the more I think it boils down to this: liberals cling to the (absurd) view that experts ''define'' the truth, and can eliminate accountability (like Hell). Such a view is shocked by the reality that experts are not even as good as the best of the public at what the experts do, let alone about things experts know nothing about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::I offered some constructive comments above that were described by others as "interesting and challenging", and now they're "malarkey". Sorry I said anything at all, Ed. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 20:05, 22 December 2009 (EST)

== Examples, part 2 ==

We have many examples of the best of the public making extraordinary achievements, but non of experts being wrong or creating obstacles. Off the top of my head, Lord Kelvin claiming heavier than air flight was impossible and that radioactivity was impossible. I'll try and think of more examples (not right now, I am leaving for a 5 hour drive in a few minutes) but soon. What does everybody think of these kinds of examples? Worth including? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:40, 23 December 2009 (EST)

:Sounds great. That's interesting about Lord Kelvin.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 23 December 2009 (EST)

::I almost think that should be an article unto itself. It's certainly an important topic. Not sure what it would be called, though. "Expert Obstructionism?" "Expert Error?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:14, 23 December 2009 (EST)

:::The obstructionism is a bigger problem, but the error is a problem too and its term is more concise and easier to remember. So I'll start "[[Expert Error]]" and have another entry called "[[Expert Obstructionism]]" that redirects to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:33, 23 December 2009 (EST)

::::I would strongly recommend going back to the line of "Expert Obstructionism", which is an actual problem. There's nothing wrong with anyone, even experts, making errors as long as they are accepting of being corrected. To criticize error itself is to criticize the spirit of risk-taking, which I doubt folks here want to do. I recall Edison saying something along the line of "I can fail many times, but I only have to succeed once", and the number of failed attempts at a viable light-bulb filament before his success. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 09:38, 24 December 2009 (EST)

:::::You make a valid point, but "obstructionism" is a clumsy label and errors by experts are a big problem and intrinsically different to correct. An expert's insistence on an erroneous position is inherently obstructionist, so in practice there may be little difference between the two labels. If you see something included where an expert erred but welcomed correction, then let's discuss it, but those examples are few and far between.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:36, 24 December 2009 (EST)

::::::You're right, Andy. How about "Expert Blindness" or "Expertise Blindness"? This is simpler, and ties into points you've made above. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:13, 24 December 2009 (EST)

* As an ethnic Hungarian, [[Ignaz Semmelweiss]]' status as an outsider seemed to undermine his credibility and, despite the clear evidence that he compiled, doctors refused to accept that they were killing their own patients. [http://drvitelli.typepad.com/providentia/2009/01/the-semmelweiss-mystery.html]

He was the first to compile systematic and practical evidence for what later came to be known as Pasteur's [[germ theory of disease]]. He was truly the "best of the public", but vilified and rejected by the experts of his time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:53, 24 December 2009 (EST)

:Superb suggestion, Ed. I'm familiar with that case and it does illustrate the point well. Would you like to add it?

:Chris, I don't think "blindness" is an appropriate metaphor. "Blindness" implies an ''involuntary'' disability. Expert errors and obstructionism are very intentional.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 24 December 2009 (EST)
:::For those who are interested in expanding [[Expert Error]], there are a TON more in my one reference that I haven't added (some because they weren't experts in the field they were commenting on, eg, Einstein on geology) but are still very interesting. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:24, 24 December 2009 (EST)

::::I also see a tie-in to [[Upward mobility]], a concept that liberals routinely ignore with a deafening, reverberating silence. They love to pretend that our economic system is so unfair as to be repressive, when precisely the opposite is true: we've designed it to all cream to rise to the top. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:50, 26 December 2009 (EST)

==[[Founding Fathers]]==
America can be thought of as the best of the public. The framers came together as a group, not as experts but to represent the colonists. The nations articles of confederation were crafted in such a way that describes authentic representation, public servants, elected by the public, serving the needs of the public and not themselves. Nobody back then would believe that the public, on its own, would come to the same conclusion and separate from the British Kingdom.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:02, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:That's really odd. I could've sworn I'd included our democratic republic as an outstanding example of "best of the public"--as opposed to the European ideal of "expert" hereditary nobility, or the mobocracy of pure democracy. Did it get removed for some reason? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:50, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::Ah, found it--it was in the text of the article, but not the list of examples. Fixed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:55, 26 December 2009 (EST)

== Lincoln ==

Your "Best of the Public" is a terrific idea! I've watched CP for some time and I've been really impressed with the quality of conservative thinking here. I've made my first humble attempt at contributing to your great encyclopedia and I really hope you appreciate it. [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 18:08, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:How about some more "humble" edits that are even better? Lincoln was a wealthy railroad attorney, a congressman in the 1840s, has a monument in his honor today, and is praised by every expert from here to Kalamazoo. Surely we can find better examples of non-experts today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:20, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::But he ''wasn't'' an expert in national politics when he became president! [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 18:47, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:::Your example raises more questions than it answers. Lincoln was more qualified than other potential and actual presidents, and it's unclear what you think Lincoln achieved that an expert would not have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::::I wonder, though: would [[Sarah Palin]] qualify? Though she's certainly an established figure today, she worked her way up to the governorship of Alaska largely on her own merits, which in turn prompted McCain to select her as his running mate. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:16, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::::Thank you for responding to my point, Mr Schlafly. Clearly you are more expert on this than I am and I stand corrected. I simply thought that the contrast between Presidents Lincoln and Buchanan was a striking example of the much less qualified (much less expert!) person becoming a much greater president. Does any other US president fit your concept of the "best of the public" achieving great things? Chester Arthur, maybe? A tax-cutting president who brought honesty back into national politics. [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 19:20, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:::::"Alec", your sarcasm is silly, and your knowledge of history is not overwhelming. Lincoln had been on the national stage for years before being nominated and elected president. His contest in 1858 against Stephen Douglas, for example, attracted national interest and substantive debates. How about some substantive editing now?

:::::Ben raises an interesting question about Palin. She does succeed against the best efforts of the experts. She did have an early impact on the health care bill, but perhaps it's too early to assess her achievements. I've got an open mind about that interesting pick, though, and perhaps it would make for good addition, at least on a tentative basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:29, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I cheerfully admit that, being British, my knowledge of USA history is not comprehensive. But it doesn't seem very polite to describe my description of Chester Arthur as sarcastic. I understood he rose from complete obscurity on the national political stage to become a much-respected president. Clearly I got that one wrong and I defer to your expertise. I shall try to think of some "Best of the Public" in a different field of achievement. [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 19:36, 26 December 2009 (EST)

[[Abraham Lincoln]] is an example of the parallel concept of "[[self-made man]]". He also courageously bucked a major trend ([[slavery]]) and made a lot of insightful observations on human nature and society. Let's not try to fit every round block into a square hole.

Several non-contributors have logged in merely to dispute the major point of the article, rather than help us contributors write it. They have muddied the waters, brought up irrelevant points and so on. Clearly liberals dislike the idea that individuals can contribute to society by marching to a different drummer. They want us all to dance to their tune, or to sit back passively while they establish a totalitarian dictatorship where they can call the shots.

If they could create a genuine paradise by taking away our freedom, I suppose I might be interested (in a theoretical way), but since the track record of the anti-freedom crowd has only and always been sheer misery, then they'll have to count me out. Liberals praise communism and socialism as progressive trends which naturally arise when the time is right, but real progress in the world is almost always made by outstanding individuals. Sometimes, these men are credentialed experts, but all too often the experts are the people who tell you that your discovery is impossible. (Like the farmer who, when told what a giraffe looked like, said, "There ain't no such animal.")

The best of the public are people who (despite their lack of credentials or position) have made important contributions to American life and often even world-wide benefit. We need to provide more support for these pioneers and whistle-blowers, rather than trying to destroy them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 29 December 2009 (EST)

==Stopping terrorists and other mass murderers==

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126180624205805587.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read Yawn] how many more examples do we need? Here, a passenger - not a "trained flight attendant" - subdued some fool trying to set an airplane seat on fire. And don't forget the [[Colin Ferguson]] case, where two stockbrokers talked it over before deciding to tackle the Long Island Railroad shooter.
The supreme case is the [[9/11]] Pennsylvania downing of Flight 93 (see [[Todd Beamer]]).

Experts failed to stop the Middle East man who only wanted to "steer" (not take off or land) a jumbo jet, fearing lest the as investigators they would be charged with "[[racial profiling]]" for '''correctly''' identifying someone who fit the terrorist profile.

Then there are all the school shootings when a teacher (not a cop or security guard) runs to his car, gets his gun, and stops the killer with a shot - or the mere '''threat''' of a shot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:58, 26 December 2009 (EST)
:This clearly proves why less gun control is needed. The more sane people with scatterguns in their trunk, the less likely someone is to try shooting ("Are ya feeling lucky?). [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 20:02, 26 December 2009 (EST)

== Question ==

Isn't this an ambiguous, uncertain, open, indistinct, doubtful concept, like "public interest" or "common well-being"? Who decides what is "best of the public" anyway?

Happy 2010! --[[User:Evelyn|Evelyn]] 11:53, 27 December 2009 (EST)

: Interesting comment, but isn't your suggested focus on "who decides" illustrative of the problem with experts? Why is it necessary for anyone to "decide"? No one "decides" for everyone else, for example, who wins the gold medal in the 100-meter dash at the Olympics, or whether 2+2=4.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:53, 27 December 2009 (EST)

::Sorry I couldn't reply you earlier, but Mr. Poor prevented me from doing it. Anyway, it seems that those examples of "Best of the public" demonstrate that "experts" are not necessary, which would be a great mistake. As an "approach to education, scholarship, and biblical translation", as you boldly stated, the best of the public is still a very open concept, and ultimately does it work only after it has been validated by everybody, or what? --[[User:EvelynM|EvelynM]] 21:25, 27 December 2009 (EST)

Andy makes a good point here, and this certainly works for matters of mathematical certainty, but what about those more subjective instances? Music, especially, comes to mind as a field in which no one can say objectively what the "best" is, nor is "expert" even well-defined in the field of popular music. What makes The Beatles experts but not Don McLean? I believe both were largely self-taught, and neither had extensive training in performance or composition at institutions such as Julliard. The Beatles were more successful, but certainly success does not equate to expert or the idea of best of the public is a paradox. I think Elvis is a better example of an expert, as most of his hits were written by other professional/expert songwriters, and the same goes for much of the pop music of today. [[User:DanL|DanL]] 10:23, 28 December 2009 (EST)

== Definition ==

The definition of "Best of the public" is currently scattered along the length of the article. Many of the supporting examples are given before the term has been explained, and the reader must piece it together for himself over the course of reading the full page. If it's alright with others here, I'm going to try to attempt a clear definition of the term to put in the opening paragraph. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 13:32, 14 January 2010 (EST)

The best of the public

2010-01-14T18:22:53Z

Eoinc: Redirected page to Best of the public

#REDIRECT [[Best of the public]]

Talk:Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity

2009-12-18T01:32:12Z

Eoinc: /* problems witht the use of "Logic" */

This is a well stated and completely rational essay that is sure to draw much criticism. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 08:35, 16 December 2009 (EST)

The essay seems to go beyond Christianity into speculation in order to try to gin up a contradiction. For example, you claim that "God sets a standard of behaviour which is so high that He knows no man can attain it." Where is the justification for that premise, on which your conclusion is based?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 16 December 2009 (EST)
:To enter Heaven, without first needing to be saved or forgiven by God, a man would need to live a perfectly sinless life. This is not achievable by any person ("for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"). God knows this because of man's Original Sin. This is not mere speculation on my part; it's a widely-accepted theological concept. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 17:57, 16 December 2009 (EST)

I see this as a perfectly logical article. Though it simply could be taken to arrive at the rationale that God is a merciful God who is willing to bend the rules of logic in order to arrive at a conclusion that would save all men save those who reject it. Though it could also expose a flaw in the teachings of Christianity if we apply much of our own standards of logic. Though that merely begs the question of who would have the more supreme logic, man or God? I know it sounds like a cop out but it really should be taken into consideration for this discussiom even if only on theoretical grounds. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:07, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Neither the essay or the comments here even cite or quote the Bible. Hence the title of this essay needs to change. Any suggestions? If none, then I will move this to "Essay:Logic and One Man's View of Christianity"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:13, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly with all due respect he paraphrased the Bible in his last comment. Or does in your opinion a paraphrase not even come close to a quote? Unless you have a valid argument against this articles points or something of your own to contribute it would be nice if you simply stayed out of the discussion as it is very thought provoking and an interesting debate. Inserting a rather pointless comment about changing the title is completely redundant and against the purpose of the discussion. Please put in a comment on content or an argument for or against in your next response as stimulating the discussion is what this essay is for.--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:38, 16 December 2009 (EST)

:The quote "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin", which is uncited in the essay, is Hebrews 9:22. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", here on the talk page, is Romans 3:23. The requirement that man should live a perfectly sinless life is Matthew 5:48. Jesus' role as a sacrificial victim is first described in Isaiah 53:6.
:My reference to "earthen vessels" is an allusion to Isaiah 29:16 and Jeremiah 18:6.

:I generally prefer to paraphrase or allude to scripture, because we are all Biblically-literate here, and I assume people can recognise the references even if I don't cite chapter and verse. So, yes, it is true that I did not provide footnotes, but the scriptural basis is there in plain sight (for those with eyes to see).

:The foundational assumptions which I mentioned are found in:
:* Genesis 1, 2
:* Timothy 2:4
:* Revelation 21:27
:* Romans 6:23
:* Hebrews 9:22

:What follows from that is my (very minimal) analysis of that. Most of it consists of the construction of an analogy. If what I had written had been more along the lines of "so, if we take the Christian message ''X'' to be true, then ''Y'' and ''Z'' can be deduced from that, and if ''Z'' is true, then that leads us to ''A'', ''B'', and eventually to ''C''....", then it would be fairer to call it "one man's view". But in fact all I've done is to restate the Christian message. The "final catch" in my last paragraph is the well-known John 3:16. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:42, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::Your essay is very interesting, as it shows how Jesus is trying to reach to you, and how you struggle with what you've been falsely taught. You fall just short of explicitly stating the alleged 'contradiction' in the Bible, in the manner you describe here (if X then Y thus Z). I think it would be very beneficial for yourself if you tried to, as you would have the opportunity see where your argument fails. Regards,--[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 08:17, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::(EC) There is far too much interpretative distortion in this essay for this to be entitled "the Bible." Just to take your first example from Hebrews 9:22 about shedding blood, that is a reference to mostly ''animal'' sacrifice in the Old Testament tradition, the audience of the essay (Letter ''to the Hebrews''). Yet your essay treats that like it must always mean the shedding of human blood.

::An essay on "Logic and One Man's View of the Bible" is fine and welcome. But you haven't limited your essay close enough in the Bible to call this "Logic and the Bible."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::Yes, Hebrews 9:22 refers to the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law. I referred to the shedding of blood, I never said it always needed to be human blood, and I expect anyone familiar with the Bible to know that too. However, I did not make that distinction explicitly clear, so for that I apologise. Under the Mosaic Law, animals were ritually sacrificed as part of atonement for sins. Jesus's death functioned as the ultimate, perfect sacrifice, capable of cleansing ''all'' people of ''all'' their sins once and for all, without the need for any further sacrifices. Or have I been misinformed countless times by countless Christians? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 09:53, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Eoinc, you're trying to sing a tune of one view Christianity, but it's slightly off key and even if it were on key it would be merely one view. That's fine for you to try, but you're not sticking to the Bible as the entry title pretends. The Letter to the Hebrews is exactly that: an effort to evangelize Jewish people by casting Christianity in terms of their tradition. From one level of indirection, you then jump to two more levels of indirection, and then try to find a logical problem. The trouble is, the problem is more likely to be in your extrapolation than in the Bible.

::::The Bible is completely logical. If you stick with that, then we can have a productive discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly again with respect please try to contend with what is being said. Your comments are counter productive. As the previous commentator stated Eonic, You are merely reading one view of the Bible. Though I'm slightly fuzzy on the point your trying to make about a perfect sacrifice. Yes Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, yes Jesus forgives all sins. You are reciting something we all know. I'm assuming your point is why are we not all instantly granted salvation then?--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

: Andy - I trust we can have a productive discussion without needing to assume from the outset that your point of view is right and that mine is wrong. That may turn out to be the conclusion that we reach, but it is not the place to begin.
: You say that my view of Christianity is slightly off key, and that it is only one view. I'd like to clear this up first, before we talk about anything else. My understanding of Jesus's role in the New Testament is the sacrificial Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. Like the lambs at the first Passover, whose blood stained the doorsteps of the Jews in Egypt and thereby saved them from the angel of death, or the animals of whom burnt offerings were made to atone for sins, Jesus's death and resurrection purges man of his sins and rescues him from death. This is the view I have absorbed from reading the Bible, singing hymns ("there is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel's veins / and sinners washed beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains", or ''salvatoris hodie sanguis praegustatur in quo Sion filie stola candidatur'' - today is the Saviour's blood first tasted, in which the daughters of Zion whiten their robes), reading tracts handed to me on the street and engaging the street preachers in discussion, debating with Christians on the internet, etc...
: So, before I proceed any further with my argument, can you explain where my summary is off-key, or where my misunderstandings lie? I was under the impression that this was the orthodox Christian view, so it's something of a surprise to be told that it's just one view (one among how many others?). [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:46, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:: Eoinc, your entry has the wrong title if you want to debate a Christian view. Your title "Logic and The Bible" implies that you're going to actually start from the Bible, quote from it, translated it, dissect it, and so on. You're not doing that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:57, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::: Can you please explain where I have misunderstood or misinterpreted the concept of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb, ''before'' we worry about whether I chose the right title? I'd like to stick with one point at a time. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:04, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Eoinc, you're doing everything ''except'' basing your analysis on translating, analyzing and quoting the Bible. I'm going to change the title to avoid the misleading use of the Bible in it. Pick another title, such as "Logic and One View of Christianity."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Eonic, maybe it would be best if you simply ignored Mr. Schlafly for now as he does not appear to be interested in debate. Though my question to you is now that you have reached your point. I must ask where does the illogical contradiction stem from?--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 19:22, 17 December 2009 (EST)

: (EC) I had been writing that I object to the renaming of the essay, on the grounds that it assumes I am wrong. My essay does not concern itself with translating the Bible, but it represents a core Biblical message in a manner which I feel was critical but accurate. Therefore, I would need to be shown otherwise before I agreed that the title needed to be changed. But now I see that Andy has changed the title anyway.
: But never mind. What's done is done. Now that the title is more to your liking, Andy, can you explain where I am wrong in my above summary? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:: Matthew2208, I hoped that I had explained myself clearly on the essay page. What I'm describing is not a formal logical contradiction, but a more informal case of a logical absurdity. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::: I see now. You just appeared to be deviating from the essay in the comments. I disagree with your point since (to use a crude analogy for now) it would be sort of like a judge giving out a pardon and the only catch is that people accept it. Would it then be illogical for the judge to say that all who did not accept the pardon should then recieve the punishment?--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 19:49, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::: Well, yes it would. In a courtroom, if the judge decides to pardon the defendant, but the defendant doesn't accept it (whatever that might mean, perhaps he protests the decision and maintains that he doesn't deserve to go free), it doesn't make a difference. If the court pardons you, you're pardoned whether you like it or not. The courts aren't going to punish you just because you didn't agree with the decision. The second objection is that the judge isn't simply handing out pardons, he's taking the punishment on himself, which seems like an unnecessary step. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::If you're arguing that people who thumb their noses at a presiding judge are not punished, that's wrong. Similarly, people who thumb their noses at God are sent to Hell. Do you even mention Hell in your essay? Jesus spoke about Hell more often than Heaven.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:09, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: A fair point. But before we go any further off track, can you please explain where I am wrong in my summary (posted at 18:46)? I'd like to get that issue resolved before trying to build on it. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 20:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)

== problems witht the use of "Logic" ==

I note that you are using the term "logic" in a manner that I am unused to. Now this is not necessarily wrong, but it is confusing to me.

You say: ''the above statement is logical, IF:'' [the following are true] x, y, and z (etc)

to my mind an argument is logical based upon the reasoning used to get from the premises to the conclusion, irrespective of whether the premises are true or not.

Thus the following argument is perfectly logical:

All dogs have 5 legs
Rover is a dog
Therefore ''Rover has 5 legs''

even though we would rightly reject the first premise.

This essay seems to be disputing the truth of the premises rather than the logic of the argument of the bible --[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 19:55, 17 December 2009 (EST)

: Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. If you accept the many premises as true, then the Christian teaching (at least as I understand it) follows logically. However, the premises themselves are not immune to questioning. I agree that this is not true formal logic. As I mentioned in the opening paragraphs, I'm using "logical" in the more colloquial sense of reasonable, sensible or persuasive. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)
: Or, to rephrase my approach in a more properly logical manner, a conclusion can be said to be true if the premises preceding it are true '''and''' if the argument is valid. The argument appears to be sound, so instead I am questioning the premises. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 20:04, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::::Fair enough. Allow me to extrapolate the argument from your essay you are using so that we can see what the premises are that you dispute.

1 A God exists, who created the world and mankind,
2This God desires for mankind to dwell with Him in Heaven,
3This God dislikes some actions taken by man, and cannot allow men who have offended Him to enter Heaven,
4This God requires that retribution be made for these offenses,
5The only acceptable form of retribution is death,
6God refuses to forgive sins unless a blood sacrifice has been made.
7God sent His son down as a sacrifice
8This sacrifice remits all past present and future sins
9However in order to avail oneself of the sacrifice, one must have faith and belief in it

''Therefore Forgiveness is granted to those who believe that the sacrifice took place''

I think we agree that this is a logical argument. Please elaborate on which premise (1-9) you seek to deny.--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 20:13, 17 December 2009 (EST)

: I look forward to discussing this further, but it's now 1:30 am over here, and I need to get to bed. I'll respond tomorrow. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity

2009-12-18T01:18:44Z

Eoinc:

Talk:Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity

2009-12-18T01:04:50Z

Eoinc: /* problems witht the use of "Logic" */

This is a well stated and completely rational essay that is sure to draw much criticism. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 08:35, 16 December 2009 (EST)

The essay seems to go beyond Christianity into speculation in order to try to gin up a contradiction. For example, you claim that "God sets a standard of behaviour which is so high that He knows no man can attain it." Where is the justification for that premise, on which your conclusion is based?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 16 December 2009 (EST)
:To enter Heaven, without first needing to be saved or forgiven by God, a man would need to live a perfectly sinless life. This is not achievable by any person ("for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"). God knows this because of man's Original Sin. This is not mere speculation on my part; it's a widely-accepted theological concept. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 17:57, 16 December 2009 (EST)

I see this as a perfectly logical article. Though it simply could be taken to arrive at the rationale that God is a merciful God who is willing to bend the rules of logic in order to arrive at a conclusion that would save all men save those who reject it. Though it could also expose a flaw in the teachings of Christianity if we apply much of our own standards of logic. Though that merely begs the question of who would have the more supreme logic, man or God? I know it sounds like a cop out but it really should be taken into consideration for this discussiom even if only on theoretical grounds. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:07, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Neither the essay or the comments here even cite or quote the Bible. Hence the title of this essay needs to change. Any suggestions? If none, then I will move this to "Essay:Logic and One Man's View of Christianity"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:13, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly with all due respect he paraphrased the Bible in his last comment. Or does in your opinion a paraphrase not even come close to a quote? Unless you have a valid argument against this articles points or something of your own to contribute it would be nice if you simply stayed out of the discussion as it is very thought provoking and an interesting debate. Inserting a rather pointless comment about changing the title is completely redundant and against the purpose of the discussion. Please put in a comment on content or an argument for or against in your next response as stimulating the discussion is what this essay is for.--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:38, 16 December 2009 (EST)

:The quote "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin", which is uncited in the essay, is Hebrews 9:22. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", here on the talk page, is Romans 3:23. The requirement that man should live a perfectly sinless life is Matthew 5:48. Jesus' role as a sacrificial victim is first described in Isaiah 53:6.
:My reference to "earthen vessels" is an allusion to Isaiah 29:16 and Jeremiah 18:6.

:I generally prefer to paraphrase or allude to scripture, because we are all Biblically-literate here, and I assume people can recognise the references even if I don't cite chapter and verse. So, yes, it is true that I did not provide footnotes, but the scriptural basis is there in plain sight (for those with eyes to see).

:The foundational assumptions which I mentioned are found in:
:* Genesis 1, 2
:* Timothy 2:4
:* Revelation 21:27
:* Romans 6:23
:* Hebrews 9:22

:What follows from that is my (very minimal) analysis of that. Most of it consists of the construction of an analogy. If what I had written had been more along the lines of "so, if we take the Christian message ''X'' to be true, then ''Y'' and ''Z'' can be deduced from that, and if ''Z'' is true, then that leads us to ''A'', ''B'', and eventually to ''C''....", then it would be fairer to call it "one man's view". But in fact all I've done is to restate the Christian message. The "final catch" in my last paragraph is the well-known John 3:16. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:42, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::Your essay is very interesting, as it shows how Jesus is trying to reach to you, and how you struggle with what you've been falsely taught. You fall just short of explicitly stating the alleged 'contradiction' in the Bible, in the manner you describe here (if X then Y thus Z). I think it would be very beneficial for yourself if you tried to, as you would have the opportunity see where your argument fails. Regards,--[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 08:17, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::(EC) There is far too much interpretative distortion in this essay for this to be entitled "the Bible." Just to take your first example from Hebrews 9:22 about shedding blood, that is a reference to mostly ''animal'' sacrifice in the Old Testament tradition, the audience of the essay (Letter ''to the Hebrews''). Yet your essay treats that like it must always mean the shedding of human blood.

::An essay on "Logic and One Man's View of the Bible" is fine and welcome. But you haven't limited your essay close enough in the Bible to call this "Logic and the Bible."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::Yes, Hebrews 9:22 refers to the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law. I referred to the shedding of blood, I never said it always needed to be human blood, and I expect anyone familiar with the Bible to know that too. However, I did not make that distinction explicitly clear, so for that I apologise. Under the Mosaic Law, animals were ritually sacrificed as part of atonement for sins. Jesus's death functioned as the ultimate, perfect sacrifice, capable of cleansing ''all'' people of ''all'' their sins once and for all, without the need for any further sacrifices. Or have I been misinformed countless times by countless Christians? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 09:53, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Eoinc, you're trying to sing a tune of one view Christianity, but it's slightly off key and even if it were on key it would be merely one view. That's fine for you to try, but you're not sticking to the Bible as the entry title pretends. The Letter to the Hebrews is exactly that: an effort to evangelize Jewish people by casting Christianity in terms of their tradition. From one level of indirection, you then jump to two more levels of indirection, and then try to find a logical problem. The trouble is, the problem is more likely to be in your extrapolation than in the Bible.

::::The Bible is completely logical. If you stick with that, then we can have a productive discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly again with respect please try to contend with what is being said. Your comments are counter productive. As the previous commentator stated Eonic, You are merely reading one view of the Bible. Though I'm slightly fuzzy on the point your trying to make about a perfect sacrifice. Yes Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, yes Jesus forgives all sins. You are reciting something we all know. I'm assuming your point is why are we not all instantly granted salvation then?--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

: Andy - I trust we can have a productive discussion without needing to assume from the outset that your point of view is right and that mine is wrong. That may turn out to be the conclusion that we reach, but it is not the place to begin.
: You say that my view of Christianity is slightly off key, and that it is only one view. I'd like to clear this up first, before we talk about anything else. My understanding of Jesus's role in the New Testament is the sacrificial Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. Like the lambs at the first Passover, whose blood stained the doorsteps of the Jews in Egypt and thereby saved them from the angel of death, or the animals of whom burnt offerings were made to atone for sins, Jesus's death and resurrection purges man of his sins and rescues him from death. This is the view I have absorbed from reading the Bible, singing hymns ("there is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel's veins / and sinners washed beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains", or ''salvatoris hodie sanguis praegustatur in quo Sion filie stola candidatur'' - today is the Saviour's blood first tasted, in which the daughters of Zion whiten their robes), reading tracts handed to me on the street and engaging the street preachers in discussion, debating with Christians on the internet, etc...
: So, before I proceed any further with my argument, can you explain where my summary is off-key, or where my misunderstandings lie? I was under the impression that this was the orthodox Christian view, so it's something of a surprise to be told that it's just one view (one among how many others?). [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:46, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:: Eoinc, your entry has the wrong title if you want to debate a Christian view. Your title "Logic and The Bible" implies that you're going to actually start from the Bible, quote from it, translated it, dissect it, and so on. You're not doing that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:57, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::: Can you please explain where I have misunderstood or misinterpreted the concept of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb, ''before'' we worry about whether I chose the right title? I'd like to stick with one point at a time. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:04, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Eoinc, you're doing everything ''except'' basing your analysis on translating, analyzing and quoting the Bible. I'm going to change the title to avoid the misleading use of the Bible in it. Pick another title, such as "Logic and One View of Christianity."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Eonic, maybe it would be best if you simply ignored Mr. Schlafly for now as he does not appear to be interested in debate. Though my question to you is now that you have reached your point. I must ask where does the illogical contradiction stem from?--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 19:22, 17 December 2009 (EST)

: (EC) I had been writing that I object to the renaming of the essay, on the grounds that it assumes I am wrong. My essay does not concern itself with translating the Bible, but it represents a core Biblical message in a manner which I feel was critical but accurate. Therefore, I would need to be shown otherwise before I agreed that the title needed to be changed. But now I see that Andy has changed the title anyway.
: But never mind. What's done is done. Now that the title is more to your liking, Andy, can you explain where I am wrong in my above summary? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:: Matthew2208, I hoped that I had explained myself clearly on the essay page. What I'm describing is not a formal logical contradiction, but a more informal case of a logical absurdity. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::: I see now. You just appeared to be deviating from the essay in the comments. I disagree with your point since (to use a crude analogy for now) it would be sort of like a judge giving out a pardon and the only catch is that people accept it. Would it then be illogical for the judge to say that all who did not accept the pardon should then recieve the punishment?--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 19:49, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::: Well, yes it would. In a courtroom, if the judge decides to pardon the defendant, but the defendant doesn't accept it (whatever that might mean, perhaps he protests the decision and maintains that he doesn't deserve to go free), it doesn't make a difference. If the court pardons you, you're pardoned whether you like it or not. The courts aren't going to punish you just because you didn't agree with the decision. The second objection is that the judge isn't simply handing out pardons, he's taking the punishment on himself, which seems like an unnecessary step. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)

== problems witht the use of "Logic" ==

I note that you are using the term "logic" in a manner that I am unused to. Now this is not necessarily wrong, but it is confusing to me.

You say: ''the above statement is logical, IF:'' [the following are true] x, y, and z (etc)

to my mind an argument is logical based upon the reasoning used to get from the premises to the conclusion, irrespective of whether the premises are true or not.

Thus the following argument is perfectly logical:

All dogs have 5 legs
Rover is a dog
Therefore ''Rover has 5 legs''

even though we would rightly reject the first premise.

This essay seems to be disputing the truth of the premises rather than the logic of the argument of the bible --[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 19:55, 17 December 2009 (EST)

: Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. If you accept the many premises as true, then the Christian teaching (at least as I understand it) follows logically. However, the premises themselves are not immune to questioning. I agree that this is not true formal logic. As I mentioned in the opening paragraphs, I'm using "logical" in the more colloquial sense of reasonable, sensible or persuasive. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)
: Or, to rephrase my approach in a more properly logical manner, a conclusion can be said to be true if the premises preceding it are true '''and''' if the argument is valid. The argument appears to be sound, so instead I am questioning the premises. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 20:04, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity

2009-12-18T00:58:45Z

Eoinc:

This is a well stated and completely rational essay that is sure to draw much criticism. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 08:35, 16 December 2009 (EST)

The essay seems to go beyond Christianity into speculation in order to try to gin up a contradiction. For example, you claim that "God sets a standard of behaviour which is so high that He knows no man can attain it." Where is the justification for that premise, on which your conclusion is based?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 16 December 2009 (EST)
:To enter Heaven, without first needing to be saved or forgiven by God, a man would need to live a perfectly sinless life. This is not achievable by any person ("for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"). God knows this because of man's Original Sin. This is not mere speculation on my part; it's a widely-accepted theological concept. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 17:57, 16 December 2009 (EST)

I see this as a perfectly logical article. Though it simply could be taken to arrive at the rationale that God is a merciful God who is willing to bend the rules of logic in order to arrive at a conclusion that would save all men save those who reject it. Though it could also expose a flaw in the teachings of Christianity if we apply much of our own standards of logic. Though that merely begs the question of who would have the more supreme logic, man or God? I know it sounds like a cop out but it really should be taken into consideration for this discussiom even if only on theoretical grounds. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:07, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Neither the essay or the comments here even cite or quote the Bible. Hence the title of this essay needs to change. Any suggestions? If none, then I will move this to "Essay:Logic and One Man's View of Christianity"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:13, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly with all due respect he paraphrased the Bible in his last comment. Or does in your opinion a paraphrase not even come close to a quote? Unless you have a valid argument against this articles points or something of your own to contribute it would be nice if you simply stayed out of the discussion as it is very thought provoking and an interesting debate. Inserting a rather pointless comment about changing the title is completely redundant and against the purpose of the discussion. Please put in a comment on content or an argument for or against in your next response as stimulating the discussion is what this essay is for.--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:38, 16 December 2009 (EST)

:The quote "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin", which is uncited in the essay, is Hebrews 9:22. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", here on the talk page, is Romans 3:23. The requirement that man should live a perfectly sinless life is Matthew 5:48. Jesus' role as a sacrificial victim is first described in Isaiah 53:6.
:My reference to "earthen vessels" is an allusion to Isaiah 29:16 and Jeremiah 18:6.

:I generally prefer to paraphrase or allude to scripture, because we are all Biblically-literate here, and I assume people can recognise the references even if I don't cite chapter and verse. So, yes, it is true that I did not provide footnotes, but the scriptural basis is there in plain sight (for those with eyes to see).

:The foundational assumptions which I mentioned are found in:
:* Genesis 1, 2
:* Timothy 2:4
:* Revelation 21:27
:* Romans 6:23
:* Hebrews 9:22

:What follows from that is my (very minimal) analysis of that. Most of it consists of the construction of an analogy. If what I had written had been more along the lines of "so, if we take the Christian message ''X'' to be true, then ''Y'' and ''Z'' can be deduced from that, and if ''Z'' is true, then that leads us to ''A'', ''B'', and eventually to ''C''....", then it would be fairer to call it "one man's view". But in fact all I've done is to restate the Christian message. The "final catch" in my last paragraph is the well-known John 3:16. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:42, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::Your essay is very interesting, as it shows how Jesus is trying to reach to you, and how you struggle with what you've been falsely taught. You fall just short of explicitly stating the alleged 'contradiction' in the Bible, in the manner you describe here (if X then Y thus Z). I think it would be very beneficial for yourself if you tried to, as you would have the opportunity see where your argument fails. Regards,--[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 08:17, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::(EC) There is far too much interpretative distortion in this essay for this to be entitled "the Bible." Just to take your first example from Hebrews 9:22 about shedding blood, that is a reference to mostly ''animal'' sacrifice in the Old Testament tradition, the audience of the essay (Letter ''to the Hebrews''). Yet your essay treats that like it must always mean the shedding of human blood.

::An essay on "Logic and One Man's View of the Bible" is fine and welcome. But you haven't limited your essay close enough in the Bible to call this "Logic and the Bible."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::Yes, Hebrews 9:22 refers to the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law. I referred to the shedding of blood, I never said it always needed to be human blood, and I expect anyone familiar with the Bible to know that too. However, I did not make that distinction explicitly clear, so for that I apologise. Under the Mosaic Law, animals were ritually sacrificed as part of atonement for sins. Jesus's death functioned as the ultimate, perfect sacrifice, capable of cleansing ''all'' people of ''all'' their sins once and for all, without the need for any further sacrifices. Or have I been misinformed countless times by countless Christians? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 09:53, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Eoinc, you're trying to sing a tune of one view Christianity, but it's slightly off key and even if it were on key it would be merely one view. That's fine for you to try, but you're not sticking to the Bible as the entry title pretends. The Letter to the Hebrews is exactly that: an effort to evangelize Jewish people by casting Christianity in terms of their tradition. From one level of indirection, you then jump to two more levels of indirection, and then try to find a logical problem. The trouble is, the problem is more likely to be in your extrapolation than in the Bible.

::::The Bible is completely logical. If you stick with that, then we can have a productive discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly again with respect please try to contend with what is being said. Your comments are counter productive. As the previous commentator stated Eonic, You are merely reading one view of the Bible. Though I'm slightly fuzzy on the point your trying to make about a perfect sacrifice. Yes Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, yes Jesus forgives all sins. You are reciting something we all know. I'm assuming your point is why are we not all instantly granted salvation then?--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

: Andy - I trust we can have a productive discussion without needing to assume from the outset that your point of view is right and that mine is wrong. That may turn out to be the conclusion that we reach, but it is not the place to begin.
: You say that my view of Christianity is slightly off key, and that it is only one view. I'd like to clear this up first, before we talk about anything else. My understanding of Jesus's role in the New Testament is the sacrificial Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. Like the lambs at the first Passover, whose blood stained the doorsteps of the Jews in Egypt and thereby saved them from the angel of death, or the animals of whom burnt offerings were made to atone for sins, Jesus's death and resurrection purges man of his sins and rescues him from death. This is the view I have absorbed from reading the Bible, singing hymns ("there is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel's veins / and sinners washed beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains", or ''salvatoris hodie sanguis praegustatur in quo Sion filie stola candidatur'' - today is the Saviour's blood first tasted, in which the daughters of Zion whiten their robes), reading tracts handed to me on the street and engaging the street preachers in discussion, debating with Christians on the internet, etc...
: So, before I proceed any further with my argument, can you explain where my summary is off-key, or where my misunderstandings lie? I was under the impression that this was the orthodox Christian view, so it's something of a surprise to be told that it's just one view (one among how many others?). [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:46, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:: Eoinc, your entry has the wrong title if you want to debate a Christian view. Your title "Logic and The Bible" implies that you're going to actually start from the Bible, quote from it, translated it, dissect it, and so on. You're not doing that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:57, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::: Can you please explain where I have misunderstood or misinterpreted the concept of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb, ''before'' we worry about whether I chose the right title? I'd like to stick with one point at a time. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:04, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Eoinc, you're doing everything ''except'' basing your analysis on translating, analyzing and quoting the Bible. I'm going to change the title to avoid the misleading use of the Bible in it. Pick another title, such as "Logic and One View of Christianity."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Eonic, maybe it would be best if you simply ignored Mr. Schlafly for now as he does not appear to be interested in debate. Though my question to you is now that you have reached your point. I must ask where does the illogical contradiction stem from?--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 19:22, 17 December 2009 (EST)

: (EC) I had been writing that I object to the renaming of the essay, on the grounds that it assumes I am wrong. My essay does not concern itself with translating the Bible, but it represents a core Biblical message in a manner which I feel was critical but accurate. Therefore, I would need to be shown otherwise before I agreed that the title needed to be changed. But now I see that Andy has changed the title anyway.
: But never mind. What's done is done. Now that the title is more to your liking, Andy, can you explain where I am wrong in my above summary? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:: Matthew2208, I hoped that I had explained myself clearly on the essay page. What I'm describing is not a formal logical contradiction, but a more informal case of a logical absurdity. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::: I see now. You just appeared to be deviating from the essay in the comments. I disagree with your point since (to use a crude analogy for now) it would be sort of like a judge giving out a pardon and the only catch is that people accept it. Would it then be illogical for the judge to say that all who did not accept the pardon should then recieve the punishment?--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 19:49, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::: Well, yes it would. In a courtroom, if the judge decides to pardon the defendant, but the defendant doesn't accept it (whatever that might mean, perhaps he protests the decision and maintains that he doesn't deserve to go free), it doesn't make a difference. If the court pardons you, you're pardoned whether you like it or not. The courts aren't going to punish you just because you didn't agree with the decision. The second objection is that the judge isn't simply handing out pardons, he's taking the punishment on himself, which seems like an unnecessary step. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)

== problems witht the use of "Logic" ==

I note that you are using the term "logic" in a manner that I am unused to. Now this is not necessarily wrong, but it is confusing to me.

You say: ''the above statement is logical, IF:'' [the following are true] x, y, and z (etc)

to my mind an argument is logical based upon the reasoning used to get from the premises to the conclusion, irrespective of whether the premises are true or not.

Thus the following argument is perfectly logical:

All dogs have 5 legs
Rover is a dog
Therefore ''Rover has 5 legs''

even though we would rightly reject the first premise.

This essay seems to be disputing the truth of the premises rather than the logic of the argument of the bible --[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 19:55, 17 December 2009 (EST)

: Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. If you accept the many premises as true, then the Christian teaching (at least as I understand it) follows logically. However, the premises themselves are not immune to questioning. I agree that this is not true formal logic. As I mentioned in the opening paragraphs, I'm using "logical" in the more colloquial sense of reasonable, sensible or persuasive. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity

2009-12-18T00:36:17Z

Eoinc:

Talk:Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity

2009-12-18T00:32:25Z

Eoinc:

Talk:Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity

2009-12-18T00:04:43Z

Eoinc:

Talk:Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity

2009-12-17T23:46:09Z

Eoinc:

Talk:Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity

2009-12-17T14:53:49Z

Eoinc: blood sacrifice in the OT and NT

Talk:Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity

2009-12-17T12:42:30Z

Eoinc: reply to Andy

Talk:Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity

2009-12-16T22:57:24Z

Eoinc:

Colbert Report Viewers

2009-12-16T12:59:21Z

Eoinc:

== FAQ ==
''This section will be expanded as it becomes apparent what our new audience wishes to know.''
::''See also : [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia|How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]''

=== '''Why is registration necessary?''' ===

Conservapedia discourages anonymous contribution, preferring to lend accountability to our articles by requiring users contribute with an account, based on their real name (first name, last initial).

=== '''Does Conservapedia have a conservative bias?''' ===

Conservapedia is up front about our beliefs and our politics - obviously. Despite this, some might say we have a bias towards the truth. To those who have gone to public schools and been inundated with mainstream media their whole life, this may seem like a strong conservative bias.

=== '''Why does Conservapedia have articles on non-political topics?''' ===

Obviously, liberal bias can creep into Wikipedia's articles on subjects in religion, politics, philosophy, history, culture, and law. It can also appear in articles in science ([[evolution]], for example), or medicine (the effects of abortion).

But there are additional problems with Wikipedia which Conservapedia addresses. For example, many articles on Wikipedia are excessively long, providing extraneous detail that can muddle a subject. Conservapedia offers concise, informative articles. Readers who wish to explore a subject more in-depth are free to enroll in Conservapedias courses for home schooled students, but we do not have a whole courseworth of material on every subject.

== WELCOME COLBERT REPORT VIEWERS ==

For previous discussions, see the archives: [[Colbert Report Viewers/Archive 1|Archive 1]]

=== Please comment or ask questions here: ===
'''Please sign all comments with "<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>". Thank you.'''

Why do you have to make the Bible again? It's already been translated so many times. Why doesn't everybody learn to read Greek? Did Jesus even think of people as libreal and conservative? [[User:KhaderA|KhaderA]] 20:41, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== Wikipedia ''is not'' helpful ==

Aschlafly said: ''Instead, I know of no evidence that Wikipedia has helped a single student in any meaningful way.''

If you google '''calciumcarbonat''', what's the first article to appear? Of course, wikipedia's. Therefore, countless of students looking for certain chemical compounds got instant information by wikipedia - most of the articles are as helpful as the one on CaCO3.

In fact, nowadays it's hard to imagine any student of chemistry who didn't use the help provided by wikipedia....

[[User:FrankC|ComedyFan]] 18:12, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Also, if you want specifics about math, Vitali Set. Hessian Matrix. Tridiagonal Matrix. Homogeneous coordinates. Hilbert Space. Fermat's factorization method. Error function. Need I go on?
These are just a few of the many topics that I learned about from Wikipedia. I have found these articles to be clear and explanatory to me. What part did you have trouble understanding? Where are the Conservapedia versions?[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 18:53, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Yup, many students from numerous countries use Wikipedia every day to learn about different topics. I've used it for everything from solving minor curiosities to learning about statistical concepts. However, Andy has made it clear that Wiki articles are above his head (too many words), and as a result NONE of us are allowed to learn anything from it. A solid argument, indeed. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 22:18, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:Congratulations on crossing the line into personal insults. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:20, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Well he did say that they were not "concise and clear" enough for him.[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 23:25, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:Not sure whom you're quoting, but I said Wikipedia is not concise and clear enough to help students in a meaningful way. And I've personally taught nearly 200 students and helped them get into good colleges and win scholarships. "Insufficient" insults me and talks big, but gives no specifics. I wonder how many students he's helped, and to what extent. Maybe he'll tell us.

:The unfortunate reality is that many Wikipedia editors are more interested in concealing information from viewers, such as the harm caused by abortion or the flaws in evolution, than actually helping anyone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:35, 11 December 2009 (EST)

::A case in point is Wikipedia's article on [[CSS]], i.e., cascading style sheets. When I tried to put in three simple examples, the information was removed on the grounds that I was providing "how to" information which should only be in Wikibooks. Apparently the article on CSS should be on every aspect of it other than facts such as '''bold''' formatting is obtained by entering '''font-weight: bold;''' into a style tag. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:43, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:I find Wikipedia very clear and concise and it helped me study for my exams and has since helped me in my work. From speaking to colleagues and students at the University I work at I believe it is of great benefit to those who use it as an educational tool. I believe that your disagreement with some of its articles has biased you towards disregarding the entire website.--[[User:nicknock|Nick]] 23:15, 11 December 2009 (MST)

But Wikipedia is not just politically related articles (although Conservapedia seems to be). Sure there are articles on abortion and evolution, but there are also hundreds of articles on mathematics. Just because you disagree with the views represented in some of the articles doesn't mean that the entire site is worthless.[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 23:58, 11 December 2009 (EST)
:You're right that there may be some articles free from liberal bias, simply because it would be difficult to insert, but you'd be surprised how pervasive it can be. Obviously, all history, religion, philosophy, and politics articles are susceptible to bias, but so are science articles (evolution being a prime example), personal biographies, etc. For example, it might be hard to imagine how an article on Isaac Newton could be liberally biased, but that's because we've been so inundated with liberal bias we don't even realize it! I didn't know that Newton was a devout Christian, or that his insights came from the Bible, until I came here. I didn't know that the triangular trade never even existed until I came here. And I didn't go to public school - I have sixteen years of Catholic schools under my belt.
:The point it, liberal bias can creep into almost any subject. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:03, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::The reason you didn't know triangular trade didn't exist until you came here is because it ''did'' exist. I've never heard of anyone except Mr. Schlafly deny this, and I'm curious as to why he thinks it didn't. [[User:DanielA|DanielA]] 07:53, 12 December 2009 (EST)
::Also, Wikiepdia states quite clearly that "In the 1690s, Newton wrote a number of religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible." I don't see any whitewash there. [[User:DanielA|DanielA]] 07:55, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::Another science example you might have mentioned-- [[Relativity]]. If you only read Wikipedia, you're not getting a complete or accurate picture at all. I had never heard about the flaws in Relativity before I came here. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 00:09, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::And as for your example, on math articles, even if there is no liberal bias in the wikipedia article, Conservapedia is the better reference. For example, the average student looking up the fundamental theorem of calculus, something every student should know by the time they finish high school, doesn't benefit from being told that it is a weaker form of the generalized stokes theorem, something students couldn't understand until the final year of a math bachelors. We keep our articles concise and informative, not bloated with confusing and unnecessary information. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:06, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::: Well put, Jacob. The math articles on Wikipedia are not good educational resources. They don't earnestly teach. In their best light, they merely try to show off.

::: And thanks for Daniel's observation. As George Orwell said, "all issues are political issues." Liberal bias does creep even into math, as illustrated by the Wikipedian resistance to recognizing the concept of [[elementary proof]], and how the [[Axiom of Choice]] has traditionally been disfavored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::: Is there something particularly Conservative about an elementary proof? Also, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't George Orwell also say, "Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." [[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 00:47, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Orwell's quote criticizes the conservative ''party''. I also criticize the British Conservative Party! As to [[elementary proof]]s, there is "something" liberal about denying its significance. Liberals like to try to use math and science in deceptive ways to pull people away from the Bible. The concept of the elementary proof rains on their parade.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 12 December 2009 (EST)

I went to a super liberal community college in Mass and they didn't allow us to use Wiki as a siting source because it's open source. We used databases with professors. Sorry Conservapedia, you lose on that count too. Now, if it's original source you want, you can find that on Wiki. It's a good place to start your research. I imagine that in some instances that's true for this site as well.

:Dear Aschlafly, you made the claim that - to your knowledge - not a single student was helped in a meaningful way by wikipedia. To change your perception of wikipedia, ''one'' [[counterexample]] should be sufficient, and a couple of students have given such examples in this thread. Of course, each example is an anecdote - that's the very nature of counterexamples :-)
:[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:57, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::Which anecdote did you find credible? I'm seen some claims but found them lacking in specifics, and thus I did not find them to be credible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::What sort of specifics would you like? Would you like me to name the time and place that I had a question, looked it up on Wikipedia, found the answer and the citation, and that this information helped me, as a student, achieve a qualification? I would quite happily provide this information, and so would many others, but I think you would dismiss our claims as being contrary to your world view and therefore untrue. If you would like my example, and if it would dissuade you of apparently singular state of mind then please ask. [[User:nicknock|Nick]] 18:45, 31 December 2009 (MST)

I guess our differences come down to whether having more information is a good thing. Personally, I find the math articles on Conservapedia to generally be incredibly lacking. If all you want is a definition of a term then sure, a one sentence article is acceptable, but if you actually want to learn, it is near worthless. Imagine if the article on George Washington only said "George Washington was the first president of the United States. He was in office from 1789-1797". Sure it tells you who he was, but it doesn't tell you why he was significant. It doesn't show you how he fits in with history as a whole.
The problem is that many of your articles define the term, but the fail to provide any elaboration. If you never make connections between topics, then you're no better then a dictionary.

The student may not understand everything in the article but that's not the point. I certianly don't understand all of the math articles on Wikipedia. I am not everyone. Encyclopedias are written for a broad audience. Some people will understnad only the basics, while other people will easily understand everything. Why deny information to the people who could use it?
For that matter, there are many articles I understand and benefit from which I never would have understood a couple years ago. Should we really censor the articles just for the sake of my middle school self?

Looking at your example of Fundamental theorem of calculus, Your article contains the defintion of the thoerem, but that's it. It's suitable for a first year calculus student cramming for a test, but it doesn't help them learn. It doesn't tell them the intuitive basis behind the thoerem. It doesn't tell them the applications of the formula.
It doesn't even try to generalize or connect it to other topics.

Seeing as you apparently think this is a good thing, I guess there's no real way for us to ever be on the same page. Good luck on Conservkitionary. [[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 22:43, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:Edmund, proper grammar is "no better THAN a dictionary," not "no better then a dictionary." But we're obviously teaching and learning and not trying to be a dictionary, so your point remains unclear.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:15, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Edmund. As a general rule, we try to be concise. But I don't think anybody is trying to say that none of our articles need expansion. We welcome any substantive addition that you may have up your sleeve. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 09:24, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:Aschlafly, what's your criterion for ''being helpful''? You wrote earlier ''ComedyFan, I've personally taught nearly 200 teenagers, and 10 or 100 times as many have benefited from our materials here. Take a look at the page views on my lectures. They are in the many thousands for each lecture. '' Being top in the google ranks indicates that wikipedias's page on - for instance - '''calciumcarbonat''' was visited many times. So many people benefited from this material, ergo wikipedia ''is'' helpful.
:Of course, you can always change your definition to: ''being helpful means leading your readers to reading the Bible'', but then I'd accuse you of [[Evolution syndrome|moving the goalposts]].
:And for your statement ''How many lectures does Wikipedia have? Zero. How many model answers? Zero.'' In fact at this moment the right answer is '''11,716''' : While there are no lectures and models answers on en.wikipedia.org, the wikimedia foundation (which includes wikipedia) has a whole project just to ''set learning free'' - en.wikiversity.org
:[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:58, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::Frank, I haven't seen a substantive edit by you here yet. I had to revert your only non-talk edit (to [[Kurt Godel]]) because, as often seen in edits by Wikipedians, your edit added verbosity in a way that obscured the concise point. Wikipedians seem to insist on making professors look better than they are or were. Your style may fit well in the Wikipedia culture. But as I said, I'm not aware of anyone helped by it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:12, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::So, your definition of helpful is: ''something is helpful if I'm aware of it being so''. Then open your mind, google "thank you wikipedia", and find people reporting how wikipedia helped them. Afterward you may still chose to ignore this information... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:24, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::I googled "thank you Budweiser" and received nearly 40,000 hits. Do you think that proves that beer is helping people? Certainly not. If you think Wikipedia is helping so many people, then why can't you provide merely one clear, specific, and unequivocal example?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:32, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Wikipedia has helped me many times learn many new things. It's also helped me with collaboration skills. I'm sure the same can be said for many others. Would it have hundreds of thousands of contributors and millions of readers, as well as millions of dollars in donations, if no one found it useful? The invisible hand indicates it is quote educational. [[User:DaveC|DaveC]] 09:46, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: (EC) Funny, I googled "thank you Conservapedia" and received less than 900 hits. It's not about numbers, you have to ''read'' the entries. But for a [http://www.crunchgear.com/2007/12/20/the-random-endorsement-wikipedia/ clear, specific, and unequivocal example]  [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:48, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: (EC) Beer companies have even greater revenues, but that doesn't mean they are helpful. Your lack of specifics fail to persuade, Dave. Facebook is perhaps the best analogy: it is more popular and has far higher revenues than Wikipedia, yet at least one study shows it is correlated with ''lower'' grades by users.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::I'm not sure comparing an encyclopedia to a beer company or a social networking site is terribly practical, but no matter. I have my personal anecdotes about Wikipedia, you have your personal anecdotes about Conservapedia, neither, I guess, is a reliable source. Now, would you say Encyclopedia Brittanica is also useless because I can't prove it helped anyone get into college, nor does it have lectures or model answers? Now I'm curious. If how many students something has helped get into college is the sole criterion, then the public school system is the big winner there. Are you endorsing that now? [[User:DaveC|DaveC]] 09:56, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::Obviously any benefit would be offset by the harm. Public schools have produced over 30 million illiterates and wastes many billions of dollars a year, so you're barking up the wrong tree there.

:::::::::Wikipedia is comparable to Facebook, and it's shown to hurt grades rather than help them. The only specific anecdote provided here for Wikipedia (after several requests) is from a 2007 claim by a European that Wikipedia somehow helped him pass some basic exams. Meanwhile, there are compelling, undeniable examples of harm caused by [[Wikipedia]]. In addition, just check out how Wikipedia-supporters like you and ComedyFan contribute here: as far as I can tell, nothing of substantive value. Hopefully that will change, but it's a familiar pattern by Wikipedia types.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:48, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::::I'd like to know more about your claim that Wikipedia is "shown to hurt grades rather than help them". Following this up to your highly biased Wikipedia page I found a link to a story (that I believe is your source) reporting that a Wikipedia founder gets many emails from students who get poor grades because they cite Wikipedia. I agree that citing an encyclopedia is foolish and that you should always cite the source, as the Wikipedia founder also states. If this is the reason for your statement that I think you are foolish for blaming the method of the student over the resource, surely we should be better teaching the students to cite the original sources, which Wikipedia contains many of. In fact, if this is the only reason for your statement then it should equally read "Conservapedia hurts grades rather than helping them", since the same method applied to Conservapedia would result in equally poor grades. Or perhaps you have other evidence for your statement that you'd like to cite? [[User:nicknock|Nick]] 18:36, 13 December 2009 (MST)

::::::::::Reading this, it seems to be apt to quote Stephen Colbert who said to you during the interview ''I want to create my own reality the way you are.'' There, Colbert will fail, I'm afraid. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:08, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::::Frank, the more you talk, talk, talk in a silly way, the more you illustrate my point about your Wikipedia being a waste of time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:29, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::::::'''"Funny, I googled "thank you Conservapedia" and received less than 900 hits."''' Actually, that seems pretty impressive to me, given that Conservapedia doesn't appeal to the lowest common denominator, and as a result is considerably smaller than Wikipedia or similar sites. Having 900 people thanking Conservapedia for helping them is certainly nothing to be ashamed of. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:33, 14 December 2009 (EST)
:::::::::::::I think your Google tubes got snagged on something during its search. I just tested this (Googled: "thank you conservapedia") and received 37,800 results. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 16:22, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::::::::::::Doh. Nevermind. I just put the quotes around it... [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 16:24, 15 December 2009 (EST)
Just a note to anyone still following: I got blocked for a couple of days for my dissent in this board. The reason given was "liberal name calling," though I have yet to determine what name I called and where I did so. It seems that the majority on this website have no problem ridiculing those who differ in opinion (see evolution syndrome), but they certainly can't take it when it's returned in kind. I had really hoped to contribute to the discussion on Orwell, but couldn't because of my removal...I really hope the irony of that isn't lost on anyone. Either way, I'd rather be blocked for dissent than embraced for compliance. But thank you Jacob, you are always so helpful at proving the points I am trying to make. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 15:35, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:Oh, and way back (at the beginning of my block), Andy accused me of "talking big." I would just like to point out that HE is the one claiming to represent all Wikipedia users, saying that nobody has benefited from it in a meaningful way. I am merely trying to represent my own voice. And yet I am the one accused of talking big? Ridiculous. Also, I have nothing to personally gain from the defense of Wikipedia (I have invested no time or money into its creation), whereas Andy has a vested interest in slandering the competition, making his opinion biased from the beginning, and thus meaningless in this discussion. Andy keeps demanding "specifics, specifics!" But you know what? I don't need to prove myself to you. If the "liberal" statistics were good enough for my professor, then I couldn't really care less if you disagree. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 15:43, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::''If the "liberal" statistics were good enough for my professor, then I couldn't really care less if you disagree.'' See our page on [[professor values]]. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:08, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::I like how most of your arguments revolve around distrust in experts. You can think whatever you want of my professor's values, but he, like myself, has no vested interest in Wikipedia. Administrators on this site on the other hand, have a strongly vested interest in discrediting it (it is, after all, the competition). Therefore, your opinions are far more biased than my professor's. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 17:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)

This is absolutely ridiculous. You repeatedly insist that noone has ever been helped by Wikipedia, despite the fact that people have testified on this very page multiple times on how Wikipedia has helped them. What do you think? That we're some sort of conspiracy to promote Wikipedia? Are you really so committed to your belief that Wikipedia is useless that you also believe that anyone who says otherwise must automatically have an ulterior motive? Debate is so easy when you simply dismiss everything that anyone else says.
It's funny how you seem to know whether I have learned something or not better then I do myself. Generally, a theory of mind is developed by the age of three.

I also like how you responded to my arguments by pointing out a typo. I suppose that means that you don't actually disagree with my characterization of the dispute. The problem is that what you call "concise", I call "lacking in information".[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 18:07, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:"''Generally, a theory of mind is developed by the age of three.''" Best quote of the whole discussion, Edmund. I find it ridiculous that Andy thinks he knows us better than we know ourselves, and yet he has the audacity to accuse me of "talking big." I can't remember if you were around for the evolution debate, but they played by the same tactics there as well. They had a ton of questions that they believed could not be answered, and then dismissed the answers that I gave without reason. Also, I am confused by the seemingly contradictory arguments that I am getting from this group. On the one hand, Andy is trying to use the number of students that he has helped to give himself some sort of authority (though I have yet to determine its relevance in this discussion). On the other hand, Jacob is saying that professor values are not reliable. This seems to take the wind out of Andy's sails, because the "help" he gives students is also dependent on "professor values." [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 19:46, 13 December 2009 (EST)

'''Two replies:''' First, to NickNock, you say "I agree that citing an encyclopedia is foolish and that you should always cite the source." You're clueless: encyclopedias, published ones, are valid references for any academic paper. It is encyclopedias like Wikipedia which are not published which are not valid references.

: I'm sorry I completely disagree. The fact that an encyclopedia is published has no bearing on its validity and studies have shown that many published encyclopedias have errors. If a student is to properly learn and understand the material they should follow the encyclopedia's citation to the original source, read that and then cite it. To do otherwise is poor academic behavior, and I would never submit a paper for publication with such a citation. If I read an academic paper that did cite an encyclopedia instead of the original source I would be very disappointed because it would show a failure to have investigated the original source. [[User:nicknock|Nick]] 18:55, 13 December 2009 (MST)

::You don't seem to understand, that wasn't an opinion, it's a fact. If you cite an encyclopedia in a college paper, you'll be fine. Cite wikipedia (or Conservapedia, for that matter) and you'll be marked down. Whether you think that's right or wrong, that's how it is. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::Ah, you've changed your definition now. You originally said 'academic paper', meaning a paper published in an academic journal for which many journals hold a policy of not citing encyclopedias but only the original source. You now say 'college paper', which I presume you mean any piece of work handed in by a student to a college. If so, the requirements come down to the standards of the college itself. I would hope that a good college would encourage students to locate, understand and cite the original source, as that will improve their education in the subject. However, if you have experience with other colleges then I accept that. However, I stand by my earlier statement that the publishing of an encyclopedia has no bearing on the validity of its entries. [[User:nicknock|Nick]] 19:13, 13 December 2009 (MST)

::::You're right - that's my mistake, I meant college paper. I graduated from the [[University of San Francisco]], a tier 1 Catholic school, so if you'd like to find fault with their methods of grading, be my guest. But you will be hard pressed to find a school which considers Wikipedia a valid source, or Britannica an invalid source. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:17, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::(edit conflict) OK, Nick, but your argument begs this question: what would make an online encyclopedia worthy of citation, in your view? Certainly it is not the volume of entries or its ease of editing. Wouldn't you agree that allowing gossip and lacking rules to reduce liberal bias by numerous anonymous editors are disqualifying conditions?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::In my opinion an online encyclopedia shouldn't ever be cited, and I would honestly prefer that no encyclopedia be cited. My reason for this is that all encyclopedias should present a wide and unbiased view on any subject, and one that backs up all statements and sources with a citation. That way anyone studying the subject can gain a more detailed understanding by pursuing that citation and hopefully citing it. Faced with all the arguments and evidence a student can then come to his or her own decision on the subject. While I'm sure you'll agree there are some facts that are unassailable (e.g. France is in Europe, the second World War did happen), many areas of science, politics and religion should be open to honest debate. I think a good encyclopedia should present as many sides to these arguments as possible and allow the reader to come to their own decision, instead of being forced to accept the thinking or beliefs of their peers without questioning it. One of the things I like about Wikipedia is that you can often find both sides of the argument on its website. If you feel this isn't the case and that your worldview isn't properly represented then I appreciate your concern. However, I do feel that Conservapedia goes too far in the other direction and only includes the arguments for your own opinions and not those of the other side. I think this does your encyclopedia an injustice and while this discrepancy stands will make it the inferior choice to Wikipedia. [[User:nicknock|Nick]] 19:28, 13 December 2009 (MST)

::::::Really, Nick, you honestly feel that Wikipedia has "both sides of the argument" on [[evolution]], [[abortion]] and other important issues? Please show me where, for example, Wikipedia's entry on abortion informs readers about how it causes premature birth (the major cause of infant mortality and lifelong disabilities) in future-born children. The scientific evidence and common sense are overwhelming that abortion causes such harm, yet Wikipedia omits it. Among African-Americans, abortion is at three times the rate for Caucasians, and devastating premature birth in the African-American community is three times the Caucasian rate. Why does Wikipedia omit that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:49, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::I admit I'm not an expert on abortion, but I believe the statement "Patients who had undergone previous induced abortions have been shown to have a higher risk of preterm birth" is what you're looking for in the article on 'Preterm birth' that I followed through from that on abortion. Perhaps you don't feel it was placed prominently enough in the article or that it should be in the abortion article itself? Perhaps you should add this risk under the section 'Health Risks' on the Wikipedia article. I would be inclined to agree that it should be noted more prominently, but I'm not an expert on the relative dangers of this, and both Conservapedia and Wikipedia present conflicting citations. Clearly a discussion is needed and unbiased scientific studies should be done. I would note that the Conservapedia article is highly biased to other degree, with only arguments against abortion and little information about the process itself. Faced with these two articles, that from Wikipedia appears less biased to a neutral and has more useful information about the process. [[User:nicknock|Nick]] 20:03, 13 December 2009 (MST)

::::::::Of course that should be in the abortion entry itself, not buried in an obscure other entry. Everyone knows that readership falls off sharply after the first page, and falls even further respect to links. In fact, how would ''anyone'' learning about abortion even think of looking at an entry on "preterm birth." The connection would not even occur to most people.

::::::::An abortion entry should explain the harm, and risk of harm, and let the reader assess that information. You essentially seem to oppose providing the information for the reader to decide, and instead want an entry to appear neutral rather than provide substantive information. Wikipedia is a good home for your approach. We emphasize information here, not a (false) appearance of neutrality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::I agree that the statement should be more prominently placed, thats what I meant by "I would be inclined to agree that it should be noted more prominently". Perhaps you could place it more prominently? Also, I certainly do not oppose providing the information for the reader to decide so please indicate where that idea originated from. I feel that the Conservapedia article has less information allowing the reader to decide about abortion than the Wikipedia article does, so I would suggest that statement more appropriately applies to you. I do believe an article in an encyclopedia should be neutral and provide substantive information, neither of which apply to the Conservapedia article. I do not believe that Conservapedia provides sufficient information on many subjects, but I know that is because of the strong conservative bias that your encyclopedia has. That bias, in my opinion, invalidates it as a useful reference source for any seeking impartial information on a subject. [[User:nicknock|Nick]] 20:29, 13 December 2009 (MST)

::::::::::Nick, your defense of the bias on Wikipedia is unpersuasive. Wikipedia won't allow the more prominent placement of key information, which you say you support, and I doubt you'll even try to correct it. Nearly 99% of your edits here have been talk, talk, talk, and your minor substantive edit here had to be reverted for its incompleteness. We provide information here, and welcome others who want to do that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:57, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::::It has not been my intention to defend the bias of Wikipedia, but merely to point out that your website is much more biased, and therefore less useful to someone seeking impartial information. It is you who have not defended your own bias, or perhaps you are alright with your encyclopedia being highly biased? Certainly that allows you to control the information such that it conforms to your own world view. On the subject of the information in the Wikipedia article on abortion, why haven't you tried to correct it if you feel so strongly about it? I am not an expert in that field and therefore I feel it would be wrong to make such a correction myself. Maybe you have tried to change it already and it has been changed back. That would indicate to me that more people on average feel it shouldn't be there. Perhaps you should persuade more people to change it so that the weight of numbers is on your side? Or perhaps gather some experts to advocate the change? If you are choosing to attack my work on this site then I'm disappointed in you. I don't think my liberal or scientific views would be appreciated here. The one change I did make was to point out a very strong piece of evidence for General Relativity in an article devoid of such evidence. That such an important piece of information was unconstructively removed echoes my concern that your articles are often highly biased. [[User:nicknock|Nick]] 21:08, 13 December 2009 (MST)

::::::::::::Nick, the bottom line is that you seem fine with consensus defining "truth", and your edits here reflect that. Nearly all talk, plus one edit that reflected Wikipedia-style consensus rather than the truth (the Mercury perihelion data no longer confirm relativity predictions within the standard of error). You're unaware of the flaw in your sole substantive because you rely on consensus to guide you, rather than relying on principled authority. I urge you to reconsider, but you have free will.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:03, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Second, to Insufficient. Why are you even here? All you have done is debate on this page, even though you've admitted that you don't read the Bible. It doesn't surprise me that your arguments are poorly formed and illogical, because you've never read the book which is the source of all logic and order. I suggest you open your mind, take some time to go read the Bible, read some articles here on Conservapedia to learn what your liberal professors don't want you to know, and then come back and we can have some intelligent discussion. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:44, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:(edit conflict)Edmund, typing "better then" rather than "better than" is not a "typo". The keystroke "e" is not next to "a". It's not a big deal either, but let's admit it when we're wrong and not let a mistake spread to mislead others.

:"Insufficient", you have over two dozen ranting edits on this page, and not a single enlightening edit on any substantive page in this entire encyclopedia. You're illustrating what Wikipedia is like. It's a place where liberals pretend to know more than they do, and shout down anyone who's actually trying to post a conservative insight for others to genuinely learn. I'm confident that a study of Wikipedia would yield the same results as the study of Facebook did. I bet both are correlated to lower grades, not higher ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:51, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Yeah, I wonder why I'm here too. From past experience, I know that such arguments are completely pointless and never accomplish anything. As the saying goes, debating on the internet is like running in the special olypmics: even if you win you're still retarded. I guess the main reason is because arguing is fun. It produces feelings of superiority in both participants.[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 23:19, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:Ah, so you're just here to argue then. Time to experience my own feeling of superiority. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::I'm going to increase Edmund's block duration because he offended those having disabilities. Obama did the same thing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 14 December 2009 (EST)

This is sort of in response to the frustration insufficient and edmundG have been experiencing. Firstly, for full disclosure, I vote republican - always. I believe in conservative policies in general. This site doesn't actually have a lot to do with conservatism though. What I have gathered from reading some of the rather heinous articles and following what might only loosely be described as argumentation on this Colbert discussion page, is that it must be true that ASchlafly and his cronies are just con men. Some of the things said here are so incredulous as to defy disbelief. I watched the interview and I don't think he's insane or stupid, so I can only conclude that the act that is put on here is a complete sham. The argumentation you're proceeding with is only dragging people here to watch the train wreck. They will never agree with you, they CAN'T. It's part of the rules. They aren't allowed to be open minded.

That being said, I understand the attempt. There are one or two things that I found particularly off the mark that for no practical reason I will try to answer - even though I know no matter what the answer is, they can't allow it. I will do myself the service of allowing them the last word so as not to drag myself into a slime pit of argumentation.

The first is the unbelievable argument that people aren't evolved because they don't have a third pair of teeth. Holy cow. Well that's true - but we also don't know how to run at 70 miles an hour like a cheetah. The answer in this case is very simple. By the time you would replace your teeth, you would no longer be child bearing in all likely hood. Even if you happened into the mutation, there is no selective pressure to distribute that gene around as it never helped you when you were young and alive. On the contrary it may have been a hindrance initially - prone to infection and possibly distorting the earlier rows of teeth. Additionally, mutations like that usually develop from some more vestigial part of the body. There would need to be something that could be mutated to something more and more like teeth. More teeth wouldn't just appear as a mutation. This is just a fact of embryology.

The second is the almost laughable point that Andrew tries to make about teaching "nearly 200 hundred" students. Most teachers do that every day. You made a horrible complaint that public schooling creates illiterates. Not true- they were illiterate to begin with. At best, they failed to get the child and the parents to participate. But surely you don't mean to let the parent off so easily do you?. The numbers appear overwhelming because an overwhelming number of people go to public school. And thank god for that. Public school was one of the most dramatic changes of fortune the country ever saw. And thank goodness conservatives of the time failed to block the laws instituting it.

Finally, at best I may respond to the question of evolution - but ONLY if someone is interested in understanding it and not arguing it for arguments sake. [[User:Mhildred|Mhildred]] 00:12, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:We're very open minded here, Mhildred. I suggest you take our quiz to see if you are: [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]. Second, we are here to create an encyclopedia, it is most of the Colbert crowd who have come here to argue. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:16, 14 December 2009 (EST)

::Exactly my point about the charlatanism! Those questions are so leading, so tuned and biased as to be useless. You might consider letting a trained psychologist explain how those kinds of quizzes are properly created. You can't create a quiz with questions that have ONE ANSWER and call it the open mindedness test! For example, the question regarding evolution - apparently if you are are not an evolution denier you're closed minded. In other words, you're closed minded if you don't hive mind with conservapedia. Wow, truly! [[User:Mhildred|Mhildred]] 00:19, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Turning from something you are taught in school to learn what others have to say is open-minded. Accepting without question what liberal schools teach somebody as a child is close minded. What part of this obvious truth do you deny? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:24, 14 December 2009 (EST)

All of it! You don't have to turn from something you were taught in school to question. You can question it and decide that it was correct after all. The openness is in the ability to to decide to the way of where you think the evidence leads you. Openness is not in the making of the wrong or right decision based on that evidence. Secondly is that you can turn from something you were taught in school and be completely close minded about it! My mom could tell me that i'm a bad boy to believe in evolution and I therefore turn away from it. That's closed. Asking if that may be true or not is open. Finally, even if i'm wrong about that ONE question, that isn't a defense of that pitiable quiz. [[User:Mhildred|Mhildred]] 00:29, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:Leave until you can learn to discuss these issues respectfully. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:30, 14 December 2009 (EST)

To follow up the discussion on open minds and turning from something you were taught I would like to submit a small piece of my life. From birth I was taught strict conservative Christian ideals in a traditional southern home. Between the ages of 16 and 18 I started to question the reality that I knew and began researching many avenues to find the "truth." Now, ten years later, I find truth to be relative to perception. Personally, I find that logic leads to a scientific view of the world. I feel that all knowledge should only be provisional and subject to modification based on better evidence. So, am I open minded for turning from something I was indoctrinated with as a child?[[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 09:28, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:Do you give equal time now to the Bible, the most logical book ever written? I bet that what really happened is that liberals succeeded in pulling you away from the Bible, to the point where you spend less than 5% of your time on it now. It's a censorship that is often repeated, with tragic results. Those who wake up and start giving the Bible equal time again never regret it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:51, 14 December 2009 (EST)

::I will admit that no I do not spend equal time on the bible now. The Bible being the most logical book ever written is certainly a moot statement. If I were to only use one reference point as the base for my perception of the world then I would miss the valuable insight that other points of view offer, weather they be flawed or not. You don't have to agree with something in it's entirety to glean some fundamental knowledge. I find the bible to have sets of ethics and values that transcend dogma. At the same time, I don't believe science and its practices to be all knowing just a method by which to draw provisional conclusions. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 11:11, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:::Dave, you have free will. The Bible is like a good diet. One can choose to ''never'' eat foods that are good for you, but the outcome is not pretty or desirable. Put another way, you're not helping anyone by refusing to read the Bible, least of all yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:25, 14 December 2009 (EST)

::::A diet, like an open mind, should be well balanced. Too much of any one thing is a bad thing. -- I've never "refused to read the bible." As I stated previously I was raised Christian. I have read and studied the Bible.[[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 08:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Dave, I'm confident that your statement above is artfully misleading, like saying you have eaten lots of vegetables but omitting that you haven't eaten any in the last 20 years. Diet is a daily matter, and so is reading. The issue is what you do now, not what you did in the distant past.

:::::Someone who is in denial about he censors the Bible from his own life is going to be in denial about many other important points also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:08, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Continuing with the diet metaphor, if you eat only vegetables on a daily basis you will find yourself surviving but malnourished. I do respect the idea that the Bible is the sustenance for ideas and ideals of the Christian community. -- I certainly do not censor the Bible from my life. I think about it frequently and occasionally read from it, just not in the way that you might want me to. Please, provide some examples of other points that I may be in denial about. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 11:10, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Dave, the issue is ''excluding'' vegetables or the Bible virtually ''entirely'' from the daily diet. You say you "do not censor the Bible from" your life, but I'm confident you do not give Bible reading equal time or even 5% of your time. If that's not censorship, then what is? Liberals would be jumping up and down and if they were ever censored by limiting them to less than 5% of one's daily diet of information.

::::::What else are you in denial about? I bet you're in denial about the very real existence of Hell. Many of us, even those who allow Bible reading to be more than 5% of our time, fall into denial about that. Yet Jesus talked about Hell more than he talked about Heaven, a fraction greater than 50%--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:19, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I don't devote a specific amount of time to any book everyday unless it is part of my studies. Even then the time would come when I have extracted all the practical knowledge and it would be time to move on to a new subject. If I kept reading the same book for the last 26 years I would still be reading "Good Night Moon" and other children's books. -- To censor something, such as the Bible, would be to actively block it from others or myself. I don't intentionally block or exclude the bible so it's not censorship. My daily actions do not fall under any traditional definition of the word censor or censorship. -- A persons choice of daily information is theirs alone, a liberal would never know if someone chose to limit them to 5%.

::::::I do not deny the existence of hell, nor do I confirm it. The existence of hell cannot be tested, cannot be proven and cannot be known. Therefore, It cannot be denied. -- Fear is a powerful tool. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 15:11, 15 December 2009 (EST)

It is very sad how these people refuse to let themselves be enlightened by reading the Bible. I'm not sure where this hatred and animosity for a book that has been nothing but beneficial to the world comes from. I only hope it is a passing phase. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 10:36, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:Some would argue the point that the Bible has "been nothing but beneficial to the world." Throughout history it has been used as a means to justify atrocious action. Some examples are Jim Jones and the Jonestown Massacre or the notoriously bloody Crusades. I realize these events are the actions of individuals who distort the Bibles meaning and intent but they do serve as examples of how the Bible has been used in a negative way.

I've got to say, this is literally my favorite website in the world! This like the only bible-thumping online-community/denial generator that actually backs up what they say with the truth, and not the liberal "truth", that's shoved down our throats from birth, but true, conservative half-truths. The only truth you need.

:Wow, what brilliant sarcasm! You might break the record for the highest score yet on our [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|closedmindedness test]]. Please give it a try.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:31, 14 December 2009 (EST)
"Do you believe evolution ''must'' have happened?" What an awful question. So what you're saying is that those who believe creationism must have happened aren't equally closedminded? What's funny about that quiz is that the people who wrote are the ones who are actually closedminded.

--[[User:Linkmeup2003|Linkmeup2003]] 00:53, 16 December 2009 (EST)== The most logical book ever written ==

My candidate would something like Euclid's ''Elements'' - but certainly not the Bible as
#the Bible includes ''miracles'', i.e., happenings which are remarkable as they defy logic and
#an almighty God certainly is not bound by our understanding of logic
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:43, 14 December 2009 (EST)
:Maybe you should read our essay, [[Essay:Quantifying Order]]. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 16:45, 14 December 2009 (EST)
::The words ''logic'' or ''logical'' don't appear even once in that essay, it seems to be about ''order''.... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 17:00, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:::The essay points out how there is nothing illogical about miracles, and you haven't provided anything illogical about them. Miracles reflect greater order in a world plagued by disorder. "Signs" is the better translation of the term for miracles ... signs of the greater underlying order.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:25, 14 December 2009 (EST)

::::''And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.'' What's logical about this? It's a surprising event, a miracle or a sign, at least something out-of-order happening... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 17:35, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Logic can be surprising, as in the Monty Hall three-door paradox or the [[Coase Theorem]]. But there's nothing illogical about God projecting His voice from a bush that He originally created. I think you mean to say it is "out of the ordinary." It is NOT illogical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:49, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: Well put, Andy. From my experience it seems like many people only read brief passages from the Bible and don't fully understand them, which is why they may think it's "illogical." But a careful study of the full meaning of the scriptures leads one to realize that it is indeed the most logical book ever written. To all those trying to argue against the Bible here - I urge you to spend a bit more time meticulously studying its contents, and perhaps you will be enlightened. God bless, --[[User:FatherJoseph|FatherJoseph]] 21:43, 14 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: ''Projecting His voice from a bush that He originally created'' sounds as logical as ''visiting Leda as a swan''. It doesn't become more logical by just repeating the statement! Conservapedia's article on [[Logic]] states:
:::::::''Logic is also used extensively in theology, and especially the study of the Bible, which, due to its divine inspiration, is very logical. ''
:::::::IMO, things get illogical because of divine inspirations, as an almighty God shouldn't be restricted by out ideas of logic!
::::::: [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::::::@FrankC: Here you are pretending to have knowledge of logic while simultaneously demonstrating that you have no idea what logic is whatsoever. How can I make such a bold claim? Here's why: "sounds as logical as ''visiting Leda as a swan." ''There are three classical Laws of Logic; the Law of Non-Contradiction, the Law of Identity, and the Law of the Excluded Middle. None of those laws are violated if I were to jump up in the air right now and fly around like Superman. That would be violating natural laws but not logic. Likewise, none of the Laws of Logic were ever broken by God. Here's a hint why:
:::::::"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)
:::::::The greek term for "word" is Logos which means Logic. I hope you actually take a class on critical reasoning soon. We can't have pseudo-intellectuals like you clogging up the "tubes" of the internet.--[[User:Linkmeup2003|Linkmeup2003]] 00:53, 16 December 2009 (EST)
::::::: It is difficult to argue the logic of the Bible with those who's foundation for logic is the Bible. Those who believe in it's absolute faultlessness as a starting point for logic can not be convinced of it's fault. Any reference to it's contradictions will only be met with vehement conviction of it's supreme divinity. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 08:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Andy, I think you have a good discussion going on here. Maybe you should consider moving it to a more relevant topic page as we have moved far beyond the The Colbert Report. We have a great discussion with a respectable tone going on here and I would like to see it progress and perhaps invite more from all sides to join in. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 08:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::DaveGBx, you seemed to want a debate page devoted to this topic so I provided this resource: [[Debate: Is the Bible logical?]] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:24, 16 December 2009 (EST)
::::I've also written an [[Essay: Logic and The Bible|essay]] on this topic, and I welcome any discussion on the talk page. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:59, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity

2009-12-16T00:21:00Z

Eoinc: Created page with 'Andy Schlafly has described the Bible as "the most logical book ever written". What follows in this essay is my analysis of that statement. The meaning of the word ''[[log...'

Andy Schlafly has described the [[Bible]] as "the most logical book ever written". What follows in this essay is my analysis of that statement.

The meaning of the word ''[[logic]]'' can vary. According to a strict definition, logic refers to principles of reasoning, a series of rules which describe valid (and invalid) inferences and deductions. In a less formal, more conversational usage, ''logical'' can be a near-synonym for "plausible", "persuasive" or "reasonable". These are probably the senses that Andy had in mind when he summarised the central message of Christianity:

"''God created the world, and then man. Man incurred the ultimate offense against God, and that required the ultimate sacrifice to redeem it. God intervenes with miracles from time to time as He likes. This ''is'' completely logical''."

The first two sentences fulfill the requirements of internal coherence and consistency, but they require a large number of ''a priori'' assumptions about the nature of the world. The above statement is logical, IF:

* A God exists, who created the world and mankind, and if
* This God desires for mankind to dwell with Him in Heaven, and if
* This God dislikes some actions taken by man, and cannot allow men who have offended Him to enter Heaven, and if
* This God requires that retribution be made for these offenses, and if
* The only acceptable form of retribution is death, and if
* God refuses to forgive sins unless a blood sacrifice has been made.

If all of the above assumptions are true, then it is indeed logical that God should pay man's debt by having Himself become incarnate as a man and put to death. However, the foundational assumptions themselves may be questioned. Why is a blood sacrifice necessary before God will forgive a sin? No amount of contrition or good deeds will suffice; God will not be satisfied until blood has been spilled. This is not logical, in the sense that there is no reason why this must be the case. Apologists can point to God's Will, saying that God's ways are higher than man's, or that He moves in mysterious ways, or that we mere earthen vessels can never comprehend the mind of the potter that made us. This may be so, but the apologist should concede at this point that they are abandoning logic, because the inscrutable will of God can be made compatible with any outcome, and could thus be invoked to explain anything at all.

"Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin". Curiously, however, it does not seem to matter whose blood is spilled. This is a very odd concept of justice. Consider the analogy of a courtroom, where the defendant has pleaded guilty to a crime and is expected to be sent to prison. The judge pities the defendant and would prefer not to impose the maximum sentence, but the law will not permit the defendant's crime to go unpunished. However, the law does not specify that the defendant must serve his own sentence. Therefore, the judge decides that he will sentence himself to prison instead. He rises from the bench and instructs the bailiff to escort him to jail.

Seen in analogy, the situation is plainly illogical. But even there the analogy is not complete. The above situation, despite being completely absurd, would nonetheless be plausible in a country with a rigid and nonsensical legal system. But the analogy does not end there. God, after all, is not merely the judge of man's crimes; He is also the lawmaker. For the analogy to be complete, the judge is also the author of the inflexible law, and is capable of revising it but prefers not to.

Therein lies the illogic of Christian teaching. God sets a standard of behaviour which is so high that He knows no man can attain it. He demands that proper retribution be made for what He has defined as man's sins. The only unit of currency He recognizes is blood sacrifice, and He sets the price above what any man can afford to pay. However, He nonetheless wishes for man to be saved. He cannot simply cancel man's debt, or adjust his expectations of man's behavior, so instead He has Himself tortured and executed. This demonstration is sufficient to cancel all human sin, past, present and future. But there is one final catch: the forgiveness of sins is no longer dependent on sacrifice, but neither does it depend on repentance or good works. Forgiveness is only granted to those who ''believe that the sacrifice took place''. Anybody who does not hear the Good News, or who hears it but remains unconvinced, is ineligible for salvation.

I believe that this is illogical.

Talk:Essay:Questions "Learned" Atheists Cannot Answer

2009-09-07T23:38:18Z

Eoinc:

==Answers==
Here's my attempt, based on what I know. How did I do? [[User:LewisS|LewisS]] 13:02, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

#A book that sells 30,000 copies qualifies for the New York Times bestseller list. How many copies of the Bible sell each year? (Ballpark estimate for the United States would be fine.) I thought the Gideons gave them away. '''About 10 million a year, since 1450. (Based on sales of 6 billion)'''
#How many Gospels are there, and what are their different styles and messages? '''4, not sure about the rest'''
#Which of the Gospels are attributed to eyewitnesses? '''2 - Matthew & John'''
#In which language are the oldest manuscripts for the Gospels written? '''Hebrew, Aramaic, with the NT being written in Koine Greek.'''
#Who wrote the most books in the New Testament? '''Paul'''
#How long is the New Testament compared to an average book on the New York Times bestseller list? '''I assume the NT has a longer word count.'''
#Who first translated the New Testament into English based on the oldest manuscripts? '''Some would say John Wycliff, but they'd be wrong. The Venerable Bede and Aldhelm both translated bits of the Bible into Old English around the 7th Century.'''
#Was the English translation banned after King Henry VIII split from Rome? '''No, Wycliff's Bible was banned as anti-Catholic heresy before the split happened and his body was exhumed by the then-Catholic government and burnt posthumously, 30 years after his death.'''
#In what language is the Gutenberg Bible? '''Latin'''
#How many books are in the Bible? (Approximation is fine.) '''66 - 39 OT; 27 NT'''
#What are some of the oldest books in the Bible? '''Some say Job, most agree on the Pentateuch being the oldest'''
#Who wrote the Acts of the Apostles? '''Paul'''

: Score: about 50%. Not good, and I wonder if you looked some of the answers up. Most atheists would score far lower, however, so there is solace. Thanks for trying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:16, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

::: The person who provided the above answers admits elsewhere that, just as I suggested above, he actually looked up the answers: "And yes, of course I looked up the answers ...."[http://cpmonitor.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/andrew-schlafly-fails-again/] Scoring only about 50% '''''after''''' looking up the answers is awfully pathetic.

::: His conclusion? "Don’t you dare tell me that you or anybody else on Conservapedia knows them off the top of your head." '''''Ignorance loves company'''''. Yes, atheists who claim to be learned and well-read are abysmally ignorant about the most influential book ever, and are '''''determined to remain that way'''''. Unless they open their minds and open a Bible, they'll be just as uninformed twenty years from now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:01, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

::I'd be very interested to see how well everybody - including Christians - would score on your quiz. Is there a way to conduct a test of it? Posting answers to the talk page may be unreliable, because of the temptation to see what others have answered. I know there are some web-based programs which can be used to create and automatically grade a multiple-choice test. Because it seems to me that many of those questions are far from simple, and I wouldn't expect the average person to know the answers unless they had studied theology or biblical history. For what it's worth, here's my attempt:
::1. I have seen figures of 8 million mentioned before.
::2. 4. (this is the easiest question, but part two is trickier). Mark's Gospel is the shortest, and linguistically the least polished, of the four. He writes about Jesus's life and works in a series of unconnected episodes; the Gospel gives the impression of being written in haste. He focuses on Jesus's miracles, particularly casting out demons and conquering evil. Matthew was written for a well-educated Jewish audience. His Gospel focuses on Jesus's teachings to his disciples, and his reaction against the Pharisees. Luke, a former physician, concentrates on Jesus's healing of the sick. John's gospel is written using much use of symbols and metaphors. His Jesus makes many pronouncements beginning with the words "I am...", and focuses on Jesus revealing Himself to man.
::3. Mark and John.
::4. Greek.
::5. Paul.
::6. Difficult to judge, as most copies of the NT are written using much smaller type, and on thinner paper, than contemporary bestsellers. If the NT was printed the same way as a modern novel, I'd guess it would be maybe 300 - 400 pages long. But I really don't know.
::7. John Wycliff and his team were the first to translate it in full.
::8. No.
::9. Latin.
::10. 72
::11. Assuming that they're collected in approximately chronological order, the oldest would be Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
::12. Luke.
:::--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:36, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

:::: Very well done! 8/12. I doubt you're an atheist, unless you looked up the answers beforehand (and I doubt you did). Thanks for your impressive effort.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:15, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

::::: ''Au contraire'', Andy, I am in fact a nonbeliever. It just happens to be a topic that interests me. But thank you for your kind remarks. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 12:52, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Interesting, but incomplete. Every atheist I've met has an attitude of [[deliberate ignorance]] towards the [[Bible]]. It's not just a lack of knowledge, but also a '''''determination''''' to lack knowledge. Perhaps you acquired some knowledge of the Bible before the atheistic school system worked its influence?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:00, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::: Well, unlike the public schools in the United States, religious instruction was and is a compulsory part of the school curriculum for children between (approximately) ages five and twelve. However, the level of instruction is of a very simple kind: we learned Bible stories and the Golden Rule, but certainly nothing as sophisticated as the answers to your quiz. When I left primary school at the age of 12, having been Confirmed along with the rest of my class, I could have named the four evangelists for you, but I could not have told you which two were purported eyewitnesses, or what the differences were in their writing styles.
::::::: Our secondary schools (age 13 - 18 approx) are perhaps more similar to your public schools; there, Christianity was only studied as part of a course on comparative religion. In our final year, speakers were invited to talk to our religion class. It was at about that time that I became interested in discussing, learning about, and thinking about, religion.
::::::: In contrast to the other atheists you have met, I have no desire to be willfully ignorant. If I am to reject the Christian faith, I need to know exactly what it is that I am rejecting. So, for that reason, I read religious books extensively, particularly the works of Christian apologists and anyone who advances a view different to mine. I engage street evangelists in discussion whenever I have time. I would learn nothing by living in an echo chamber (I never enjoy discussing religion with other atheists), and if I am wrong about Christianity, or any religion, I would want to know about it. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 15:50, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Your attitude is admirable, but highly unusual among [[atheists]]. You may not remain an atheist long with your commendable approach. The [[Bible]] is the most logical book written, and I'll think you'll find that atheism contains logical contradictions. That bothers some more than others. For me, I'd never accept a belief system that has a logical contradiction.

:::::::: As an example of one (of many) logical contradictions in atheism, atheists insist on the one hand that physical constants (like radioactive decay or the speed of light) have never changed, and yet admit on the other hand that they must have been different soon after the beginning of the universe. Another contradiction is the view of atheists toward classroom prayer: they insist on censoring it even if all want to participate in it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:59, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

I understand your points, but opinions about physics or classroom prayer (logically consistent or otherwise) are not necessary components of what it means to lack belief in God. One could be in agreement with Seneca in thinking that the gods are "seen by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful", and therefore be in support of classroom prayer, for example.

I don't think that classroom prayer ever did me any harm. But I agree with those who say that it should not be the government's job to teach religious (or anti-religious) beliefs. Teach math, english, history, and all the rest of it, but leave questions of faith to the families and to their churches. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:38, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Questions "Learned" Atheists Cannot Answer

2009-09-07T19:50:26Z

Eoinc: /* Answers */

Talk:Essay:Questions "Learned" Atheists Cannot Answer

2009-09-07T16:52:25Z

Eoinc: /* Answers */

Talk:Essay:Questions "Learned" Atheists Cannot Answer

2009-09-07T11:36:30Z

Eoinc:

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-04-08T22:27:43Z

Eoinc: /* Needed updates for Turkey speech, "no longer Christian", etc. */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

== Trip to Canada ==

Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States occured yesterday, to Canada.

Most telling, he declared "I love this country [Canada]" - has he ever even uttered such words about America?

: *sigh* [http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama-loves-america-no-really/ yes, yes he has] --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:40, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== 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)
:: Mr. Schlafly, how that makes someone less christian then somebody else is beyond me. Petty remarks like that does not help conservapedia's image at all[[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:52, 18 February 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)

::::: Islam is a religion trained to not be noticed, it encourages Muslims to remain hidden, any evidence that Obama isn't Muslim is denied by the one fact that Islam is a religion designed to remain hidden until the moment is right to strike. Recent "negotiations" with the Middle East prove this! --[[User:Deadpool]] (EST)

:::::: Even if he is a muslim ,(which i am sure he is not), how does that change anything. Are you suggesting that everyone who is muslim is an amoral terrorist with an agenda to kill all christians and destroy our family values? Are you suggesting that every single muslim follows the tenets unfailingly? Even the most devoted christians i have met follow all of the tenets. A person is a person, religion may play a part in their every day life, but the amount of people willing to die or kill for it is very few. I met the now-president myself once. He was a good man who loved his family and his country, more so than many people I have met, liberals AND conservatives. Even though I voted for McCain, he seemed like a good candidate for president. [[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:51, 18 February 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)

:Wait, by your own admission Obama is half-Caucasian. Shouldn't we say "first president with significantly ethnic roots" or something (not as politically correct, of course)? [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 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)

I'd also note that Michelle is refered to by her maiden name in the info box. Checking the previous Presidents, their wives are referenced in First Last or First Maiden Last (Laura Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton). Any reason not to have Michelle Obama or Michelle Robinson Obama? Is there some dispute about her legal name? As her name has changed in the popular view and the law, this information would appear to be just wrong.

== 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

The claim that Fareed Zakaria's book ''The Post-American World'' "is written from a Muslim point-of-view" is not supported by the reference, [35]. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)

: Ah yes, Fareed Zakaria is actually a Jewish name, written from a Juda perspective. Let's get serious ok? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 15:53, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:: The ''Village Voice'' article that was referenced describes Zakaria as a secular Muslim, but it doesn't mention the book at all. Do you not think it's possible for someone to write a book on a secular topic without injecting his religious point of view? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:20, 19 February 2009 (EST)

==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.

:Nation of Islam's annual convention in a Chicago suburb, a white T-shirt with an image of Obama between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. sold for $10.

:The Muslim community supports their Muslims. MLK just thrown into the mix for his iconic black image. [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGXLhxPilGxuVttW5L588O-y4uAAD96LKH200]

== 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)

Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly "private." There were a number of reporters present. Even if it were private, the first ceremony is the one that is constitutionally binding. In any case, the allegation in the main article needs a citation. There are plenty out there, so get to it!

== 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)

: How about adding a family section now mentioning his half brother in Kenya who was arrested for drug possession? Shouldn't there be something about him on the page? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 08:02, 1 February 2009 (EST)

::This argument doesn't make sense. If he's "anti-family," '''he wouldn't have a family'''. I suppose by "anti-family," you mean pro-abortion. That has nothing do to with whether to include his own family. A good encyclopedia doesn't leave out information for reasons like this. It's relevant and it should be here.[[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:09, 2 March 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)

The article should begin with "Barack Hussein Obama is currently the 44th President of the United States of America." Someone please make this change. [[User:Gadzodilo|Gadzodilo]] 23:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for improving the article's first few words - we now know what his job is and of what country he's President. But I would ask that someone PLEASE look at the grammar in that first sentence - it's absolutely atrocious. Again, since I cannot edit the page, I cannot help but instead can only point out the problems here. First, if you want to make the point about his birthplace, the correct place would be later - and then with an explanation of why this might be a problem (the Constitution states that President's must be born in the USA - there's no mention of this anywhere in the article). If you want to make the point where it is, despite that being a nonsequitor, simply add a period after 'States' and remove the word 'although'. Also please note that the word 'although' is a conditional - and what follows the word 'although' has nothing to do with the opening part of the sentence. You might as well write "He is the President of the USA, although he apparently doesn't like cheese". The two items have no connection. Subject-Object. Next, the entire first sentence is utterly malformed, with a punctuation that woulod shame a four year old, including a period in the middle of the sentence. There is what is presumably a birthdate just floating in the middle of the sentence, undescribed. This is followed by a close-parentheses, where there was no open-parentheses. The sentence then runs on with some gibberish about electoral donations. It also appears as if Joe Biden was his running mate while he was a Senator from Illinois. The first paragraph continues in what can barely be described as comprehensible English with a stream of random, unintroduced facts. Finally, it ends with a nonsensical reference to the absolutely normal practice of politicians referring to the practices of their nation, and addressing their nation as a collective body. I would love to help tidy up this amateur article, but the childish English throughout, combined with the fact that the article is locked, leave me to believe it is not possible, and this encyclopedia is anything but 'trustworthy'. Would you trust your children with this article? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:16, 4 February 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)
::: It doesn't show you're non-conservative. It shows you are not American, or an un-American person. [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 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)

== Article Naming ==

As the article for [[Barack Hussein Obama]] includes his full name, [[John McCain]] should redirect to [[John Sidney McCain III]], [[Joe Biden]] to [[Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*No. But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about. What inconsistency? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 7:08, 30 January 2009
::They are referring to the fact that only Barack Obama's middle name is included in the article name, while the others are not. They are wondering why that is.
::The obvious answer: Hussein is a Muslim name. It helps when trying to portray the slant that President Obama is lying about being a Christian. "Sidney" and "Robinette" are regular Western middle names and serve no significant purpose. A similar line of reasoning can also explain why the Table of Contents is oddly out of view in President Obama's article. [[User:AdamSchaley|AdamSchaley]] 19:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Leave it to a liberal to reduce this discussion to nonsense, innuendo, and pointless name-calling. What's the use of even trying to have this discussion when you won't discuss things rationally? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 19:42, 01/09

::I should remind you that this is a Conservative Christian encyclopedia with an ADMITTED BIAS. The goal is obvious: To show readers that Obama is a Muslim, however this is in line with the principals of the encyclopedia, so there isn't anything really to complain about. Conservatives want everyone to understand Obama is a Muslim. There is no NPOV, get over it (my $.02) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 21:56, 30 January 2009 (EST)

:::I'm pretty sure his religion should have no bearing in the first place. Then again, you're the type of moron who lets a candidate's religious faith influence your vote. "I AINT GON' VOTE FOR NO MUSLIMS OR JEWS." I'm quite sure the color of his skin also has a bearing on you. Let's not forget that there isn't any credible evidence that he's indeed a Muslim. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:45, 7 March 2009 (EST)

== Change of wording? ==

I think "Obama will likely be the first Muslim President" would be better written as "Obama is likely the first Muslim President" ... just a thought [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)
:Nah, let's not. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)

== Update picture? ==

I'd just like to rerequest that the Obama main picture get updated with a higher resolution version. It looks very bad stretched. Here is a URL to an official version (http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)
[[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)
:Done. Thanks for the link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)

::Thanks. Looks a lot better [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 12:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama's religious outlook ==
'''Obama's "outlook is Muslim"? That is simply not true'''

The Obama article presently reads: "Obama's background, education, and '''outlook''' are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity."

I don't think the above sentence is true and I will give two notable cases where it can be shown that Obama's '''outlook''' is not Muslim.

First, Obama heavily promotes the abortion ("pro-choice") ideology.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72511] How many Muslim countries promote the abortion ideology? Not many at all. I cite the following: "The rules are also influenced by the role of religion; in most Muslim countries abortion is prohibited and it is also restricted in Catholic Latin America."[http://www.newsbatch.com/abort.htm]

One of the first things the Obama administration did was to put on the White House website that they were going to promote the homosexual agenda. I cite the following: "President Obama had not even finished his inaugural address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to "overturn" the Supreme Court's precedents on discrimination claims and to demand new laws requiring employers to provide special protections for homosexuals and others with "gender" issues.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86633] I do know for a fact that homosexuality is presently generally looked upon very unfavorably in Muslim countries. I cite the following: "Same-sex intercourse carries the death penalty in five officially Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen. [3] It formerly carried the death penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and in Iraq under a 2001 decree by Saddam Hussein. The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is unclear. In many Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria or the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time, fines or corporal punishment. In some Muslim-majority nations, such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, or Mali, same-sex intercourse is not forbidden by law. However, in Egypt gays have been the victims of laws against "morality"."[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm]

I think it is untrue to say that Obama's outlook is Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)

:His background is [[Islam]]ic, but I am unaware of his theological beliefs. Has he ever espoused a particular Christian or Muslim idea? If so, what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:43, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Historical Ignorance ==

The first statement in the Insights section claims that "Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation."

There are a few things wrong with what Obama said about Pearl Habor, but none of them constitute ignorance. The only things wrong with what he said are that he a) did no pluralize the phrase to "from the bombs that fell on Pearl Habor"; b) he wasn't accurate in the kind of weaponry used because they were actually torpedoes (which is hardly ignorance as it is a largely insignificant fact); or c) the fact that he failed to properly pluralize 'bomb' means that his phrase seems to reference a far more infamous bomb, the one on Hiroshima. This last point of course does not constitute ignorance. Even if he did mistaken Hiroshima for Pearl Habor I would see that as a gaff rather than evidence of impeded ignorance towards American history. But, given that, in the context of 'constantly evolving danger' and the other historical references contained within the whole statement, it is quite clear Obama did not mean Hiroshima, I would be inclined to either edit or remove this phrase entirely.

Politicians make gaffs all the time. If you want to find actual evidence of Obama's 'ignorance' towards American history look somewhere else.

==Rearranged content==
First, very little was removed or changed, but there was some there which was either repetative or in the wrong context. This I hope was corrected.

Second, the place of birth was changed to Hawaii. There has to be ''proof'' that he was ''not'' born in Hawaii, and we cannot allow someone else's opinion in the article which states that he was not. But, the birth controversy is still a relevent topic as far as his possible history and the campaign is concerned, and this feature has been preserved.

And third, there are minor corrections to be made to the article, which include writing and grammer, accuracy, and minor info that could be added as to his presidency. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:50, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I think that Andrew Schafly was right to move the sections back into their previous order. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]]

:I think that speculation should come after factual information in an article. Why are we talking about what Obama "may be" before what he actually is? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 18:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::There you go again! "Actually is" ? I think first, JArneal, in the great tradition of liberals, you need to define what "is" -- ''is''! Please find a new hobby, JArneal, as your present one of constantly arguing and disputing doesn't wear well. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::Why must liberals censor that Obama is likely a Muslim... get over it guys --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Why can't conservatives accept the fact that he isn't...get over it guys --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Sheesh, TK. I'm sorry if I offended you. Do you really want me to define "is"? I was just asking why we don't put factual information in front, and speculation in back. Is there a reason? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama and Sexism ==

In the "Presidential Campaign" section of this article it states "Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being '''a woman''' and outsider." The evidence of Obama mocking Palin for being a woman is explained later: "Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her." Are you talking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eu9Z2hXky0&eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php ? How is this video a "sexist" smear? Not only that, but there is little evidence to support the claim that Obama hired Winner to make this video.

The article suggests that Obama was caught for hiring someone to make a sexist smear video. I am asking for definitive proof that Obama was behind the video, AND definitive proof that the video is a "sexist" smear. If there is no proof, I am at least requesting that the untrue statements about Obama mocking Palin for being a woman are removed. If I do not get a response from one of the editors of this article I will email the owners of Conservapedia directly. [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 19:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)
:First, if you have correct information as to who was actually behind the video in question then it needs to be brought to our attention in a fair manner. Second, the way you brought this about, by making your statement here in the form of a DEMAND, is not going to be tolerated. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)

First of all, if my tone sounded as though i was demanding something from you or seemed disrespectful in some way I apologize, that was not my intent. I am merely requesting that the article changes it's tone. It states: "Obama was caught..." we do not know for certain that Obama was behind the video at all. Are we as Americans not considered innocent until proven guilty?

And what about the charges of sexism? The article calls the video a "sexist" smear. Will someone please tell me what was sexist about it? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:Looking at the references, it is a documented fact that this video was made professionally; it is not an amateur attempt at all. It's also documented that Winner & Associates (including Ethan Winner) are die-hard Obama supporters who have given much to the campaign. While it is not proven from these pages that Obama supported such a video, it is also not proven that he didn't help out the creation of it in some way. I added Ethan Winner's ''alleged'' claim that he made the video alone. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:17, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Well that is a start, thank you. I honestly didn't think I'd get anyone to change anything in the article. But there are still those sexism charges. Can you provide some explanation to those? The line reads: "Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her." Do you think you might be able to take out that word sexist? And maybe reword it in a way that doesn't immediately imply that Obama is behind the video (Until damning evidence is brought forth)? And there is also the claim at the beginning stating: "Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider." The only evidence supposedly supporting the claim that Obama mocked Palin for being "a woman and outsider" is this smear video. Am I just missing something here? How is Obama mocking her for being a woman in this video? How is the video itself at all sexist? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)

*FairMan, you are in danger of being blocked. There was a well-documented news story, during the campaign, showing women were getting paid less on his campaign staff and in his Senate offices, which was hugely embarassing to Obama. [http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obamacommentary/222679,CST-NWS-sweet22.stng] Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called "lack of experience" even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. Please stop your liberal excuse making and time-wasting. Learn the truth, and it will set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Why exactly am I in danger of being blocked? I am aware of that news story, I will save that for another place and time (I don't want to stir up more trouble then I am already in). My main complaint is that the article claimed that Obama mocked Palin for being a woman. The only evidence that supports this claim in the article is the link to the smear video mentioned previously (If there is more evidence then please add it). It is claimed that the video is a sexist smear. Why is my questioning of the label "sexist" being ignored every time someone replies? Please tell me if I am missing something obvious here. It is not my intent to waste anyone's time. I am just looking for answers.

"Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called "lack of experience" even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. "

That is a great example! That is something you could add to the article to back up the claim of Obama mocking Palin for being an outsider. Currently there is nothing in the "Tone" section of the article backing that up.{{unsigned|FairMan}}

*Then that is what you should have said, is exactly my point! Everyone wants to be a critic, while offering nothing, as the box at the top of this page says, that will improve it. If one doesn't do that, how am I, or any editor to distinguish you from the dozens of trolls and disruptor's who sign up everyday? You know how long it took me to find that citation? Less then two minutes. I ask for your understanding, but do not apologize for my comments, simply because I have just pointed out why I would think what I did. "Assume good faith" is something attempted by lots of other places, but it rarely is achieved, and certainly not so often here, where even the most casual reader/editor knows we are constantly set-up by liberal trolls and parodists. Your last comments let all of us see your motivations are perhaps better than assumed, and I do thank you for that. This is how you will build your reputation here, and anywhere else in life. I look forward to other suggestions, offered in the same spirit, and in fact, if you want, put them on my talk to make sure I see them, if you want. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 02:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)

== Category ==

Could a sysop edit this page to add it to [[:Category:Barack Obama]]? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 14:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)

*No, sly mis-naming of the object isn't it? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)

==Minor Edits==
There is a missing parenthesis in his date of birth, and in the "Birth certificate controversy" section, the word "intelligible" should be "ineligible". Those are the only 2 I caught in a quick scan of the page. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)
:Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Hi, I'm a new user. I was curious as to whether this talk page is actualy considered in the editing of this article. What i mean by that is, as this article is locked-down, does the editing administrator read this page and make changes to the article, or will the article always be left as it is? ( I don't mean to offend, as Imentioned, I am a new user, and I am honestly just curious)

== Flag Pin "insights" ==

This section is badly written and requires major change. First, it says Obama didn't provide "adequate" explanation. "Adequate" is subjective. He either provided and explanation or he didn't. The citation indicates he explained. Second, the word "presumably." Encyclopedias aren't supposed to presume things. Third, the word "likely." Again, just an opinion. "Recently" is a vague term; be specific. The assumption about military donors is unsupported speculation. If anyone cares about making this into objective encyclopedic content, it should read as follows:

''Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it, explaining he felt that "Patriotism to me, isn't what you wear on your lapel. "It's what you carry in your heart. I don't need a pin to certify my love for this country."[59] As of DATE, he has begun wearing a pin again.''

I suspect that if I change this, it will be quickly overridden. Are any regular editors/sysop-types willing to change this part? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)

*Dantes, why are you here? If it is to talk, talk, talk, complain, complain, complain, argue, argue, argue, you chose the wrong place. Our tolerance of liberal/socialist Canadians is pretty low. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:24, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::Well, if you bother to read my entries, you'll see that I'm providing civil and rational suggestions for how to make this content more encyclopedic and objective. It's sad that you assume I'm a liberal/socialist just because I'm proposing corrections, and my country of residence is totally irrelevant. The better question would be why are YOU here? I'm here to propose corrections. Apparently you're here to try to insult me. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:40, 3 March 2009 (EST)

== Michelle ==

Could we link to her? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== Religion... ==
Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is no requirement that one must be Christian to be President. Ah, I just checked the constitution and it mentions nothing about religion except once, in the first amendment. He's not a Muslim, which has been confirmed, and even if he were, what does it matter? Maybe this should be reconsidered?[[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: You're wrong on multiple points. How about learning first, and then preaching second?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:: Actually, I'm correct on multiple points as per the United States Constitution. And Hussein is not a 'Muslim' name. Muslim is the word used to denote a person whose religion is Islam. Hussein is an ''Arab'' derived name Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::: The Constitution also mentions religion in Article VI "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Whatever faith Obama is, he is not a Christian<ref>http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Xld3RpINYVUJ:www.conversantlife.com/politics/is-barack-obama-really-a-christian+obama+quote+christian&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us</ref>. For he fails to acknowledge the Nicene creed. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::::: The Nicene creed only applies to Paulian Christians. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: "Pauline Christians" as opposed to .... Muslim Christians???? Got news for you: Paul had nothing to do with the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by all Christians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Heartbeat, try to stick to the point; and don't be so pedantic. Many people use the terms ''[[Muslim]]'' and ''[[Islamic]]'' interchangeably. Such loose usage does not invalidate an argument. You are surely award that the Arab countries are within the Islamic cultural sphere, and that they almost all are places where the required religion is Islam. So having an Arabic name places one within the Islamic sphere and is a [[clue]], anyway, to someone's religious heritage.

These discussions are long on finger-pointing and short on research. Let's have a little more information. Has Obama been attending a church? Is church attendance a better indicator of religious faith than one's father's last name? Was the church he attended Christian? If it doesn't adhere to the [[Nicene Creed]], then is it some sort of heretical variant, or what?

And why is it important what his religion is? Does anyone think he plans to violate the [[First Amendment]] by setting up a [[state religion]] (such as [[Islam]])? Or that he plans to neglect the protection of Americans' [[religious freedom]] even more than President Bush did? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:54, 25 February 2009 (EST)

==== Affirmative Action Question ====

If all of Obama's achievements are linked to affirmative action, how did he get around Harvard Law's anonymous grading procedures? Did he find a way to communicate his race to his professors on his exams? Is there evidence of this? I know that Andy Schlafly was at HLS at the same time as Obama. Maybe he could shed some light on how Obama accomplished that. Was this not official policy when you went to Harvard: http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/handbook/rules-relating-to-law-school-studies/examinations.html [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:15, 23 February 2009 (EST)
:Law schools have almost always graded anonymously. Journals like the Harvard Law Review do, admittedly, have affirmative action policies in selecting their editors, but they do ''not'' use affirmative action in selecting board members. So at most Obama got onto HLR by affirmative action, but his grades and election as President were his own accomplishments. Great point RickD.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 19:01, 23 February 2009 (EST)
::I seem to recall reading that there was a vote in selecting Obama as the President of the Law Review and that a number of conservatives voted for him: http://daggatt.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-harvard-law-days.html

::<blockquote>
::The block of conservatives on the Law Review my year I think was eager to avoid having any of the most political people on the left govern the Review. I mean, the first bedrock criterion, I think for almost all of the editors, was to have somebody with an absolutely first-rate legal mind who would be able to engage competently with the nation's top legal scholars on their scholarship and on these articles, and who would provide the intellectual leadership for the Review that it always needed. That was non-negotiable for almost everybody right or left . . . And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting because he fit that bill far better than the other people who were running. We had all worked with him over the course of a year. And we had all spent countless hours in the presence of Barack, as well as others of our colleagues who were running, in Gannett House [the Law Review offices], and so you get a pretty good sense of people over the course of a year of late nights working on the Review. You know who the rabble-rousers are. You know who the people are who are blinded by their politics. And you know who the people are who, despite their politics, can reach across and be friendly to and make friends with folks who have different views. And Barack very much fell into the latter category.
::</blockquote>
::-Bradford Berenson, #2 lawyer in George W. Bush’s White House, from a Frontline interview [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:::Here is a link to the Frontline interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html
:::This seems to call into question the statement in the article about Obama's success being entirely the result of affirmative action. The single citation currently used to support this point consists of one sentence pulled from an article that otherwise casts Obama in a very positive light. Does anyone have another citation in support of the existing language besides that one, or should we discuss the possibility of changing or removing that paragraph? [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)

At second glance, none of the citations say anything about Obama's HLS achievements being the result of affirmative action. Law students constantly publish articles on subjects that they haven't taken formal courses on. My school doesn't even offer courses dealing with election law, but my friend still published an article about it. The article is missing a logical step between "Obama published an article without taking a class on [science subject] and Constitutional Law" and "Obama's article was published because of his race." Has the writer done any research to justify that inference? [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:20, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== <1% Correction ==

The <1% statistic appears to be legitimate, but it is not presented correctly. According to the source currently used for this statistic (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm), 'The Internet site aljazeera.net published an interview with Ahmad Al Qataani أحمد القطعاني An important Islamic cleric who said: “In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Ever year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity."'

This link puts those numbers into context and gives us the <1% figure: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/young-muslim-and-french/info-graphic-muslim-populations/info-graphic-muslim-populations-worldwide-growth/2526/. However, that is <1% of Muslims worldwide per year, not <1% of all Muslims over their lifetime, as our current wording might lead some to believe.

We could fix this by changing the sentence in the article from its current form
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.''
to
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of the the Muslim population converts to Christianity annually.''

The link I provide my also be of use as an additional source for this. [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:59, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:It also seems like a bad use of statistics. It's useful if you are trying to determine whether a random Muslim converted to Christianity, but is less useful when you're talking about a specific person where lots of other evidence makes a raw percentage meaningless. The percentage of Americans who become President is a lot lower than 1%, but that doesn't mean that Obama didn't become President.[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 14:33, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:: When the inherent fallacy of weak induction is pointed out that is ignored, however the factual correction to the nature of the 1% number probably will not. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)

::: There is nothing fallacious about the 1% statistic, or its use here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:::: But do you agree that the information I presented here, in so far as it relates to the proper wording of this part of the article, is also not false, but is in fact a more reasonable summary of the truth behind the 1% number? I'm not trying to make any statement about how applicable the figure may or may not be when talking about Obama's own religious status; that's clearly a broader debate for another time. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)

:: I know you're committed to this 1% argument and won't change it, but would you care to address my affirmative action question, above, regarding Harvard Law grading and law review editorial board policies?[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:14, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's name in Arabic? ==

Should we show his name in Arabic like Wikipedia does for Muslims? Google translator turned this up "باراك حسين أوباما"

Maybe we could change the opening sentence to be

"Barack Hussein Obama II (Arabic: باراك حسين أوباما)(allegedly born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) " [[User:UnLiberal|UnLiberal]] 15:46, 25 February 2009 (EST)

:Wikipedia does that for Arabs, not Muslims. Also we should get someone who actually reads Arabic rather than a Google translation, anyone can punch something into an internet translator. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:17, 26 February 2009 (EST)

The problem with your auto-translate is that it has too many vowels. It's assuming that you typed in a non-Arabic word and it's trying to reproduce it phonetically, instead of just figuring out the original version. I looked up "Hussein" and "Barack" on Wikipedia to see how they're spelled, Googled up those two words together in Arabic, and found the following full name spelled just like this all over the place: '''
بارك حسین اوباما'''

I think it'd be a pretty neat touch to add to the article, honestly. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 18:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

== "Islam can be compatible with the modern world." ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor Ed Poor’s] recent addition to the list of points arguing that Obama is a Muslim is out of context.

:''He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world."''

Examining the cited work, one finds that the lead up to that quote goes as follows:

:''In Indonesia, Obama has said, he saw women with and without head coverings and Muslims living comfortably next to Christians. He has said that his life among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''

Retaining the full content of the second sentence would give readers a better grasp of the context in which he made this statement. Why did you choose to omit this information? And on what basis do you present this as proof that Obama is a Muslim?

Furthermore, knowing the context seems to weaken the point’s usefulness in revealing Obama’s religion, because it suggests that the quote was informed by his time living abroad rather than his own personal beliefs. If I spent several years living in Thailand and later commented that the experience showed me that Buddhism was compatible with the modern world, would you think I was a Buddhist?

If we insist on continuing to build the case for Obama’s religion, let’s please do so carefully so that we do not omit or obscure any relevant information. If the quote is to remain in the article, I propose that the line be altered to read

:''He has said that the experience of living among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''

NB - I would make this and other minor changes myself, but the article is locked. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 18:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)

: The background adds nothing. Obama's promoting Islam with his statement itself, and there will be many more examples during his term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:26, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::While I understand your desire for brevity, I respectfully disagree. I think that a reader's interpretation of the quote could be made very different given the full context, especially considering the heading under which we provide it here. And though I do see how the statement itself could be seen as a promotion of Islam, there are many things which are "compatible" with the modern world that not everyone would want to endorse - homosexuality (even if you disagree with it, there's no question that it is becoming more and more accepted by society every day), war (just look at Africa), and drug use just to name a few. One could correctly state that they are thriving in these times without endorsing them. Lastly, how does the expectation of more examples of his support for Islam have any bearing on the inclusion or exclusion of information regarding this one? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 20:38, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::Conservapedia has [http://www.conservapedia.com/Out_of_context this] to say about quotes taken out of context. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 09:02, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== More religion ==

The intro states that Obama "chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath." His first oath was also real. It was cited as being legally binding. It's misleading to call the second oath "real." Also, did he choose not to use a Bible, or did he just not use one? This is an important point. Anyone care to look into this and change it if necessary? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:19, 2 March 2009 (EST)

: Perhaps you think Obama's aides wouldn't let him use the Bible for his real, private oath??? Please. Obama could have easily used a Bible ... if he wanted to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:: You've ignored my first point, which is that the first oath was also real, valid and legally binding. It's misleading and inaccurate to distinguish the second oath as "real," when the first one was equally so. But as to my second point, it's this kind of thing that prevents Conservapedia from becoming truly encyclopedic; writers are choosing to rely on their own logical deductions instead of verifiable sources. The sentence says Obama "chose not use" a Bible. The point is you don't know he chose not to use one. Maybe Roberts said they didn't need one. Maybe Obama didn't want to use one. Maybe the only Bible available was a Klingon translation. Who knows? But this article confidently states that he "chose not to" use a Bible without anything to back up that statement. This will never be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" if this kind of content is permitted. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)

::: "Dantes", your rant is incoherent. There's no disputing that Obama "chose not to use" a Bible for his real, private oath. Note, by the way, that if the first oath was "real, valid and legally binding," then there would not have been a second oath. No kidding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 6 March 2009 (EST)

:::: I agree with ASchlafly, it's not as if a Bible would have been hard to find, or as if the second oath was so urgent that there was no time to find one. And why is a second oath needed if the first one was 'real, valid and legally binding'? I doubt he did it for his own amusement: "Hey guys, that was fun, let's do it again!" [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:13, 6 March 2009 (EST)

::::: But that isn't the point. And Aschlafly, I'm sorry you couldn't understand my suggestion. But the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it a rant. I'll explain again, in simpler terms:
:::::1) Obama didn't use a bible for his second oath.
:::::2) It is possible, even likely, that he "chose not to use" a bible.
:::::3) However, there is nothing to support the view that he "chose not to." There's no extant source to back this up
:::::4) Therefore, this article is making a logical deduction
:::::5) Encyclopedias do not deduce, speculate, assume or opinionate. They state proven facts

:::::It doesn't matter if that is the only logical explanation. Without any proof, it's just speculation, regardless of how likely it is. Unless someone can supply a reputable source that says Obama chose not to use a bible, this is an assumption. That makes it biased. Saying "there's no disputing" something isn't the same as proving it.

::::: As to the "real" oath, basic research indicates it was done out of a "superabundance of caution," not because it was legally necessary. See this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJKZrJDhy6g52PZNb7phfFmsQVow A "seeker of truth" would know this, or at least try to find out. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 14:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

== Obama is likely the first Muslim President ==
Found yet another example. Muslim helps Obama get into Harvard. ''"It was former Malcom X lawyer and New York City mayoral candidate Percy Sutton who inadvertently revealed how Obama could even afford to get into Harvard. In a New York television show entitled “Inside City Hall”, Sutton admitted that orthodox Muslim, Black Nationalist, and Black Panther mentor Dr. Khalid al-Mansour personally asked Sutton to help Obama get into Harvard."'' [http://blogs.newberlinnow.com/speaking_the_truth/default.aspx Barack Obama Couldn't Pass a Background Investigation In His Own Administration] --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 23:49, 3 March 2009 (EST)
:Blogs are nice. But if you're going to use one as a source for this article, I would prefer they disclose their own sources so that those sources can be checked. Unfortunately, there was not a single link in the entire post. Maybe an actual video clip of the interview, or a coverage of the story by a news organization? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 01:00, 4 March 2009 (EST)
::Dear comrad, you have the peoples names, you have the name of the show, are you mad it is not sourced further for you?-[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:13, 4 March 2009 (EST)
:::I'm not mad, though I am a little disappointed that not everyone here seems interested in pushing for greater quality. We are an internet encyclopedia, and as such are expected to provide credible outside sources for all our material. In any case, I took your advice and went looking for additional sources and found [http://mediamatters.org/items/200809080018 this coverage] as well as [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/mansourian_candidate.htm this post]. Note that, although both of these are internet blogs, they both provide material in the form of outside links to back up their discussion; the latter even does this with a video of the interview. Yes, the first one is from Media Matters, but it contains some good follow-up. If you're really interested in presenting the truth, more information always helps, even if it means having to dig around and analyze all of it before you figure out what exactly what the truth is. I hope these prove useful. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::: SStaples, now that you've overcome your initial denial and confirmed the accuracy of the statement, do yourself a favor and open your own mind further. Start recognizing that over half of what you see on television and learned in school is liberal deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::::Andy, with respect, I never denied the accuracy of Jpatt's quotation. I merely wanted a better source so that both it and this article as a whole would be better supported. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:32, 5 March 2009 (EST)

==Obama's Tax Cut Claims During the Campaign==
I would like to add this text right before the "Campaign financing" secion:
:During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families."”. The Wall Street Journal asked, “how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?” <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html</ref> In truth, Obama was calling government handouts “tax credits” and counting those as tax cuts. The WSJ wondered why McCain “allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered”. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 19:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Good point. I just unlocked the page for you to insert info as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:48, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: I added this text. Thanks. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

==Obama & Che Guevara / Fidel Castro etc==
I was surprised this page had such little about all the connections out there. Thus I have added the fact that his poster is taken to resemble Jim Fitzpatricks Che poster. Also during the campaign his workers were found with Cuban flags bearing the face of Marxist "hero" (puke) [[Che Guevara]]. I added this fact as well with a ref. thanks and Cuba Libre ! (free Cuba from Commie-nism) [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Can an admin possibly help me add some images to the page. I want to add [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8Mo9wgzZpRk/SFLC2eJtvXI/AAAAAAAAA8I/zV0AwV3hbVM/s400/obamachehouston2__oPt.jpg This one] of Obamas campaign HQ, with a Cuban Che flag. just google it for more info. Someone also needs to add [http://ecarson.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/im000541.jpg this brilliant image] to the article, showing all of Obamas Commie pals. Story behind it [http://ecarson.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/communist-obama-display/ here]. Lastly I want to add [http://www.virtuousplanet.com/shops/userimages/00003/00000000008/section/00000000000000061879.png this image] I made to his political view section. thanks and Viva Conservatism! [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

== Abandoned ==

This article is starting to look like nothing more than an abandoned campaign ad. [[User:Everett3|Everett3]] 00:05, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: please be more specific? [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:22, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

==Page should be unlocked==
Right now it seems that registered users can't edit the article. Why is that? How do we expect to compete with the Communists at Wikipedia, if we ham string some of our best talent. Things are happening everyday, and our nation irks closer to disaster and Marxist takeover. This article should be our best one, and our most updated. Come on fellas, this is a war of ideas. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:30, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

*The reason that it is locked is comments like yours. Communists at Wikipedia? That is so over the top, it rounds the bend and meets up with the liberals wacky comments, PaulRevere. I will be happy to unlock it for you, so long as you read what it says at the bottom of the edit screen: ''"If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here."'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: With all due respect TK, I disagree on Wikipedia being communist infiltrated in many ways. Just read their Obama article compared to the one here. As for sources and added info, there is tons of good info at [http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2289 this article] that I wanted to add. Basically Obama should be described right off the bat as a MARXIST, no if ands or butts about it. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:47, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:::Remember encyclopedia's do not use speculation or conjecture. While you and I might agree as to the plausibility of of many of the items in the article, the author's opinion, absent facts, is just that; the opinion of the author. I have unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

==Age template==

I mentally calculated his age wrong, which is embarrassing for a math tutor! Anyway, I added an {{tl|age}} template, so on August 4th he'll age one year. And the year after that another, and so on. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:50, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

: Ha ha. You're a genius, Ed!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

::Not to boast, but the [[Template:Age]] which I created over at Wikipedia is in over 50,000 articles. It's hard to find a bio there which doesn't use it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== Referring to America in 3rd person? ==
"We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there."- this is 1st person plural, surely? Sorry to nit pick, but it ''is'' on the front page after all. [[User:WillD|WillD]] 17:27, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== Damned if you do, damned if you don't ==

On the subject of his American flag lapel pin, the "Insights" section says that he ceased wearing one because it "presumably" would have hurt his relations with anti-military campaign donors. Then he starts to wear it again, and this is explained as being "likely" to do with political pandering. It sounds as if the author is determined to view every action Obama takes in a negative light. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:58, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

== Needed updates for Turkey speech, "no longer Christian", etc. ==

I don't have editing power for this article, but it'd be great if someone can add:

*update on Obama's "no longer a Christian nation" comments. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67735]
*confirming that the "speech in muslim capitol in first 100 days" prediction came true (Turkey)
*any other pertinent facts from his recent speech in Turkey, especially the "Islam is not the enemy" type of content.

Lots of significant events that flesh out his perspective and stance in recent weeks...
[[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 17:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

: Go ahead, David. I just unlocked it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:14, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Interesting.... so Obama said in Turkey, and I quote, "The United States has been '''enriched by Muslim Americans'''. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country. I know, because '''I am one of them'''." [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:36, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::::What's also interesting is where you chose to add your emphasis. Why not read it as: "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. '''Many other Americans''' have Muslims in their family, or '''have lived in a Muslim-majority country'''. I know, because '''I am one of them'''"? --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:27, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I have respect for Muslims and for Islam, but this hardly makes me non-Christian. I am a Jewish convert to Christianity. I wish we could stop branding Obama as non-Christian.

:::If we must criticize him, let's focus on describing his policies and the effects they have had or are likely to have. He is primarily a politician; he is not a religious leader. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:48, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: Ed, you make a valid point, but many (including myself, historians, reporters and voters) would disagree. A president's religious beliefs are significant. When a president ''lies'' about those beliefs, then the significance is amplified. Do you think Obama told the truth when he campaigned as a Christian? I don't, and that raises valid questions about what the truth really is that Obama was lying about.

:::: Ed, you suggest focusing only on Obama's policies, but unfortunately policies are often not known in time to object to them. Obama quickly sent a secret letter to Russia upon becoming president, and the public had no opportunity to object. Hitler did not publicize his policies to give people an early opportunity to object.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:41, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-04-08T22:27:10Z

Eoinc: /* Needed updates for Turkey speech, "no longer Christian", etc. */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

== Trip to Canada ==

Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States occured yesterday, to Canada.

Most telling, he declared "I love this country [Canada]" - has he ever even uttered such words about America?

: *sigh* [http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama-loves-america-no-really/ yes, yes he has] --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:40, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== 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)
:: Mr. Schlafly, how that makes someone less christian then somebody else is beyond me. Petty remarks like that does not help conservapedia's image at all[[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:52, 18 February 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)

::::: Islam is a religion trained to not be noticed, it encourages Muslims to remain hidden, any evidence that Obama isn't Muslim is denied by the one fact that Islam is a religion designed to remain hidden until the moment is right to strike. Recent "negotiations" with the Middle East prove this! --[[User:Deadpool]] (EST)

:::::: Even if he is a muslim ,(which i am sure he is not), how does that change anything. Are you suggesting that everyone who is muslim is an amoral terrorist with an agenda to kill all christians and destroy our family values? Are you suggesting that every single muslim follows the tenets unfailingly? Even the most devoted christians i have met follow all of the tenets. A person is a person, religion may play a part in their every day life, but the amount of people willing to die or kill for it is very few. I met the now-president myself once. He was a good man who loved his family and his country, more so than many people I have met, liberals AND conservatives. Even though I voted for McCain, he seemed like a good candidate for president. [[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:51, 18 February 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)

:Wait, by your own admission Obama is half-Caucasian. Shouldn't we say "first president with significantly ethnic roots" or something (not as politically correct, of course)? [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 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)

I'd also note that Michelle is refered to by her maiden name in the info box. Checking the previous Presidents, their wives are referenced in First Last or First Maiden Last (Laura Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton). Any reason not to have Michelle Obama or Michelle Robinson Obama? Is there some dispute about her legal name? As her name has changed in the popular view and the law, this information would appear to be just wrong.

== 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

The claim that Fareed Zakaria's book ''The Post-American World'' "is written from a Muslim point-of-view" is not supported by the reference, [35]. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)

: Ah yes, Fareed Zakaria is actually a Jewish name, written from a Juda perspective. Let's get serious ok? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 15:53, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:: The ''Village Voice'' article that was referenced describes Zakaria as a secular Muslim, but it doesn't mention the book at all. Do you not think it's possible for someone to write a book on a secular topic without injecting his religious point of view? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:20, 19 February 2009 (EST)

==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.

:Nation of Islam's annual convention in a Chicago suburb, a white T-shirt with an image of Obama between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. sold for $10.

:The Muslim community supports their Muslims. MLK just thrown into the mix for his iconic black image. [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGXLhxPilGxuVttW5L588O-y4uAAD96LKH200]

== 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)

Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly "private." There were a number of reporters present. Even if it were private, the first ceremony is the one that is constitutionally binding. In any case, the allegation in the main article needs a citation. There are plenty out there, so get to it!

== 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)

: How about adding a family section now mentioning his half brother in Kenya who was arrested for drug possession? Shouldn't there be something about him on the page? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 08:02, 1 February 2009 (EST)

::This argument doesn't make sense. If he's "anti-family," '''he wouldn't have a family'''. I suppose by "anti-family," you mean pro-abortion. That has nothing do to with whether to include his own family. A good encyclopedia doesn't leave out information for reasons like this. It's relevant and it should be here.[[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:09, 2 March 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)

The article should begin with "Barack Hussein Obama is currently the 44th President of the United States of America." Someone please make this change. [[User:Gadzodilo|Gadzodilo]] 23:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for improving the article's first few words - we now know what his job is and of what country he's President. But I would ask that someone PLEASE look at the grammar in that first sentence - it's absolutely atrocious. Again, since I cannot edit the page, I cannot help but instead can only point out the problems here. First, if you want to make the point about his birthplace, the correct place would be later - and then with an explanation of why this might be a problem (the Constitution states that President's must be born in the USA - there's no mention of this anywhere in the article). If you want to make the point where it is, despite that being a nonsequitor, simply add a period after 'States' and remove the word 'although'. Also please note that the word 'although' is a conditional - and what follows the word 'although' has nothing to do with the opening part of the sentence. You might as well write "He is the President of the USA, although he apparently doesn't like cheese". The two items have no connection. Subject-Object. Next, the entire first sentence is utterly malformed, with a punctuation that woulod shame a four year old, including a period in the middle of the sentence. There is what is presumably a birthdate just floating in the middle of the sentence, undescribed. This is followed by a close-parentheses, where there was no open-parentheses. The sentence then runs on with some gibberish about electoral donations. It also appears as if Joe Biden was his running mate while he was a Senator from Illinois. The first paragraph continues in what can barely be described as comprehensible English with a stream of random, unintroduced facts. Finally, it ends with a nonsensical reference to the absolutely normal practice of politicians referring to the practices of their nation, and addressing their nation as a collective body. I would love to help tidy up this amateur article, but the childish English throughout, combined with the fact that the article is locked, leave me to believe it is not possible, and this encyclopedia is anything but 'trustworthy'. Would you trust your children with this article? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:16, 4 February 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)
::: It doesn't show you're non-conservative. It shows you are not American, or an un-American person. [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 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)

== Article Naming ==

As the article for [[Barack Hussein Obama]] includes his full name, [[John McCain]] should redirect to [[John Sidney McCain III]], [[Joe Biden]] to [[Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*No. But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about. What inconsistency? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 7:08, 30 January 2009
::They are referring to the fact that only Barack Obama's middle name is included in the article name, while the others are not. They are wondering why that is.
::The obvious answer: Hussein is a Muslim name. It helps when trying to portray the slant that President Obama is lying about being a Christian. "Sidney" and "Robinette" are regular Western middle names and serve no significant purpose. A similar line of reasoning can also explain why the Table of Contents is oddly out of view in President Obama's article. [[User:AdamSchaley|AdamSchaley]] 19:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Leave it to a liberal to reduce this discussion to nonsense, innuendo, and pointless name-calling. What's the use of even trying to have this discussion when you won't discuss things rationally? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 19:42, 01/09

::I should remind you that this is a Conservative Christian encyclopedia with an ADMITTED BIAS. The goal is obvious: To show readers that Obama is a Muslim, however this is in line with the principals of the encyclopedia, so there isn't anything really to complain about. Conservatives want everyone to understand Obama is a Muslim. There is no NPOV, get over it (my $.02) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 21:56, 30 January 2009 (EST)

:::I'm pretty sure his religion should have no bearing in the first place. Then again, you're the type of moron who lets a candidate's religious faith influence your vote. "I AINT GON' VOTE FOR NO MUSLIMS OR JEWS." I'm quite sure the color of his skin also has a bearing on you. Let's not forget that there isn't any credible evidence that he's indeed a Muslim. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:45, 7 March 2009 (EST)

== Change of wording? ==

I think "Obama will likely be the first Muslim President" would be better written as "Obama is likely the first Muslim President" ... just a thought [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)
:Nah, let's not. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)

== Update picture? ==

I'd just like to rerequest that the Obama main picture get updated with a higher resolution version. It looks very bad stretched. Here is a URL to an official version (http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)
[[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)
:Done. Thanks for the link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)

::Thanks. Looks a lot better [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 12:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama's religious outlook ==
'''Obama's "outlook is Muslim"? That is simply not true'''

The Obama article presently reads: "Obama's background, education, and '''outlook''' are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity."

I don't think the above sentence is true and I will give two notable cases where it can be shown that Obama's '''outlook''' is not Muslim.

First, Obama heavily promotes the abortion ("pro-choice") ideology.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72511] How many Muslim countries promote the abortion ideology? Not many at all. I cite the following: "The rules are also influenced by the role of religion; in most Muslim countries abortion is prohibited and it is also restricted in Catholic Latin America."[http://www.newsbatch.com/abort.htm]

One of the first things the Obama administration did was to put on the White House website that they were going to promote the homosexual agenda. I cite the following: "President Obama had not even finished his inaugural address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to "overturn" the Supreme Court's precedents on discrimination claims and to demand new laws requiring employers to provide special protections for homosexuals and others with "gender" issues.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86633] I do know for a fact that homosexuality is presently generally looked upon very unfavorably in Muslim countries. I cite the following: "Same-sex intercourse carries the death penalty in five officially Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen. [3] It formerly carried the death penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and in Iraq under a 2001 decree by Saddam Hussein. The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is unclear. In many Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria or the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time, fines or corporal punishment. In some Muslim-majority nations, such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, or Mali, same-sex intercourse is not forbidden by law. However, in Egypt gays have been the victims of laws against "morality"."[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm]

I think it is untrue to say that Obama's outlook is Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)

:His background is [[Islam]]ic, but I am unaware of his theological beliefs. Has he ever espoused a particular Christian or Muslim idea? If so, what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:43, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Historical Ignorance ==

The first statement in the Insights section claims that "Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation."

There are a few things wrong with what Obama said about Pearl Habor, but none of them constitute ignorance. The only things wrong with what he said are that he a) did no pluralize the phrase to "from the bombs that fell on Pearl Habor"; b) he wasn't accurate in the kind of weaponry used because they were actually torpedoes (which is hardly ignorance as it is a largely insignificant fact); or c) the fact that he failed to properly pluralize 'bomb' means that his phrase seems to reference a far more infamous bomb, the one on Hiroshima. This last point of course does not constitute ignorance. Even if he did mistaken Hiroshima for Pearl Habor I would see that as a gaff rather than evidence of impeded ignorance towards American history. But, given that, in the context of 'constantly evolving danger' and the other historical references contained within the whole statement, it is quite clear Obama did not mean Hiroshima, I would be inclined to either edit or remove this phrase entirely.

Politicians make gaffs all the time. If you want to find actual evidence of Obama's 'ignorance' towards American history look somewhere else.

==Rearranged content==
First, very little was removed or changed, but there was some there which was either repetative or in the wrong context. This I hope was corrected.

Second, the place of birth was changed to Hawaii. There has to be ''proof'' that he was ''not'' born in Hawaii, and we cannot allow someone else's opinion in the article which states that he was not. But, the birth controversy is still a relevent topic as far as his possible history and the campaign is concerned, and this feature has been preserved.

And third, there are minor corrections to be made to the article, which include writing and grammer, accuracy, and minor info that could be added as to his presidency. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:50, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I think that Andrew Schafly was right to move the sections back into their previous order. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]]

:I think that speculation should come after factual information in an article. Why are we talking about what Obama "may be" before what he actually is? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 18:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::There you go again! "Actually is" ? I think first, JArneal, in the great tradition of liberals, you need to define what "is" -- ''is''! Please find a new hobby, JArneal, as your present one of constantly arguing and disputing doesn't wear well. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::Why must liberals censor that Obama is likely a Muslim... get over it guys --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Why can't conservatives accept the fact that he isn't...get over it guys --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Sheesh, TK. I'm sorry if I offended you. Do you really want me to define "is"? I was just asking why we don't put factual information in front, and speculation in back. Is there a reason? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama and Sexism ==

In the "Presidential Campaign" section of this article it states "Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being '''a woman''' and outsider." The evidence of Obama mocking Palin for being a woman is explained later: "Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her." Are you talking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eu9Z2hXky0&eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php ? How is this video a "sexist" smear? Not only that, but there is little evidence to support the claim that Obama hired Winner to make this video.

The article suggests that Obama was caught for hiring someone to make a sexist smear video. I am asking for definitive proof that Obama was behind the video, AND definitive proof that the video is a "sexist" smear. If there is no proof, I am at least requesting that the untrue statements about Obama mocking Palin for being a woman are removed. If I do not get a response from one of the editors of this article I will email the owners of Conservapedia directly. [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 19:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)
:First, if you have correct information as to who was actually behind the video in question then it needs to be brought to our attention in a fair manner. Second, the way you brought this about, by making your statement here in the form of a DEMAND, is not going to be tolerated. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)

First of all, if my tone sounded as though i was demanding something from you or seemed disrespectful in some way I apologize, that was not my intent. I am merely requesting that the article changes it's tone. It states: "Obama was caught..." we do not know for certain that Obama was behind the video at all. Are we as Americans not considered innocent until proven guilty?

And what about the charges of sexism? The article calls the video a "sexist" smear. Will someone please tell me what was sexist about it? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:Looking at the references, it is a documented fact that this video was made professionally; it is not an amateur attempt at all. It's also documented that Winner & Associates (including Ethan Winner) are die-hard Obama supporters who have given much to the campaign. While it is not proven from these pages that Obama supported such a video, it is also not proven that he didn't help out the creation of it in some way. I added Ethan Winner's ''alleged'' claim that he made the video alone. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:17, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Well that is a start, thank you. I honestly didn't think I'd get anyone to change anything in the article. But there are still those sexism charges. Can you provide some explanation to those? The line reads: "Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her." Do you think you might be able to take out that word sexist? And maybe reword it in a way that doesn't immediately imply that Obama is behind the video (Until damning evidence is brought forth)? And there is also the claim at the beginning stating: "Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider." The only evidence supposedly supporting the claim that Obama mocked Palin for being "a woman and outsider" is this smear video. Am I just missing something here? How is Obama mocking her for being a woman in this video? How is the video itself at all sexist? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)

*FairMan, you are in danger of being blocked. There was a well-documented news story, during the campaign, showing women were getting paid less on his campaign staff and in his Senate offices, which was hugely embarassing to Obama. [http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obamacommentary/222679,CST-NWS-sweet22.stng] Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called "lack of experience" even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. Please stop your liberal excuse making and time-wasting. Learn the truth, and it will set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Why exactly am I in danger of being blocked? I am aware of that news story, I will save that for another place and time (I don't want to stir up more trouble then I am already in). My main complaint is that the article claimed that Obama mocked Palin for being a woman. The only evidence that supports this claim in the article is the link to the smear video mentioned previously (If there is more evidence then please add it). It is claimed that the video is a sexist smear. Why is my questioning of the label "sexist" being ignored every time someone replies? Please tell me if I am missing something obvious here. It is not my intent to waste anyone's time. I am just looking for answers.

"Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called "lack of experience" even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. "

That is a great example! That is something you could add to the article to back up the claim of Obama mocking Palin for being an outsider. Currently there is nothing in the "Tone" section of the article backing that up.{{unsigned|FairMan}}

*Then that is what you should have said, is exactly my point! Everyone wants to be a critic, while offering nothing, as the box at the top of this page says, that will improve it. If one doesn't do that, how am I, or any editor to distinguish you from the dozens of trolls and disruptor's who sign up everyday? You know how long it took me to find that citation? Less then two minutes. I ask for your understanding, but do not apologize for my comments, simply because I have just pointed out why I would think what I did. "Assume good faith" is something attempted by lots of other places, but it rarely is achieved, and certainly not so often here, where even the most casual reader/editor knows we are constantly set-up by liberal trolls and parodists. Your last comments let all of us see your motivations are perhaps better than assumed, and I do thank you for that. This is how you will build your reputation here, and anywhere else in life. I look forward to other suggestions, offered in the same spirit, and in fact, if you want, put them on my talk to make sure I see them, if you want. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 02:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)

== Category ==

Could a sysop edit this page to add it to [[:Category:Barack Obama]]? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 14:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)

*No, sly mis-naming of the object isn't it? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)

==Minor Edits==
There is a missing parenthesis in his date of birth, and in the "Birth certificate controversy" section, the word "intelligible" should be "ineligible". Those are the only 2 I caught in a quick scan of the page. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)
:Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Hi, I'm a new user. I was curious as to whether this talk page is actualy considered in the editing of this article. What i mean by that is, as this article is locked-down, does the editing administrator read this page and make changes to the article, or will the article always be left as it is? ( I don't mean to offend, as Imentioned, I am a new user, and I am honestly just curious)

== Flag Pin "insights" ==

This section is badly written and requires major change. First, it says Obama didn't provide "adequate" explanation. "Adequate" is subjective. He either provided and explanation or he didn't. The citation indicates he explained. Second, the word "presumably." Encyclopedias aren't supposed to presume things. Third, the word "likely." Again, just an opinion. "Recently" is a vague term; be specific. The assumption about military donors is unsupported speculation. If anyone cares about making this into objective encyclopedic content, it should read as follows:

''Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it, explaining he felt that "Patriotism to me, isn't what you wear on your lapel. "It's what you carry in your heart. I don't need a pin to certify my love for this country."[59] As of DATE, he has begun wearing a pin again.''

I suspect that if I change this, it will be quickly overridden. Are any regular editors/sysop-types willing to change this part? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)

*Dantes, why are you here? If it is to talk, talk, talk, complain, complain, complain, argue, argue, argue, you chose the wrong place. Our tolerance of liberal/socialist Canadians is pretty low. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:24, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::Well, if you bother to read my entries, you'll see that I'm providing civil and rational suggestions for how to make this content more encyclopedic and objective. It's sad that you assume I'm a liberal/socialist just because I'm proposing corrections, and my country of residence is totally irrelevant. The better question would be why are YOU here? I'm here to propose corrections. Apparently you're here to try to insult me. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:40, 3 March 2009 (EST)

== Michelle ==

Could we link to her? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== Religion... ==
Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is no requirement that one must be Christian to be President. Ah, I just checked the constitution and it mentions nothing about religion except once, in the first amendment. He's not a Muslim, which has been confirmed, and even if he were, what does it matter? Maybe this should be reconsidered?[[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: You're wrong on multiple points. How about learning first, and then preaching second?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:: Actually, I'm correct on multiple points as per the United States Constitution. And Hussein is not a 'Muslim' name. Muslim is the word used to denote a person whose religion is Islam. Hussein is an ''Arab'' derived name Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::: The Constitution also mentions religion in Article VI "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Whatever faith Obama is, he is not a Christian<ref>http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Xld3RpINYVUJ:www.conversantlife.com/politics/is-barack-obama-really-a-christian+obama+quote+christian&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us</ref>. For he fails to acknowledge the Nicene creed. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::::: The Nicene creed only applies to Paulian Christians. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: "Pauline Christians" as opposed to .... Muslim Christians???? Got news for you: Paul had nothing to do with the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by all Christians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Heartbeat, try to stick to the point; and don't be so pedantic. Many people use the terms ''[[Muslim]]'' and ''[[Islamic]]'' interchangeably. Such loose usage does not invalidate an argument. You are surely award that the Arab countries are within the Islamic cultural sphere, and that they almost all are places where the required religion is Islam. So having an Arabic name places one within the Islamic sphere and is a [[clue]], anyway, to someone's religious heritage.

These discussions are long on finger-pointing and short on research. Let's have a little more information. Has Obama been attending a church? Is church attendance a better indicator of religious faith than one's father's last name? Was the church he attended Christian? If it doesn't adhere to the [[Nicene Creed]], then is it some sort of heretical variant, or what?

And why is it important what his religion is? Does anyone think he plans to violate the [[First Amendment]] by setting up a [[state religion]] (such as [[Islam]])? Or that he plans to neglect the protection of Americans' [[religious freedom]] even more than President Bush did? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:54, 25 February 2009 (EST)

==== Affirmative Action Question ====

If all of Obama's achievements are linked to affirmative action, how did he get around Harvard Law's anonymous grading procedures? Did he find a way to communicate his race to his professors on his exams? Is there evidence of this? I know that Andy Schlafly was at HLS at the same time as Obama. Maybe he could shed some light on how Obama accomplished that. Was this not official policy when you went to Harvard: http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/handbook/rules-relating-to-law-school-studies/examinations.html [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:15, 23 February 2009 (EST)
:Law schools have almost always graded anonymously. Journals like the Harvard Law Review do, admittedly, have affirmative action policies in selecting their editors, but they do ''not'' use affirmative action in selecting board members. So at most Obama got onto HLR by affirmative action, but his grades and election as President were his own accomplishments. Great point RickD.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 19:01, 23 February 2009 (EST)
::I seem to recall reading that there was a vote in selecting Obama as the President of the Law Review and that a number of conservatives voted for him: http://daggatt.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-harvard-law-days.html

::<blockquote>
::The block of conservatives on the Law Review my year I think was eager to avoid having any of the most political people on the left govern the Review. I mean, the first bedrock criterion, I think for almost all of the editors, was to have somebody with an absolutely first-rate legal mind who would be able to engage competently with the nation's top legal scholars on their scholarship and on these articles, and who would provide the intellectual leadership for the Review that it always needed. That was non-negotiable for almost everybody right or left . . . And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting because he fit that bill far better than the other people who were running. We had all worked with him over the course of a year. And we had all spent countless hours in the presence of Barack, as well as others of our colleagues who were running, in Gannett House [the Law Review offices], and so you get a pretty good sense of people over the course of a year of late nights working on the Review. You know who the rabble-rousers are. You know who the people are who are blinded by their politics. And you know who the people are who, despite their politics, can reach across and be friendly to and make friends with folks who have different views. And Barack very much fell into the latter category.
::</blockquote>
::-Bradford Berenson, #2 lawyer in George W. Bush’s White House, from a Frontline interview [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:::Here is a link to the Frontline interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html
:::This seems to call into question the statement in the article about Obama's success being entirely the result of affirmative action. The single citation currently used to support this point consists of one sentence pulled from an article that otherwise casts Obama in a very positive light. Does anyone have another citation in support of the existing language besides that one, or should we discuss the possibility of changing or removing that paragraph? [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)

At second glance, none of the citations say anything about Obama's HLS achievements being the result of affirmative action. Law students constantly publish articles on subjects that they haven't taken formal courses on. My school doesn't even offer courses dealing with election law, but my friend still published an article about it. The article is missing a logical step between "Obama published an article without taking a class on [science subject] and Constitutional Law" and "Obama's article was published because of his race." Has the writer done any research to justify that inference? [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:20, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== <1% Correction ==

The <1% statistic appears to be legitimate, but it is not presented correctly. According to the source currently used for this statistic (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm), 'The Internet site aljazeera.net published an interview with Ahmad Al Qataani أحمد القطعاني An important Islamic cleric who said: “In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Ever year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity."'

This link puts those numbers into context and gives us the <1% figure: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/young-muslim-and-french/info-graphic-muslim-populations/info-graphic-muslim-populations-worldwide-growth/2526/. However, that is <1% of Muslims worldwide per year, not <1% of all Muslims over their lifetime, as our current wording might lead some to believe.

We could fix this by changing the sentence in the article from its current form
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.''
to
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of the the Muslim population converts to Christianity annually.''

The link I provide my also be of use as an additional source for this. [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:59, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:It also seems like a bad use of statistics. It's useful if you are trying to determine whether a random Muslim converted to Christianity, but is less useful when you're talking about a specific person where lots of other evidence makes a raw percentage meaningless. The percentage of Americans who become President is a lot lower than 1%, but that doesn't mean that Obama didn't become President.[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 14:33, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:: When the inherent fallacy of weak induction is pointed out that is ignored, however the factual correction to the nature of the 1% number probably will not. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)

::: There is nothing fallacious about the 1% statistic, or its use here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:::: But do you agree that the information I presented here, in so far as it relates to the proper wording of this part of the article, is also not false, but is in fact a more reasonable summary of the truth behind the 1% number? I'm not trying to make any statement about how applicable the figure may or may not be when talking about Obama's own religious status; that's clearly a broader debate for another time. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)

:: I know you're committed to this 1% argument and won't change it, but would you care to address my affirmative action question, above, regarding Harvard Law grading and law review editorial board policies?[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:14, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's name in Arabic? ==

Should we show his name in Arabic like Wikipedia does for Muslims? Google translator turned this up "باراك حسين أوباما"

Maybe we could change the opening sentence to be

"Barack Hussein Obama II (Arabic: باراك حسين أوباما)(allegedly born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) " [[User:UnLiberal|UnLiberal]] 15:46, 25 February 2009 (EST)

:Wikipedia does that for Arabs, not Muslims. Also we should get someone who actually reads Arabic rather than a Google translation, anyone can punch something into an internet translator. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:17, 26 February 2009 (EST)

The problem with your auto-translate is that it has too many vowels. It's assuming that you typed in a non-Arabic word and it's trying to reproduce it phonetically, instead of just figuring out the original version. I looked up "Hussein" and "Barack" on Wikipedia to see how they're spelled, Googled up those two words together in Arabic, and found the following full name spelled just like this all over the place: '''
بارك حسین اوباما'''

I think it'd be a pretty neat touch to add to the article, honestly. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 18:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

== "Islam can be compatible with the modern world." ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor Ed Poor’s] recent addition to the list of points arguing that Obama is a Muslim is out of context.

:''He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world."''

Examining the cited work, one finds that the lead up to that quote goes as follows:

:''In Indonesia, Obama has said, he saw women with and without head coverings and Muslims living comfortably next to Christians. He has said that his life among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''

Retaining the full content of the second sentence would give readers a better grasp of the context in which he made this statement. Why did you choose to omit this information? And on what basis do you present this as proof that Obama is a Muslim?

Furthermore, knowing the context seems to weaken the point’s usefulness in revealing Obama’s religion, because it suggests that the quote was informed by his time living abroad rather than his own personal beliefs. If I spent several years living in Thailand and later commented that the experience showed me that Buddhism was compatible with the modern world, would you think I was a Buddhist?

If we insist on continuing to build the case for Obama’s religion, let’s please do so carefully so that we do not omit or obscure any relevant information. If the quote is to remain in the article, I propose that the line be altered to read

:''He has said that the experience of living among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''

NB - I would make this and other minor changes myself, but the article is locked. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 18:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)

: The background adds nothing. Obama's promoting Islam with his statement itself, and there will be many more examples during his term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:26, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::While I understand your desire for brevity, I respectfully disagree. I think that a reader's interpretation of the quote could be made very different given the full context, especially considering the heading under which we provide it here. And though I do see how the statement itself could be seen as a promotion of Islam, there are many things which are "compatible" with the modern world that not everyone would want to endorse - homosexuality (even if you disagree with it, there's no question that it is becoming more and more accepted by society every day), war (just look at Africa), and drug use just to name a few. One could correctly state that they are thriving in these times without endorsing them. Lastly, how does the expectation of more examples of his support for Islam have any bearing on the inclusion or exclusion of information regarding this one? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 20:38, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::Conservapedia has [http://www.conservapedia.com/Out_of_context this] to say about quotes taken out of context. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 09:02, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== More religion ==

The intro states that Obama "chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath." His first oath was also real. It was cited as being legally binding. It's misleading to call the second oath "real." Also, did he choose not to use a Bible, or did he just not use one? This is an important point. Anyone care to look into this and change it if necessary? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:19, 2 March 2009 (EST)

: Perhaps you think Obama's aides wouldn't let him use the Bible for his real, private oath??? Please. Obama could have easily used a Bible ... if he wanted to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:: You've ignored my first point, which is that the first oath was also real, valid and legally binding. It's misleading and inaccurate to distinguish the second oath as "real," when the first one was equally so. But as to my second point, it's this kind of thing that prevents Conservapedia from becoming truly encyclopedic; writers are choosing to rely on their own logical deductions instead of verifiable sources. The sentence says Obama "chose not use" a Bible. The point is you don't know he chose not to use one. Maybe Roberts said they didn't need one. Maybe Obama didn't want to use one. Maybe the only Bible available was a Klingon translation. Who knows? But this article confidently states that he "chose not to" use a Bible without anything to back up that statement. This will never be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" if this kind of content is permitted. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)

::: "Dantes", your rant is incoherent. There's no disputing that Obama "chose not to use" a Bible for his real, private oath. Note, by the way, that if the first oath was "real, valid and legally binding," then there would not have been a second oath. No kidding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 6 March 2009 (EST)

:::: I agree with ASchlafly, it's not as if a Bible would have been hard to find, or as if the second oath was so urgent that there was no time to find one. And why is a second oath needed if the first one was 'real, valid and legally binding'? I doubt he did it for his own amusement: "Hey guys, that was fun, let's do it again!" [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:13, 6 March 2009 (EST)

::::: But that isn't the point. And Aschlafly, I'm sorry you couldn't understand my suggestion. But the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it a rant. I'll explain again, in simpler terms:
:::::1) Obama didn't use a bible for his second oath.
:::::2) It is possible, even likely, that he "chose not to use" a bible.
:::::3) However, there is nothing to support the view that he "chose not to." There's no extant source to back this up
:::::4) Therefore, this article is making a logical deduction
:::::5) Encyclopedias do not deduce, speculate, assume or opinionate. They state proven facts

:::::It doesn't matter if that is the only logical explanation. Without any proof, it's just speculation, regardless of how likely it is. Unless someone can supply a reputable source that says Obama chose not to use a bible, this is an assumption. That makes it biased. Saying "there's no disputing" something isn't the same as proving it.

::::: As to the "real" oath, basic research indicates it was done out of a "superabundance of caution," not because it was legally necessary. See this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJKZrJDhy6g52PZNb7phfFmsQVow A "seeker of truth" would know this, or at least try to find out. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 14:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

== Obama is likely the first Muslim President ==
Found yet another example. Muslim helps Obama get into Harvard. ''"It was former Malcom X lawyer and New York City mayoral candidate Percy Sutton who inadvertently revealed how Obama could even afford to get into Harvard. In a New York television show entitled “Inside City Hall”, Sutton admitted that orthodox Muslim, Black Nationalist, and Black Panther mentor Dr. Khalid al-Mansour personally asked Sutton to help Obama get into Harvard."'' [http://blogs.newberlinnow.com/speaking_the_truth/default.aspx Barack Obama Couldn't Pass a Background Investigation In His Own Administration] --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 23:49, 3 March 2009 (EST)
:Blogs are nice. But if you're going to use one as a source for this article, I would prefer they disclose their own sources so that those sources can be checked. Unfortunately, there was not a single link in the entire post. Maybe an actual video clip of the interview, or a coverage of the story by a news organization? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 01:00, 4 March 2009 (EST)
::Dear comrad, you have the peoples names, you have the name of the show, are you mad it is not sourced further for you?-[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:13, 4 March 2009 (EST)
:::I'm not mad, though I am a little disappointed that not everyone here seems interested in pushing for greater quality. We are an internet encyclopedia, and as such are expected to provide credible outside sources for all our material. In any case, I took your advice and went looking for additional sources and found [http://mediamatters.org/items/200809080018 this coverage] as well as [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/mansourian_candidate.htm this post]. Note that, although both of these are internet blogs, they both provide material in the form of outside links to back up their discussion; the latter even does this with a video of the interview. Yes, the first one is from Media Matters, but it contains some good follow-up. If you're really interested in presenting the truth, more information always helps, even if it means having to dig around and analyze all of it before you figure out what exactly what the truth is. I hope these prove useful. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::: SStaples, now that you've overcome your initial denial and confirmed the accuracy of the statement, do yourself a favor and open your own mind further. Start recognizing that over half of what you see on television and learned in school is liberal deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::::Andy, with respect, I never denied the accuracy of Jpatt's quotation. I merely wanted a better source so that both it and this article as a whole would be better supported. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:32, 5 March 2009 (EST)

==Obama's Tax Cut Claims During the Campaign==
I would like to add this text right before the "Campaign financing" secion:
:During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families."”. The Wall Street Journal asked, “how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?” <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html</ref> In truth, Obama was calling government handouts “tax credits” and counting those as tax cuts. The WSJ wondered why McCain “allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered”. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 19:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Good point. I just unlocked the page for you to insert info as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:48, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: I added this text. Thanks. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

==Obama & Che Guevara / Fidel Castro etc==
I was surprised this page had such little about all the connections out there. Thus I have added the fact that his poster is taken to resemble Jim Fitzpatricks Che poster. Also during the campaign his workers were found with Cuban flags bearing the face of Marxist "hero" (puke) [[Che Guevara]]. I added this fact as well with a ref. thanks and Cuba Libre ! (free Cuba from Commie-nism) [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Can an admin possibly help me add some images to the page. I want to add [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8Mo9wgzZpRk/SFLC2eJtvXI/AAAAAAAAA8I/zV0AwV3hbVM/s400/obamachehouston2__oPt.jpg This one] of Obamas campaign HQ, with a Cuban Che flag. just google it for more info. Someone also needs to add [http://ecarson.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/im000541.jpg this brilliant image] to the article, showing all of Obamas Commie pals. Story behind it [http://ecarson.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/communist-obama-display/ here]. Lastly I want to add [http://www.virtuousplanet.com/shops/userimages/00003/00000000008/section/00000000000000061879.png this image] I made to his political view section. thanks and Viva Conservatism! [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

== Abandoned ==

This article is starting to look like nothing more than an abandoned campaign ad. [[User:Everett3|Everett3]] 00:05, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: please be more specific? [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:22, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

==Page should be unlocked==
Right now it seems that registered users can't edit the article. Why is that? How do we expect to compete with the Communists at Wikipedia, if we ham string some of our best talent. Things are happening everyday, and our nation irks closer to disaster and Marxist takeover. This article should be our best one, and our most updated. Come on fellas, this is a war of ideas. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:30, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

*The reason that it is locked is comments like yours. Communists at Wikipedia? That is so over the top, it rounds the bend and meets up with the liberals wacky comments, PaulRevere. I will be happy to unlock it for you, so long as you read what it says at the bottom of the edit screen: ''"If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here."'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: With all due respect TK, I disagree on Wikipedia being communist infiltrated in many ways. Just read their Obama article compared to the one here. As for sources and added info, there is tons of good info at [http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2289 this article] that I wanted to add. Basically Obama should be described right off the bat as a MARXIST, no if ands or butts about it. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:47, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:::Remember encyclopedia's do not use speculation or conjecture. While you and I might agree as to the plausibility of of many of the items in the article, the author's opinion, absent facts, is just that; the opinion of the author. I have unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

==Age template==

I mentally calculated his age wrong, which is embarrassing for a math tutor! Anyway, I added an {{tl|age}} template, so on August 4th he'll age one year. And the year after that another, and so on. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:50, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

: Ha ha. You're a genius, Ed!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

::Not to boast, but the [[Template:Age]] which I created over at Wikipedia is in over 50,000 articles. It's hard to find a bio there which doesn't use it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== Referring to America in 3rd person? ==
"We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there."- this is 1st person plural, surely? Sorry to nit pick, but it ''is'' on the front page after all. [[User:WillD|WillD]] 17:27, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== Damned if you do, damned if you don't ==

On the subject of his American flag lapel pin, the "Insights" section says that he ceased wearing one because it "presumably" would have hurt his relations with anti-military campaign donors. Then he starts to wear it again, and this is explained as being "likely" to do with political pandering. It sounds as if the author is determined to view every action Obama takes in a negative light. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:58, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

== Needed updates for Turkey speech, "no longer Christian", etc. ==

I don't have editing power for this article, but it'd be great if someone can add:

*update on Obama's "no longer a Christian nation" comments. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67735]
*confirming that the "speech in muslim capitol in first 100 days" prediction came true (Turkey)
*any other pertinent facts from his recent speech in Turkey, especially the "Islam is not the enemy" type of content.

Lots of significant events that flesh out his perspective and stance in recent weeks...
[[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 17:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

: Go ahead, David. I just unlocked it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:14, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Interesting.... so Obama said in Turkey, and I quote, "The United States has been '''enriched by Muslim Americans'''. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country. I know, because '''I am one of them'''." [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:36, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::::What's also interesting is where you chose to add your emphasis. Why not read it as: "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or '''have lived in a Muslim-majority country'''. I know, because '''I am one of them'''"? --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:27, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I have respect for Muslims and for Islam, but this hardly makes me non-Christian. I am a Jewish convert to Christianity. I wish we could stop branding Obama as non-Christian.

:::If we must criticize him, let's focus on describing his policies and the effects they have had or are likely to have. He is primarily a politician; he is not a religious leader. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:48, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: Ed, you make a valid point, but many (including myself, historians, reporters and voters) would disagree. A president's religious beliefs are significant. When a president ''lies'' about those beliefs, then the significance is amplified. Do you think Obama told the truth when he campaigned as a Christian? I don't, and that raises valid questions about what the truth really is that Obama was lying about.

:::: Ed, you suggest focusing only on Obama's policies, but unfortunately policies are often not known in time to object to them. Obama quickly sent a secret letter to Russia upon becoming president, and the public had no opportunity to object. Hitler did not publicize his policies to give people an early opportunity to object.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:41, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:World History Lecture Nine

2009-04-08T22:21:27Z

Eoinc: /* A Musicologist Jumps in */

== Whigs and Labour ==
I've never before heard it said that the Whigs were the anteedents of the Labour Party. The conventioanal argument is that Whig=Liberal and Tory=Conservative, but even that is a gross over-simplification of the changes in political allegiance during the 19th and early 20th centuries. It is probably far truer to say that Whiggism led to economic and political Liberalism in the mid-19th century which in turn greatly influenced the 20th century Conservative Party with its individualist, free trade, laissez faire policies. Mrs Thatcher was nothing if not a classic nineteenth century Liberal. Also, in the late 19th century the Liberal Party split over Home Rule for Ireland and a large faction - known as Liberal Unionists - joined the Conservative Party (hence its full name, the Conservative and Unionist Party - nothing to do with Ulster Unionists). Yes, the late 19th century Liberal Party had trade union candidates, known as 'Lib Labs'; some of these joined the Labour Party when it was established (as the Labour Representation Committee) in 1900. But to say the Whigs developed into Labour is simply not the case. (unsigned)

'''Reply''' by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:48, 27 June 2007 (EDT):

Of course, the lecture's statement that the (leftist) modern Labour Party is a substitute for the (leftist) Whig Party of old is a simplification of this interesting facet of English history. But it is a correct simplication, as confirmed by the Columbia Encyclopedia quoted below. Admittedly, there is a step in between that entailed the more conservative Liberal Party. But the migration from leftist to Liberal to leftist does not break the chain.

From the Columbia Encyclopedia:

The Liberal party was an outgrowth of the Whig party that, after the Reform Bill of 1832 (see Reform Acts), joined with the bulk of enfranchised industrialists and business classes to form a political alliance that, over the next few decades, came to be called the Liberal party. Much of the Liberal program was formulated by an important manufacturing middle-class element of the party known as the Radicals, who were strongly influenced by Jeremy Bentham. The Liberals distinguishing policies included free trade, low budgets, and religious liberty. Their anti-imperialism reflected confidence in Britain's economic supremacy. Most Liberals believed in the economic doctrines of laissez-faire and thought labor unions, factory acts, and substantial poor relief a threat to rapid industrialization.
...

By 1914 the Liberal government had passed substantial welfare legislation but, unwilling to adopt a full socialist program, the Liberals began to lose support to the new Labour party. The party's stubborn adherence to the doctrine of free trade, arguments between the Lloyd George and Asquith factions of the party, long years of depression, the Irish problem, growing labor radicalism, and the rise of a working-class party all account for the rapid postwar decline of the Liberals.
...

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright© 2004, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. All rights reserved.

:: Apologies for omitting to sign above. I think (perhaps mistakenly) that you are drawing your argument and inferring a link from this section of the quotation:''By 1914 the Liberal government had passed substantial welfare legislation but, unwilling to adopt a full socialist program, the Liberals began to lose support to the new Labour party.'' Certainly there was a radical interventionist wing of the party, under Lloyd George, which fostered this 'welfare' legislation; but (as with Lloyd George's post WW1 housing programme) this was to prevent socialism by improving living standards for the poor, rather than to encourage socialism. Some individual liberal politicians moved 'left', but I maintain that there is a much stronger philosophical link between nineteenth century classical economic Liberalism and modern UK Conservatism, and indeed even between mid-C19 radicalism - most of whose exponents were enthusiastic individualists and anti-Socialists - and modern Conservatism. Anyway... thanks in any case for your considered response. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:01, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Religious Persecution ==

''In the 1600s in England, there was some of the worst religious persecution in the history of the world, as Protestants harshly persecuted each other and there was also continuous conflict between Protestants and Catholics. The conflict between Anglicans and Puritans in England was particularly severe, causing many Puritans to flee to New England.''

To class the examples you give as "some of the worst religious persecution in the history of the world" is completely alien to the facts. Conflict between Anglicans and Puritans was not 'particularly severe' by world standards, or even Englsish standards: no executions were involved, by contrast with the hundreds of Catholics killed in the Elizabethan and 17th century persecutions and scores of Protestants killed in the 16th century Marian persecution). Contrast that with the Holocaust, with Tsarist antisemitic pogroms, with the butcheries of the Crusades, with the massacres perpetrated during the German Religious Wars, the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War; the killings of Chinese Christians during the Boxer Rising - I could go on and on. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 12:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Corrections ==

*You simply eliminate Edward VI and Mary I as not being 'noteworthy'. They may have had relatively short reigns but they were important nonetheless.
*To say Elizabeth I is the most popular would need some sort of reliable survey to back it up, and to clarify whether that is from a contemporary perspective or not.
*As it stands the wording suggest she was formally excommunicated before 1559, in fact this took place afterwards in 1570.
*You completely omit the Gunpowder Plot, probably the defining event of James' reign, which is still commemorated to this day.
*Charles I did accept the Petition of Right, though he never intended to abide by it.
*You label the first civil war as purely religious. This was not the case. Yes Cromwell was a Puritan but to say all Parliamentarians were is incorrect. Although there was a split along religious lines the names used for either side, Royalists and Parliamentarians tells the story much better.
*The 'remainder' of William Prynne's ears were not removed but were branded with SL for 'seditious libeller'.
*You jump straight from describing the power wielded by certain Puritans to saying that this caused them to emigrate, though this makes no sense.
*Although Cromwell was essentially a dictator it should be noted that he refused the offer of Kingship.
*The US was not the only example of a revolution that did not lead to dictatorship. Venustiano Carranza became president of Mexico after overthrowing a dictator but did not become one himself. There are of course also many non-violent revolutions that did not lead to dictatorships, especially in recent decades.
*Charles II did not immediately take over after Cromwell's death.
*The Labour Party did NOT form from the Whigs. The Whigs developed into the Liberal party (even then not a straightforward matter), which has under gone many changes to become the Liberal Democrats today, the 3rd largest party. The Labour Party was not created until the early 20th century.
*You fail to mention the Battle of the Boyne. This was a hugely significant battle between Protestant and Catholic and has ramifications to this day. It was also the last battle in which two English kings faced each other.
*Your statement regarding the French revolution ''"ended up with nearly everyone being executed by the guillotine"'' is an overstatement to say the very least!
*You criticise the arbitrary nature of some of the French declarations, but most such statements are arbitrary. The phrase 'pursuit of happiness' is extremely vague for instance.
*I think you are mistaken in attributing any significant credit to Adam Smith for economic expansion as part of the industrial revolution. He was really more of an observer of it such that his ideas were significant later on.
*The vast majority of the cotton for Britain came from its colonies, not America, with the USA being independent by pretty much the start of the industrial revolution. Britain was also engaged in hostilities with the US for some time and so significant trade of cotton was unlikely between them.
*I think your claim that Britain tried to hide the secrets of the Industrial revolution is woefully inaccurate. This portrays it as if the revolution was a single event that was tightly controlled by single group, which of course it was not.
*You suggest the industrial revolution was simply built on the use of iron for example, neglecting the fact that revolutions in the extraction of iron for instance were part of the revolution.
*James Watt did not invent the steam engine (a common misconception), he simply improved it.
*You get into a discussion on the agrarian revolution after discussing the industrial revolution, which is odd given how they occurred the other way around.
*You characterise enclosure as simply the buying up of land. In fact much of it was simply the pre-existing owners enclosing their land. Certainly much buying and selling then occurred but this was not the defining feature of enclosure.
*Again when referring to Spain and Austria-Hungary you put far too great an emphasis on the role of Adam Smith and simply dismiss the consensus amongst historians in favour of said mistake.
*This sentence ''"If you are a businessman or investor, then you love the industrial revolution because it enables you to make money without being a farmer, and gives you access to all sorts of goods and products that might not otherwise be available, such as computers"'' seems to be mixed up in its temporal context.

I hope this has been of use. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:12, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== The Virgin Queen? ==

Is it worth mentioning Elizabeth I's reputation as "The Virgin Queen"? I know historians debate how true that was, but its why one of the colonies that caused Great Britain so much trouble later on is called ''Virgin''ia. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:34, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== Revolution versus Civil War? ==

Might it be worth differentiating between revolutions and civil wars, since both are covered here?

My personal definition is that its a civil war until the rebels win, then the victors get to call it a revolution, but I'm little more than an amateur historian with specific interests (mostly American history, from the <s>Late Unpleasantness</s> Civil War on.) [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:38, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== Prussia vs. Germany ==

To call ''Prussia the former name of Germany'' is like calling ''Maryland the former name of the USA''... [[User:ClementB|ClementB]] 09:20, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

:Look up "Prussia" in the dictionary. Merriam-Webster, 10th Ed., second meaning: "former kingdom and state of Germany." Now complain to it if you still insist on your incorrect view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:10, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::The same Merriam-Webster has this entry on Hesse: "state of Germany & formerly of West Germany including larger part of Hesse-Darmstadt & part of Hesse-Nassau "
::Prussia was a state in Germany. Prussia was never the state of Germany. Hesse, neither. So Bavaria.
::To emphasize: the kingdom of Prussia was never identical to Germany. In fact, Prussia could only become a kingdom in 1701 as it lay outside of the German Empire.
::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 11:08, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::: The lecture doesn't say Prussia was "identical to Germany." But Prussia was the leading state in the German empire, and hence is the predecessor (or former name) of Germany. Your analogy to Maryland is, frankly, beyond absurd.

::: Let me know when you assert your same complaint to Merriam-Webster.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:50, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::::The lecture states ''Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (the former name for Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.'' Does this make Frederick II a former king of Germany? Or a king of former Germany? It gives at least a wrong impression.
::::I have no problems with the Merriam-Webster, as this dictionary (not an encyclopedia, BTW) states that ''Prussia was a German state''. That's absolutely correct, but you seem to misread it as the ''former kingdom of Germany'', when all it implies that it is a ''former German kingdom''.
::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 12:12, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::::As you're so adamant, I changed the entry on [[Germany]] to include this point. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:29, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::Interestingly, I wasn't allowed to introduce this insight into the article on [[Germany]]. In the discussion on my home-page, Karajou linked to the MSN encarta. As the Merriam-Webster, it starts with
:::::''Prussia (German Preussen), former kingdom and state of Germany. ''
:::::But then, you find the line
:::::''Modern Prussia was successively, with geographical modifications, an independent kingdom (1701-1871); the largest constituent kingdom of the German Empire (1871-1918); a constituent state, or land, of the Weimar Republic (1919-1933); and an administrative division, comprising 13 provinces, of the centralized German Third Reich (1934-1945). ''
:::::Do you see how the first sentence never implies that Prussia ''is the predecessor (or former name) of Germany''?
:::::Please, allow me to change the lecture accordingly, i.e., from ''Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (the former name for Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.'' to something like ''Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (a former kingdom in Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.''
:::::If you insist on your view, the line ''A former name of [[Germany]] is [[Prussia]]'' should be added to the article on [[Germany]].
:::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:51, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Clement, your suggested replacement is not an improvement on the lecture. An encyclopedia entry about something (e.g., Germany) obviously goes into more detail, with greater precision, than a lecture should. A good lecture informs with the goal of making something easy to learn and remember. This lecture has done that, just as the dictionary has, and your suggestion is not an improvement. Please move on, at least for now. If this still bothers you after you've focused on other issues, then we can always revisit this. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

::::::: Dear Andrew Schlafly, I'm afraid that the matter still bothers me. I thought about it for quite a while and to get counsel, I've talked to the pastor of my former youth group. He took some time to read my entries - and some of yours - and we discussed the whole exchange at length.
:::::::* He scolded me for being overly aggressive in my replies. Even if mocked, I should have been more humble and considerate. Therefore, I apologize.
:::::::* I apologize to R. J. Jensen, too. It became obvious that he didn't want to be involved in a discussion of the statements of your lectures, but kept his contributions and these lectures separate. I should not have tried to drag him into this argument.
:::::::* You said: ''A good lecture informs with the goal of making something easy to learn and remember. '' We seem to disagree where there is the line between an allowed (over-) simplification and the outright distortion of facts. I'd like to point out that the statement ''ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'' was kept in biology text books around the world because it is ''easy to learn and remember'', though there was no truth in it.
:::::::* I'm thankful that you considered my note on the ''Red Cross'' in your next lecture. On the other hand, you ignored my question on the beginning of the ''industrial revolution'' in Germany: There are discussions whether it was as early as in the 1830s or as late as in the 1850s, but I found no one who gave 1870 as a date. But looking back, it seemed to be prideful to expect that you'd follow all of my annotations: reading the talk pages of the other lectures shows that - seemingly - good advice is often ignored.

::::::: This said, I'll follow what I see as an example set by R. J. Jensen, i.e, I won't comment on the further ''World History Lectures''.
::::::: Yours [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 13:05, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Clement, your conclusion is backhanded at best, and you still seem to push a double standard. I repeat: have you complained to Merriam-Webster yet? It says the same thing the lecture does, as I demonstrated. That you insist on complaining only here without complaining to Merriam-Webster suggests you have two different standards.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:36, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: Andy, I won't complain to Merriam-Webster. Why? Because the statement: ''Prussia: former kingdom and state of Germany.'' is true. It just doesn't mean what you read into it! Merriam-Webster states that Prussia is a former kingdom. And that Prussia is a former state of Germany. It is possible to misread this very short statement as ''Prussia is the former state of Germany''. But your background in history should prevent you from such a misinterpretation! [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 13:57, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Do you actually want editors to help? ==

Mr Schlafly, before I go any further in helping to edit your encyclopedia, please could you let me know if you actually want to use information contributed by editors. On the specific points you reverted,
* Mohammed is not and never has been the most common boy's name in Britain. It has regularly been in the top 20 for the last 30-40 years and famously overtook John about 10 years ago. But the most common name on a long-term basis continues to be James, as it has been for centuries, while Biblical names like Joshua and Adam and Celtic or Saxon names like Liam and Kevin are currently popular.
* There is no bar on a catholic being Prime Minister. As you surely know, the UK has no written constitution and there isn't even an official position of Prime Minister (his official title is First Lord of the Treasury). If a catholic (or muslim, hindu, sikh, jew, etc) became Prime Minister, the Queen could choose to be advised on ecclesiastical matters by the Lord Chancellor or another senior minister. Blair has never revealed why he chose to leave converting to catholicism until he left office but it wouldn't have affected his position as P.M.
So Mr Schlafly, if you'll accept input from an editor who knows what he's talking about, I'll gladly continue to contribute to Conservapedia. Otherwise, I won't waste my time. (I've read some of your talk pages and I see you're inclined to get into pointless arguments with editors who know more than you do about the subject in question. All I need to know is, do you accept input from people who know more about a subject than you do, yes or no.) [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 17:46, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

: If you think you're such a genius, JosephMac, let's see how well you can do on the [[World History Midterm Exam]]. Or perhaps your skill is only acting like you know it all.

: The evidence is against both of your claims above. Moreover, you censored the statement about Muhammad rather than improving it.

: We don't welcome falsehoods, even by people who pretend to be know-it-alls. Now let's see if you even do as well as the top [[homeschooled]] students on the exam. I bet you'll run away from that opportunity to prove your immense knowledge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

::*No, the evidence isn't against either of the statements above. They're both correct, as I think you actually know.
::*As you also know, I didn't censor the statement about Mohammed; I improved it to say it's in the top 20 of boy's names.
::*I'm not pretending about anything.
::*I would do your exam if I were confident that your historical knowledge was accurate enough to mark it correctly.
::*Mind your language, please.[[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 17:58, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I'm a Brit (English) and I have nary a clue as to where you got that 'Muhammad' thing from. I don't personally know anyone called Muhammad, and I've never heard of a Christian with that name (unless they converted from another religion). In support of JosephMac, I know many people called James, so many that I call them by their last name instead of their first. [[User:LeslieHoyson|LeslieHoyson]] 18:10, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: I'd too see if either you could even score 50% on the [[World History Midterm Exam]]. Looks like both you won't dare display your real knowledge.

:::: It only took 30 seconds to confirm that "Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and '''is likely to rise to No 1 by next year''' [2008], a study by The Times has found."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1890354.ece]

::::: 1 c. 2 d. 3 a. 4 c. 5 c. 6 e. 7 d. 8 e. 9 c. 10 b. 11 b. 12 d. 13 b. 14 b. 15 d. 16 a. 17 d. 18 e. 19 b. 20 a. 21 e. 22 c. 23 c. 24 d. 25 d. 26 c. 27 d. 28 a. 29 b. 30 c. 31 b. 32 e. 33 d. 34 d. 35 a. 36 e. 37 a(*). 38 a. 39 b. 40 e. 41 d. 42 c. 43 d. 44 c. Extra (male) e.
(*) Your numbering is muddled. You've labelled Song as VI before Tang as V in the list. The order is Qin, Han, 3 kingdoms, Sui, Tang, Song.

:::::JosephMac, your score is is 40, and you got some of the most challenging questions! That makes a new second place among internet submissions, and ties for second best among all submissions. Good job.

:::::Also, thanks for catching the error about the dynasties! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:13, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: I'd be happy to help set future exams to help you avoid ambiguous or erroneous answers, of which there are several in this exam.

::::: As for Mohammed, here's a table from the Office of National Statistics, which is the definitive record for England and Wales. [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/specials/babiesnames_boys.asp] Mohammed is no. 17. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 19:30, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: I noticed several of your edits as being incorrect (e.g., replacing "Anglican" with "Protestant") or censoring information (erasing statement about Islam in France). Accordingly, I had to revert your edits. Some revisions of value may have been lost and I'll revisit Saturday. I suggest you be more careful.

:::::: Muhammad has several different spellings, obviously. Your failure to recognize that, even after I gave you an article explaining this, suggests you're more interested in censoring the truth here than in advancing knowledge. Please move elsewhere if you continue to have that attitude.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:10, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Actually, JosephMac is pretty much right in his 2 original points.

There does not appear to be any data suggesting that Muhammed is currently or has ever been the most popular boys name in the UK. In 2007 it (including 14 spelling variations, although some might argue against doing this) was ranked 2nd for newborn boys. Although some said it would overtake the top name, Jack, this does not appear to have happened as of yet.

And there is NOT any legal obstacle to a Catholic becoming Prime Minister as he also correctly stated. This is often mixed up with the laws affecting the monarchy, for which reform has recently been discussed. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:24, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
:::::::Sorry but speaking as a Catholic from England I can confirm that JosephMac is quite correct there is NO legal obstacle to a Catholic becoming Prime Minister in the UK. We potentially had an atheist as Prime Minister and the main objection to him (Michael Foot) was his duffle coat! [[User:BrianNTS|BrianNTS]] 07:31, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

This story from the BBC states precisely this point about Catholicism at the end. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3746398.stm] The belief by some that there was some sort of legal restriction appears to have been heightened by the fact that Blair waited until he left office to convert to Catholicism. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:36, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:I'm just pleased that JosephMac corrected the statement ''Prussia (the former name for Germany)'' to ''Prussia (the most powerful of the German states)'', and that A. Schlafly doesn't object any longer. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 07:51, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

How does "40" by JosephMac become a "new second place" among all submissions? We already have a 40 for second place, so JosephMac would tie for second place. Still a great score.

People are denying too much the ban on Catholicism for the British Prime Minister. The ban plainly does apply to the monarch and spouse of the monarch, and Tony Blair plainly did delay until after abdicating as Prime Minister before converting, and there plainly are legal restrictions that would kick in if a Prime Minister were Catholic. Why do so many Brits insist on denying the ban??? The denial is odd in itself.

ClementB's comment is misleading as I do still object to his suggested change to the Prussia/Germany statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:06, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:You're still clinging to your statement that ''Prussia is a former name for Germany''? And your only justification for doing so is the short entry on the Merriam-Webster, [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prussia stating]

:'' '''Prussia:''' former kingdom & state of Germany * Berlin''

:You misread this entry. This becomes clear when you have a look at the entry on [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/waldeck Waldeck]:

:'' '''Waldeck:''' former county, principality, & state of Germany between Westphalia & Hesse-Nassau * Arolsen''

:Your reading of the Merriam-Webster would make ''Waldeck'' a former name of Germany, too.

:[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 07:04, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Andy, I'm afraid on the point about Catholicism and the Prime Minister you are wrong. There is NO legal restriction against a Catholic Prime Minister. The reason so many Brits 'deny' the ban? Because there isn't one. Sorry, but that fact has to be cleared up. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 11:20, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

: If this point is so important to you, then suggest more precise wording that does not censor the facts that the British Prime Minister has basic duties that could not be fulfilled if he were Catholic, that Prime Minister Tony Blair delayed converting to Catholicism until after he abdicated, and that there has never been a Catholic Prime Minister. And, by the way, the language obscuring how Brits celebrate the anniversary of the alleged "discovery" of the gunpowder plot is going to be corrected also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:53, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
:: This was widely discussed at the time that Iain Duncan Smith (a Catholic) became leader of the Conservative Party, and the conclusion of constitutional scholars was that there is no barrier to a Catholic becoming prime minister -- the largely ceremonial role of the government in giving ecclesiastic advice to the monarch could be performed by ''any'' minister. Tony Blair has never given a public explanation for his decision to wait until he left office, although two explanations have been given by his friends: It had the potential to upset the delicate negotiations in Northern Ireland, and he did not wish for a purely personal decision to be interpreted as a political manoeuvre. [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:09, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

::: "Constitutional scholars" make all sorts of claims, including silly ones. Nothing you say refutes the three facts I cite above, and I welcome alternative wording that does not censor the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:23, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

(unindent) Ignoring the new material above for a moment, I should like to point out that both Joseph and I defeated Mr Schlafly's challenge of gaining more than 50% on the Midterm Exam (he with a score of 40 and I with 37), and I think that in light of his insulting and unchivalrous behaviour towards we who were trying to help, we both deserve an apology so we can all move on. [[User:LeslieHoyson|LeslieHoyson]] 15:45, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

: Apologies for my absence (owing to a misunderstanding about dynamic assignment of IP addresses). Mr Schlafly, this discussion exemplifies exactly what I said above about "pointless arguments with editors who know more than you do about the subject in question". You 've now had numerous British contributors telling you there's no constitutional bar on a catholic becoming Prime Minister. Ian Duncan Smith illustrates this perfectly. He's a Conservative (and conservative) politician who's highly respected across the whole political spectrum. Although he was a poor party leader, the fact that he's catholic was never once considered to prevent him becoming Prime Minister. Why Blair chose not to formally convert to catholicism until after he left office was entirely his own business, which he has never discussed. If the Queen had been concerned about it, she could have chosen any other minister to advise her as Head of the Church of England (although there's no sign she would have been concerned, as her PMs have included two Presbyterians, a Baptist and a Methodist). I must ask you to respect the knowledge of British people on this subject. I will edit Lecture 9 appropriately. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 16:49, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

::If I may add my six-penn'orth, Schlafers is completely wrong on this (as he is on the Prussia/Germany question too). Some humilityy and open-mindedness, such as he demands of Liberals, wuld be welcome. [[User:ThomasF|ThomasF]] 18:06, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Godspeed to you, ThomasF. You are the classic definition of a troll. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:07, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

== Religious Conflict: Ireland ==

I've started improving the part of the 'Religious Conflict in England' section that deals with Ireland. There's a lot of work to do so if anyone else would like to help out, that would be great (I'll be away for a few days). The Protestant/Catholic thing needs to be toned down a bit. Although that dispute is highly visible, the origins of Irish Republicanism were more political than religious - Wolfe Tone was a protestant, the original Fenians were protestant industrial workers from Belfast, etc. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 20:12, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

: You should include the fact that there is some reason why there are anti-Catholic laws in GB, most importantly, the reason that a Catholic can't be monarch is becasue it would be insulting! The British monarch is the official head of the Anglican Church, having a Catholic monarch would be like having a muslim Pope!!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 22:23, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

== Non-German 'Great' Composers==

I notice you claim that "most great composers were German". Musicologists, composers, music students and fans of Boulez, Borodin, Berlioz, Bartok, Mahler, Liszt, Karajan, Holst, Haydn, Grieg,Gould, Vivaldi, Verdi, Tchaikovsky, Sullivan, Stravinsky, Strauss, Sibelius, Shostakovich, Schubert, Schoenberg, Satie, Ravel, Rachmaninoff, Puccini, Prokofiev, Penderecki, Mussorgsky, Paganini, Mozart, or Monteverdi would disagree with you, I suspect. [[User:KBinbota|KBinbota]] 21:25, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

: Good list of mostly obscure composers. Only a few of them would be considered to be in the same league as the great German composers, and even they wouldn't be considered as great as the Germans.

: I know, I know. You probably think all languages are equal, all religions are equal, and ... all nationalities are equal with respect to composers. Well, we tell the truth here. I recommend Wikipedia if you prefer pushing political correctness instead.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:32, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

:: You certainly seem to have a very unusual definition of 'obscure'. [[User:KBinbota|KBinbota]] 21:41, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
::: What a great example of liberal corruption! Denying that Germans are the greatest composers is like denying that the Dutch are superior artists or that Americans are superior inventors!! (Yankee ingenuity anyone)
:::But I have to agree that Strauss was a great composer! Unfortunately for you, he's '''German'''!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 22:23, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
:: Just out of curiosity, who do you consider the great German composers? I can only really think of Bach, Handel, Wagner, Strauss, Schumann and Brahms, and of course Beethoven, amongst the most popular composers in the world. There are certainly many composers of the same calibre from other countries.

:::The mention of Beethoven is problematic. ''"The greatest composer in the history of the world"'' is an opinion shared by many, though are very many others who would claim the same of Mozart (Austrian), Bach or others. The problem, however, is not that people might disagree with your assessment of Beethoven, but that a composer's greatness cannot be quantified. Things like a composer's technical skill, fame during their lifetime, posthumous reception and their influence on later composers can be approximately known. By these criteria, Beethoven was certainly ''among'' the greatest composers who ever lived. But because of the imprecise nature of this evaluation, we must be content with approximate judgments.

:::Next, the description of his achievements, that he ''"revolutionized instrumental music and took it to new heights never before thought possible"'' is one which was also true of many composers before and since. Perhaps you could say something specific to Beethoven, such as how his 32 piano sonatas have been referred to as "The New Testament of the Piano" (the Old Testament being Bach's 48 preludes and fugues), or that in particular he revolutionized the concept of the Symphony as an art form. Prior to him, the symphony was just a four-movement work for orchestra. Mozart wrote over 50 of them. Haydn wrote over 100. Beethoven's 9 symphonies (from the 3rd onward) expanded the scale, the seriousness, and the emotional breadth of what a symphony could be. Another quotation (I don't have sources for these, as I can't remember who said them) is that every symphonic composer since Beethoven has been writing in his shadow.

:::Finally, the phrase ''"A German like most great composers..."'' is most problematic of all. Beethoven was from a Flemish family, was born and raised in Cologne, which at the time was a principality of the Holy Roman Empire, and spent the majority of his life in Vienna. To say he was "German" is an oversimplification. To say that most great composers were also Germans is thus a distortion of history: Bach and Handel would not have been considered as members of the same country during their lifetimes. Second, it is simply not true that the majority of great composers were German. Even if Germany has had more great composers than other countries, the total number of great non-German composers easily dwarfs the total number of great German composers. (do you claim that the best composers were German, or that the German composers were best? The two claims are not the same) Lastly, ''even if'' your statement was true, what point are you trying to make? What conclusion do you expect your students to draw? That the German people are innately superior to non-Germans, at least as far as music is concerned? Surely the reason for great German composers is that there has been a long culture of music-making, which meant that talented children could be directed towards music (and would have the opportunity to get a better music education than their peers in France)? Such cultures, like the Rugby-playing culture in New Zealand, tend to be self-perpetuating once they get started. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 09:01, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: Your real discomfort is apparently in observing that one nationality to be better than others at something. Let me guess: you'd also insist that no language is superior to another, and that no religion is superior to another.

:::: You're in the wrong place if you think we're going to sacrifice the truth for political correctness. We don't. Welcome the truth yourself and you'll won't regret it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:16, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::Regarding nationalities, it does not disturb me in the slightest to observe one nationality be better than others at something. I will take the example of German composers (because I would rather not go any further off-topic). Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that Germany has had a disproportionately large number of great composers compared to other European nations. Leave aside the problems I mentioned above. What this would indicate is that Germany has a long culture of music-making: great concert halls were built there; archbishops commissioned new music all the time; great concert halls were built; the public went to hear music being performed; the greatest teachers moved there; and that, therefore, German children with a natural talent for music would have had their talents nurtured and would have had a better musical education. Such cultures, as I said, are self-perpetuating. It is a cycle which feeds into itself. The alternative possibility, that there is something in the water in Germany, or that Germans have something in their DNA which the rest of us lack, is racist and has no supporting evidence. Or would there be an alternative explanation?

:::::As for languages, I wouldn't insist that that all languages are equal in every respect, though I would have a hard time ranking them in any order of superiority. For ease of learning, and intuitive grammatical sense, Esperanto is superior to Japanese. For the ability to communicate with a large number of people all around the world, English is superior to Swedish. For singing in a classical style, Italian is superior to English. Is this what you're referring to?

:::::And as for religions, I do not consider them all equal. Some religions contain beliefs which are harmful to oneself or others when acted upon, and the number of such beliefs is not the same in every religion.

:::::I am not interested in political correctness, or in censoring the truth. I am glad that you share my opinion. My statements on Beethoven, I repeat are: first, that the title of "world's greatest composer", unlike the title of "world's tallest building", cannot be awarded with truthful objectivity. Your preference for Beethoven is an opinion, not a fact. It would be better to describe Beethoven as being "one of the greatest composers". Second, that what you say about Beethoven is rather vague and conveys little useful information, and would be better and more interesting if it were made more specific. Third, that it is historically imprecise to describe him as German, and that it is potentially misleading to draw the conclusions you did. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 09:58, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

=== A Musicologist Jumps in ===

Andy, can a musicologist jump in here? I, for one, find nothing contentious about calling Beethoven the "greatest composer" - in fact, my dissertation is over Beethoven, so I'm completely in sympathy with this statement. (That being said, it's been my perception that just as many musicians and music lovers say that either Bach or Mozart are the greatest.) However, I feel that the other posters here bring up a fair point, in that it's problematic to call Beethoven a German, since his heritage was Dutch, and because he found his success from an early age in Vienna, where he lived for most of his life. It's the same problem with Handel, who was German, but most people think of him as an English composer, because he wrote the ''Messiah''.

As far as "most of the great composers" being German, you can only say that if you're willing to leave out a great deal of the most beloved composers: Mozart, Haydn, Schubert (all three Austrians), Chopin (a Pole working in France) Verdi and Puccini (Italians), Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff (Russians), etc. If you polled classical music-lovers, your top ten list would surely include Germans like the "3 B's," but you'd definitely also have Mozart, most likely Chopin, as well as the aforementioned Russians and Italians.

There's nothing "politically correct" about this point. This is about accuracy. Beethoven (or Bach or Mozart) is widely considered to be the greatest composer, but right up there nearby are a pantheon of Russian, French, Italian, Polish, and Czech composers. Why is this such a contentious point? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 11:26, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

: You're most welcome to "jump in here," but it's clear from Eoinc's comment that his objection is ideological. He won't admit that some languages, or religions, are superior to others, and from that liberal point of view he resists admitting that most great composers were German. In fact, he even implies that such an observation might be racist!

: I can't tell if you come from the same liberal camp. You strain mightily -- and unsuccessfully -- to find some other basis for objecting to the observation. A discussion would be more meaningful if you first rejected Eoinc's point of view and considered the issue with an open mind. The truth is not contorted by political correctness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:09, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

::Did I not say that some languages are superior to others? Depending on what criteria you choose (my examples were: ease of learning, ability for widespread use in communication around the world, suitability for use in singing), certain languages are superior to others.

::Did I not also say that I do not consider all religions to be equal? I said that some religions contain harmful beliefs. The implication (which I will now state rather than imply) is that a religion which does not contain harmful beliefs is superior to one which does.

::Next, my implication of racism would only apply '''if''' one claimed that most great composers were German ''for reasons which had nothing to do with German culture''. I don't "resist admitting" that most great composers were German: that implies that I secretly know it to be true, but pretend I don't. I simply doubt that it is the case. I am willing to be shown otherwise. There is no reason why Germany could not have a disproportionately large number of musicians in its population (or for France to have the most chefs, or Italy the most painters, or England the most poets). I allow for the possibility, provided that one does not draw the conclusion from that that German people are innately more musical than people from anywhere else. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 17:28, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

::: "Did I not say ...." No, you didn't admit that some languages are superior to others, and you still won't admit it. Superior not just "on what criteria you choose," but overall. You're just babbling nonsense to deny that. It would like a mathematician pretending that some numbers are not larger than others. Some are. Ditto for religion, as you won't admit that some religions are superior (and more truthful) than others. Some obviously are.

::: If won't admit things that are obviously true, then there's little point in trying to hold a logical discussion with you. First open your mind, please, for your sake.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:02, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

::::When talking about languages, I qualified my remarks in the way I did because I am simply not aware of any one language which is superior to ''every'' other and in ''every'' respect. It's not that I "won't admit" it.

::::When talking about religions, I wrote in terms of harmful beliefs, because it's easier to agree about that. It goes without saying that some religions are more truthful than others, but I didn't want to get drawn into an off-topic discussion about religion.

::::Now, can we please return to the topic of Beethoven? JDWPianist and I raised some concerns about the wording in the lecture. Specifically:

::::* I don't think it is possible to say definitively which composer is the greatest. "One of the greatest", certainly, without a doubt.

::::* Beethoven grew up in an area which is now part of Germany, but was not at the time. His family was from Holland. He spent most of his life in Vienna. To say that "Beethoven was German" is therefore not really accurate.

::::* Many of the greatest composers in music history were from the area now known as Germany. But it is untrue to claim that most great composers were German, unless you ignore Vivaldi, Mozart, Haydn, Schubert, Chopin, Verdi, Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, Debussy, Mahler, and dozens more. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:31, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

::It makes no difference to me what Eoinc's point of view is, because both you and he have gone very far-afield of the subject at hand. You seem to misunderstand my objection, by attempting to read a political motivation behind it. But this is not politics or religion, this is about great music. And being a musician with a passion for the subject myself, it's simply my belief that there are embarrassing riches of great music in the repertoire, a lot of it by Germans, a lot by Austrians, and greatness as well from the French, Russians, and Italians too. To me, the relative greatness of my favorite composers is so hard to quantify as to be irrelevant. As a student of music history, I also have dealt with the issue that since musicians moved around frequently (no differently from today), speaking of a composer's nationality is less useful than organizing it by musical centers: i.e. Vienna, Paris, Leipzig, London, etc.

::If I wasn't clear enough about my objection in the last post, let me re-state it here: to assert that the best composers were all German is a gross over-simplification at best, and accuracy matters. That's all.

::Does anyone make the claim that the greatest painters were Flemish? Of course not, because there were various centers of artistic activity all over Europe across a 400-year period. No one tries to compare El Greco to Caravaggio, much less to Monet. Similarly, I don't know of anyone who tries to compare the greatness of Debussy to the greatness of Brahms, because they both represented the perfection of a certain aesthetic ideal, but were very different in their aims.

::My point is, there are many more accurate ways you can express your point, which is indeed based on truth: that there was a golden age of music based in German-speaking countries which occurred in the 18th and 19th-centuries. I simply can't understand why you insist on such an unnuanced assertion, when there is so much evidence to the contrary. Is it such an odious compromise to qualify your statement so that other great composers fit? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 18:47, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

::: Neither of you above will admit that some languages are superior to others. So it's obviously pointless to discuss whether some nationalities have achieved more in composing than others. You implicitly deny that ''anything'' cultural related to nationality can be ranked. Hence this debate ends before it even begins. Your view is like that of a child who insists that no number is larger than 4. It's pointless to debate with that child whether 10 is greater than 9.

::: I suggest you revisit your premise of artificial equality. Just saying that different languages/religions/composers are equal doesn't make it so. At Conservapedia, we're not afraid to tell the truth. I suggest you start welcoming the truth also, and set your mind free.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: A composer's skill has nothing to do with national heritage. All of a nation's history and culture is not inbred in a native of that country, otherwise America would be composed of George Washington clones, Italy of Caesar clones, and on and on. According to your logic everyone in Germany should be on their 9th symphony.

:::: Also how do you claim that one language is superior to another? Word order? Number of words? I have learned Spanish over many years and have found that many times conventions there (turning verbs into nouns, lack of helper verbs, lax use of gerunds, and very specific verb tenses) to be very useful, but othertimes illogical and useless. For example if an action is being performed for a person (i.e. "I helped Shawn") you need a small word known as the "personal a" making the sentence "Yo ayudo a Shawn". The "a" is usually used to denote "to" (as in "to a location" or "to a person"). Also in German one of my favorite words is "Schadenfreude" which has no exact word in English but has a very useful meaning (shameful joy, joy stemming from the misfortune of others).

::::Respectfully, --[[User:StevenB|StevenB]] 22:23, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: So StevenB also denies that some languages are superior to others. No problem: that view seems to be the [[Holy Grail]] of the liberal ideology. I haven't yet found a [[liberal]] who admits that some languages are superior to others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:41, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Weren't we talking about composers?? [[User:JimP|JimP]] 23:09, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Beethoven was German: Though his father's family originate from the Flamish Mecheln, his Grandfather has lived and worked in Bonn, the residence of the elector of [[Cologne]], and his father was born and raised there. So, he's at least a second generation German on his father's site, while the family of his mother came from the electorate of [[Trier]].
:::::::To deny that [[Trier]] and [[Cologne]] were - and are - German, is absurd: Both were integral parts of the Holy Roman Empire (but - at the time of Beethoven's birth - not of [[ Prussia]], which was only partly in the Holy Roman Empire then).
:::::::There seems to be a mix-up with the provenience of Mozart: He was born in the sovereign Archbishopric of [[Salzburg]], at the time of his birth an area independent of [[Austria]], but incorporated into it in 1803. This lead to some claims that Mozart wasn't really Austrian, while there was little doubt about the nationality of Beethoven.
:::::::But what does ''most of the greatest composers were German'' really mean? Most of the greatest two? Most of the greatest three? Here, A. Schlafly could be right by including Bach and Beethoven. But if you try to compile a list of ten, I doubt it (my list of ten includes - at this moment, there is always some flux - Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Shostakovich, Verdi, Brahms, Mahler, Schubert, Schumann, Handel: at most five of those have been German)
:::::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 23:12, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: BTW: A. Schlafly, which language is the most superior? (A superlative of a comparative? That hurts! better, perhaps, ''la langue suprême'' ...)[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 23:14, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

This seems more of an inquisition, than an intellectual dialog, ClementB. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:01, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

=== No One Expects the Spanish Inquisition ==

:I beg to differ: Granted, it is a little bit inquisitive to be asked
:*whether all nations are equal
:*whether there is a ranking of languages
:*what's the true religion
:before you can change a somewhat subjective statement in an article, but I wouldn't call it ''inquisition''. It seems to be a genuine interest in the position of the editor on A. Schlafly's side - and I'm interested in which language is the best according to A. Schlafly. He implied earlier that there exists an absolute order for the languages, so there should be a best and a worst one.
:And for the sake of the debate: TK, what's your list of the best ten composers? Is it even more German-centric than mine?
:[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 07:18, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Clement, no one inquired about your three issues. What I observed was how Eoinc and JDWpianist deny that some languages, and religions, are superior to others. As long as they deny that obvious fact, truthful or productive dialog with them in this context is impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:28, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Could you give some examples for languages which are ''superior [to others] not just "on what criteria you choose," but overall.''? Schopenhauer thought that German was only second to Greek and Latin, the French think that their language allows for more precision than any other, Italian is the language of ''belcanto'', and I suppose that even some Eskimo dialects are preferable to English when you are going to hunt seals.
:::So, I think it isn't easy to compare the quality of languages and I don't think that there is a '''true''' language, in opposite to religions.
:::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:44, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
::::An interesting topic, this, most certainly! ASchlafly, you claim that the Germans were the best composers - would you also agree that the Dutch were the best painters? [[User:FUnger|FUnger]] 11:01, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Andy, I've said all I intend to in this debate. It's become clear that you're not going to change your mind, so I don't intend to press the point further. But just to clear my name of a few accusations:
:::*I never "denied" that some languages or religions are superior to others. I tried to keep the exchange centered around music, which you weren't content to do.
:::*I never said that all composers or artworks are "equal." There's of course acres of musical trash for every masterwork. My point was that there's still a wealth of musical masterworks, and to compare their relative greatness to each other is pointless.
:::*I always stayed civil with you, and tried to bring my expertise into a debate over parts of your writing and suggest alternatives, all without questioning your motives. You responded by calling me a child and suspecting that I'm an ideologue.
:::So, now that I've said my peace, I'll go back to making productive contributions to your encyclopedia. You're welcome. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 11:03, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: You're right: you didn't "deny" that some languages or religions are superior to others. You just won't admit it. That's not a meaningful distinction.

:::: I didn't call you "a child." I pointed out how unproductive it is to debate this issue with someone who won't even admit that some languages or religions are superior to others. If the person won't admit that, then they'll never admit, no matter how compelling the evidence is, that most great composers were of one nationality. Honest intellectual dialog and progress grind to a halt.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:15, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: Fine, I'll come out and say it: no language is superior to another. Each evolved in the context of its society to fit the specific needs of that society. Is German or English better than one of those tiny Amazonian languages that doesn't have words for numbers greater than two? For us, yes. But for them, it works, and that's all that matters. Is German better than English? Considering one split off from the other a mere thousand or so years ago (could be wrong on that), they're almost identical. So, no, German is not the superior language. Nor is any other.

:::::Andy, it's unproductive to debate this issue with someone who won't even admit that languages can't be objectively quantified. If the person won't admit that, then they'll never admit, no matter how compelling the evidence is, that there are great composers of every nationality.--[[User:FredCorps|FredCorps]] 23:40, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: FredCorps, I appreciate your edits, but I respectfully disagree with your statement that "no language is superior to another." Suppose I invent a new language today that has only ten words. Is that equal to Latin? No, I don't think so. Suppose a tribal language is discovered on a Pacific Island containing less than a thousand people and no written work. Is that language likely to be equal to Greek? Of course not. Indeed, not only is it implausible for all languages to be equal, but such equality is ''impossible''. It is as impossible as claiming that all buildings are of equal height. In fact, none are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:47, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::As long as we're at it, let me try and clarify. Andy, when you say that not all languages are equal you mean "Not all languages are equally capable of expressing the same ideas in the same way." Some languages faciliate the expression of complex ideas with relative ease. Others lack even the vocabulary to express the idea, let alone in a succinct way. Not all languages are equal in ''vocabulary and ability to express ideas.'' That's an observable point that is indisputable.

:::::::However, are some languages ''better than others?'' Perhaps, but this is a different question than "are all languages ''equal,''". Fred is right when he says that each language works for the society that uses it. So perhaps we can say that not all languages are equal ''in abilities,'' but that all languages are equal in ''usefulness for the societies that use them.''

:::::::Similarly, we can say that one language is ''more primitive'' than another, but we're talking about linguistic characteristics. We're not necessarily saying that a functionally primitive language is ''inferior.'' [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 16:25, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::As A. Schlafly claims that ''some languages are superior to others'' that is exactly what he is saying.
::::::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:34, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::Superior in what way, though? In usefulness, in functionality? Or in some "quality" sense, as in ''better?'' I'm not sure which meaning Andy is using. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:01, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::Also, I don't think you can compare religions to languages. With religion, we're talking about ''truth.'' One religion is true, the other must be false. So the true one is really ''better'' than the false one. But language is a more pragmatic matter. It should be judged by usefulness, so I think the "better/worse" judgement that is valid for religion is misplaced regarding language. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:06, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::''Superior not just "on what criteria you choose," but overall. '' (A. Schlafly) You are voicing the same concerns as [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] above - or like [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AWorld_History_Lecture_Nine&diff=649799&oldid=649777 me]. But perhaps, you'll get an answer... [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 17:17, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::: Yes, superior overall. The English language of 2009 is superior overall to the English language of 1000. Really. Also, a language having a larger vocabulary, a richer history, more connection with writing and development, is going to be a superior language to one developed by just a few thousand people a few hundred years ago on an isolated island.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The language developed by this people may fit their needs better than the English language. And in the English of 1000 you'll find words for things which are lost today, as we don't need them any longer. Just having a greater vocabulary doesn't make a language superior, I'd say, it could be just a sign of decadence. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 18:09, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

(edit conflict) I agree with Clement - you aren't making an overall judgment. It's based on criteria - albeit broad ones. Your criteria for a Good Language is for richness of vocabulary and history, with connections to literature, and which continues to grow and adapt with the times. For someone living in the year 1000, the English language of 2009 would be filled with useless words (for concepts yet to be discovered or invented) and severely lacking in vocabulary for describing their world. Similarly, of course, for someone living in 2009, Old English would be less capable of describing our world. But these judgments are based on criteria; they aren't absolute. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:21, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

=== Top 20 Composers ===

*I couldn't give a "top ten" list of old composers (as opposed to "new" ones; Gershwin, Rogers & Hart, Zappa), but I can narrow my personal preferences to 20:

#. Ludwig Van Beethoven
#. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
#. Johann Sebastian Bach
#. Richard Wagner
#. Joseph Haydn
#. Johannes Brahms
#. Franz Schubert (highly complex music, and loved Beethoven's music!)
#. Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky
#. George Frideric Handel
#. Igor Stravinsky
#. Robert Schumann
#. Frederic Chopin
#. Felix Mendelssohn
#. Claude Debussy
#. Franz Liszt
#. Antonin Dvorak
#. Giuseppe Verdi
#. Gustav Mahler
#. Hector Berlioz
#. Antonio Vivaldi

Some time ago I saved this comment about some of those composers, because it was apt:

<blockquote>
Mozart wrote music in his head and then merely had to write them down. Beethoven composed while deaf. Bach consolidated one of the most important schools of harmony and on top of that, was a masterful organist and organ inspector. Chopin was the master of emotion and chromatics. Liszt was a showman that kept people riveted. Tchaikovsky composed amazingly for the ballet in a way few have rivaled and he had a brilliance for catchy melodies. Haydn could churn out music on command (over 100 symphonies!) Brahms was king of melodrama (not that its a bad thing in music). Schoenberg created a whole new school of tonality...or lack thereof.
</blockquote>

And what of Shostakovich? Mention should also be given of Henry Purcell, an Englishman, whose music is sometimes great, but always good listening. And as the grandson of an Austrian (he came from the same small village as Arnold Schwarzenegger, albeit decades before), while they are part of the Germanic people, they take great exception to being called German! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:16, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:Through out this whole thing two things come to mind 1) What would the ideal ("perfect") language be? How would it sound? How would it be structured? (with these properties established you could qualitatively evaluate a language) and 2) Some nations' ''accomplishments'' have far exceedede those of other nations but they all have the same ''potential''. Who's to say that Brazil or Thailand won't produce the next generation of Bachs, William Shakespeares, or Henry Fords? Past records do not always indicate future performance. --[[User:StevenB|StevenB]] 15:51, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::I count at most seven Germans in TK's well-thought-out list of his top twenty ''old'' composers, at most five in my list of ten. It would seem to me that the claim '''"most great composers were German"''' is a little bit to bold, and should be reworded - at least, until A. Schlafly shows us his list which may corroborate his statement. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:12, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I think this "dispute" is typical of most liberal thought. Arguably, by most standards, "Most great composers were German" is completely correct, and I think it was reasonable that people should assume Andy included anyone "Germanic" in his thinking. Liberals editing on CP tend to try to deflect and impede progress by being overly picky and qualifying in their disputes. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:28, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::::You lost me there. When did precision become a liberal value? Especially on an encyclopedia, where you'd expect a certain sticking to the facts, and an exact language? And A. Schlafly made it clear in his first reply on this topic that he was talking about ''nations'' and ''nationalities''. So, it's ''German'' and not ''Germanic'' - or even, ''having a German sounding family name''.
::::Or do you just want to annoy your Austrians relatives?
::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 07:56, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:World History Lecture Nine

2009-04-06T22:32:25Z

Eoinc: /* Non-German 'Great' Composers */

I've never before heard it said that the Whigs were the anteedents of the Labour Party. The conventioanal argument is that Whig=Liberal and Tory=Conservative, but even that is a gross over-simplification of the changes in political allegiance during the 19th and early 20th centuries. It is probably far truer to say that Whiggism led to economic and political Liberalism in the mid-19th century which in turn greatly influenced the 20th century Conservative Party with its individualist, free trade, laissez faire policies. Mrs Thatcher was nothing if not a classic nineteenth century Liberal. Also, in the late 19th century the Liberal Party split over Home Rule for Ireland and a large faction - known as Liberal Unionists - joined the Conservative Party (hence its full name, the Conservative and Unionist Party - nothing to do with Ulster Unionists). Yes, the late 19th century Liberal Party had trade union candidates, known as 'Lib Labs'; some of these joined the Labour Party when it was established (as the Labour Representation Committee) in 1900. But to say the Whigs developed into Labour is simply not the case. (unsigned)

'''Reply''' by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:48, 27 June 2007 (EDT):

Of course, the lecture's statement that the (leftist) modern Labour Party is a substitute for the (leftist) Whig Party of old is a simplification of this interesting facet of English history. But it is a correct simplication, as confirmed by the Columbia Encyclopedia quoted below. Admittedly, there is a step in between that entailed the more conservative Liberal Party. But the migration from leftist to Liberal to leftist does not break the chain.

From the Columbia Encyclopedia:

The Liberal party was an outgrowth of the Whig party that, after the Reform Bill of 1832 (see Reform Acts), joined with the bulk of enfranchised industrialists and business classes to form a political alliance that, over the next few decades, came to be called the Liberal party. Much of the Liberal program was formulated by an important manufacturing middle-class element of the party known as the Radicals, who were strongly influenced by Jeremy Bentham. The Liberals distinguishing policies included free trade, low budgets, and religious liberty. Their anti-imperialism reflected confidence in Britain's economic supremacy. Most Liberals believed in the economic doctrines of laissez-faire and thought labor unions, factory acts, and substantial poor relief a threat to rapid industrialization.
...

By 1914 the Liberal government had passed substantial welfare legislation but, unwilling to adopt a full socialist program, the Liberals began to lose support to the new Labour party. The party's stubborn adherence to the doctrine of free trade, arguments between the Lloyd George and Asquith factions of the party, long years of depression, the Irish problem, growing labor radicalism, and the rise of a working-class party all account for the rapid postwar decline of the Liberals.
...

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright© 2004, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. All rights reserved.

:: Apologies for omitting to sign above. I think (perhaps mistakenly) that you are drawing your argument and inferring a link from this section of the quotation:''By 1914 the Liberal government had passed substantial welfare legislation but, unwilling to adopt a full socialist program, the Liberals began to lose support to the new Labour party.'' Certainly there was a radical interventionist wing of the party, under Lloyd George, which fostered this 'welfare' legislation; but (as with Lloyd George's post WW1 housing programme) this was to prevent socialism by improving living standards for the poor, rather than to encourage socialism. Some individual liberal politicians moved 'left', but I maintain that there is a much stronger philosophical link between nineteenth century classical economic Liberalism and modern UK Conservatism, and indeed even between mid-C19 radicalism - most of whose exponents were enthusiastic individualists and anti-Socialists - and modern Conservatism. Anyway... thanks in any case for your considered response. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:01, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Religious Persecution ==

''In the 1600s in England, there was some of the worst religious persecution in the history of the world, as Protestants harshly persecuted each other and there was also continuous conflict between Protestants and Catholics. The conflict between Anglicans and Puritans in England was particularly severe, causing many Puritans to flee to New England.''

To class the examples you give as "some of the worst religious persecution in the history of the world" is completely alien to the facts. Conflict between Anglicans and Puritans was not 'particularly severe' by world standards, or even Englsish standards: no executions were involved, by contrast with the hundreds of Catholics killed in the Elizabethan and 17th century persecutions and scores of Protestants killed in the 16th century Marian persecution). Contrast that with the Holocaust, with Tsarist antisemitic pogroms, with the butcheries of the Crusades, with the massacres perpetrated during the German Religious Wars, the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War; the killings of Chinese Christians during the Boxer Rising - I could go on and on. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 12:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Corrections ==

*You simply eliminate Edward VI and Mary I as not being 'noteworthy'. They may have had relatively short reigns but they were important nonetheless.
*To say Elizabeth I is the most popular would need some sort of reliable survey to back it up, and to clarify whether that is from a contemporary perspective or not.
*As it stands the wording suggest she was formally excommunicated before 1559, in fact this took place afterwards in 1570.
*You completely omit the Gunpowder Plot, probably the defining event of James' reign, which is still commemorated to this day.
*Charles I did accept the Petition of Right, though he never intended to abide by it.
*You label the first civil war as purely religious. This was not the case. Yes Cromwell was a Puritan but to say all Parliamentarians were is incorrect. Although there was a split along religious lines the names used for either side, Royalists and Parliamentarians tells the story much better.
*The 'remainder' of William Prynne's ears were not removed but were branded with SL for 'seditious libeller'.
*You jump straight from describing the power wielded by certain Puritans to saying that this caused them to emigrate, though this makes no sense.
*Although Cromwell was essentially a dictator it should be noted that he refused the offer of Kingship.
*The US was not the only example of a revolution that did not lead to dictatorship. Venustiano Carranza became president of Mexico after overthrowing a dictator but did not become one himself. There are of course also many non-violent revolutions that did not lead to dictatorships, especially in recent decades.
*Charles II did not immediately take over after Cromwell's death.
*The Labour Party did NOT form from the Whigs. The Whigs developed into the Liberal party (even then not a straightforward matter), which has under gone many changes to become the Liberal Democrats today, the 3rd largest party. The Labour Party was not created until the early 20th century.
*You fail to mention the Battle of the Boyne. This was a hugely significant battle between Protestant and Catholic and has ramifications to this day. It was also the last battle in which two English kings faced each other.
*Your statement regarding the French revolution ''"ended up with nearly everyone being executed by the guillotine"'' is an overstatement to say the very least!
*You criticise the arbitrary nature of some of the French declarations, but most such statements are arbitrary. The phrase 'pursuit of happiness' is extremely vague for instance.
*I think you are mistaken in attributing any significant credit to Adam Smith for economic expansion as part of the industrial revolution. He was really more of an observer of it such that his ideas were significant later on.
*The vast majority of the cotton for Britain came from its colonies, not America, with the USA being independent by pretty much the start of the industrial revolution. Britain was also engaged in hostilities with the US for some time and so significant trade of cotton was unlikely between them.
*I think your claim that Britain tried to hide the secrets of the Industrial revolution is woefully inaccurate. This portrays it as if the revolution was a single event that was tightly controlled by single group, which of course it was not.
*You suggest the industrial revolution was simply built on the use of iron for example, neglecting the fact that revolutions in the extraction of iron for instance were part of the revolution.
*James Watt did not invent the steam engine (a common misconception), he simply improved it.
*You get into a discussion on the agrarian revolution after discussing the industrial revolution, which is odd given how they occurred the other way around.
*You characterise enclosure as simply the buying up of land. In fact much of it was simply the pre-existing owners enclosing their land. Certainly much buying and selling then occurred but this was not the defining feature of enclosure.
*Again when referring to Spain and Austria-Hungary you put far too great an emphasis on the role of Adam Smith and simply dismiss the consensus amongst historians in favour of said mistake.
*This sentence ''"If you are a businessman or investor, then you love the industrial revolution because it enables you to make money without being a farmer, and gives you access to all sorts of goods and products that might not otherwise be available, such as computers"'' seems to be mixed up in its temporal context.

I hope this has been of use. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:12, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== The Virgin Queen? ==

Is it worth mentioning Elizabeth I's reputation as "The Virgin Queen"? I know historians debate how true that was, but its why one of the colonies that caused Great Britain so much trouble later on is called ''Virgin''ia. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:34, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== Revolution versus Civil War? ==

Might it be worth differentiating between revolutions and civil wars, since both are covered here?

My personal definition is that its a civil war until the rebels win, then the victors get to call it a revolution, but I'm little more than an amateur historian with specific interests (mostly American history, from the <s>Late Unpleasantness</s> Civil War on.) [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:38, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== Prussia vs. Germany ==

To call ''Prussia the former name of Germany'' is like calling ''Maryland the former name of the USA''... [[User:ClementB|ClementB]] 09:20, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

:Look up "Prussia" in the dictionary. Merriam-Webster, 10th Ed., second meaning: "former kingdom and state of Germany." Now complain to it if you still insist on your incorrect view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:10, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::The same Merriam-Webster has this entry on Hesse: "state of Germany & formerly of West Germany including larger part of Hesse-Darmstadt & part of Hesse-Nassau "
::Prussia was a state in Germany. Prussia was never the state of Germany. Hesse, neither. So Bavaria.
::To emphasize: the kingdom of Prussia was never identical to Germany. In fact, Prussia could only become a kingdom in 1701 as it lay outside of the German Empire.
::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 11:08, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::: The lecture doesn't say Prussia was "identical to Germany." But Prussia was the leading state in the German empire, and hence is the predecessor (or former name) of Germany. Your analogy to Maryland is, frankly, beyond absurd.

::: Let me know when you assert your same complaint to Merriam-Webster.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:50, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::::The lecture states ''Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (the former name for Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.'' Does this make Frederick II a former king of Germany? Or a king of former Germany? It gives at least a wrong impression.
::::I have no problems with the Merriam-Webster, as this dictionary (not an encyclopedia, BTW) states that ''Prussia was a German state''. That's absolutely correct, but you seem to misread it as the ''former kingdom of Germany'', when all it implies that it is a ''former German kingdom''.
::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 12:12, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::::As you're so adamant, I changed the entry on [[Germany]] to include this point. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:29, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::Interestingly, I wasn't allowed to introduce this insight into the article on [[Germany]]. In the discussion on my home-page, Karajou linked to the MSN encarta. As the Merriam-Webster, it starts with
:::::''Prussia (German Preussen), former kingdom and state of Germany. ''
:::::But then, you find the line
:::::''Modern Prussia was successively, with geographical modifications, an independent kingdom (1701-1871); the largest constituent kingdom of the German Empire (1871-1918); a constituent state, or land, of the Weimar Republic (1919-1933); and an administrative division, comprising 13 provinces, of the centralized German Third Reich (1934-1945). ''
:::::Do you see how the first sentence never implies that Prussia ''is the predecessor (or former name) of Germany''?
:::::Please, allow me to change the lecture accordingly, i.e., from ''Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (the former name for Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.'' to something like ''Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (a former kingdom in Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.''
:::::If you insist on your view, the line ''A former name of [[Germany]] is [[Prussia]]'' should be added to the article on [[Germany]].
:::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:51, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Clement, your suggested replacement is not an improvement on the lecture. An encyclopedia entry about something (e.g., Germany) obviously goes into more detail, with greater precision, than a lecture should. A good lecture informs with the goal of making something easy to learn and remember. This lecture has done that, just as the dictionary has, and your suggestion is not an improvement. Please move on, at least for now. If this still bothers you after you've focused on other issues, then we can always revisit this. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

::::::: Dear Andrew Schlafly, I'm afraid that the matter still bothers me. I thought about it for quite a while and to get counsel, I've talked to the pastor of my former youth group. He took some time to read my entries - and some of yours - and we discussed the whole exchange at length.
:::::::* He scolded me for being overly aggressive in my replies. Even if mocked, I should have been more humble and considerate. Therefore, I apologize.
:::::::* I apologize to R. J. Jensen, too. It became obvious that he didn't want to be involved in a discussion of the statements of your lectures, but kept his contributions and these lectures separate. I should not have tried to drag him into this argument.
:::::::* You said: ''A good lecture informs with the goal of making something easy to learn and remember. '' We seem to disagree where there is the line between an allowed (over-) simplification and the outright distortion of facts. I'd like to point out that the statement ''ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'' was kept in biology text books around the world because it is ''easy to learn and remember'', though there was no truth in it.
:::::::* I'm thankful that you considered my note on the ''Red Cross'' in your next lecture. On the other hand, you ignored my question on the beginning of the ''industrial revolution'' in Germany: There are discussions whether it was as early as in the 1830s or as late as in the 1850s, but I found no one who gave 1870 as a date. But looking back, it seemed to be prideful to expect that you'd follow all of my annotations: reading the talk pages of the other lectures shows that - seemingly - good advice is often ignored.

::::::: This said, I'll follow what I see as an example set by R. J. Jensen, i.e, I won't comment on the further ''World History Lectures''.
::::::: Yours [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 13:05, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Clement, your conclusion is backhanded at best, and you still seem to push a double standard. I repeat: have you complained to Merriam-Webster yet? It says the same thing the lecture does, as I demonstrated. That you insist on complaining only here without complaining to Merriam-Webster suggests you have two different standards.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:36, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: Andy, I won't complain to Merriam-Webster. Why? Because the statement: ''Prussia: former kingdom and state of Germany.'' is true. It just doesn't mean what you read into it! Merriam-Webster states that Prussia is a former kingdom. And that Prussia is a former state of Germany. It is possible to misread this very short statement as ''Prussia is the former state of Germany''. But your background in history should prevent you from such a misinterpretation! [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 13:57, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Do you actually want editors to help? ==

Mr Schlafly, before I go any further in helping to edit your encyclopedia, please could you let me know if you actually want to use information contributed by editors. On the specific points you reverted,
* Mohammed is not and never has been the most common boy's name in Britain. It has regularly been in the top 20 for the last 30-40 years and famously overtook John about 10 years ago. But the most common name on a long-term basis continues to be James, as it has been for centuries, while Biblical names like Joshua and Adam and Celtic or Saxon names like Liam and Kevin are currently popular.
* There is no bar on a catholic being Prime Minister. As you surely know, the UK has no written constitution and there isn't even an official position of Prime Minister (his official title is First Lord of the Treasury). If a catholic (or muslim, hindu, sikh, jew, etc) became Prime Minister, the Queen could choose to be advised on ecclesiastical matters by the Lord Chancellor or another senior minister. Blair has never revealed why he chose to leave converting to catholicism until he left office but it wouldn't have affected his position as P.M.
So Mr Schlafly, if you'll accept input from an editor who knows what he's talking about, I'll gladly continue to contribute to Conservapedia. Otherwise, I won't waste my time. (I've read some of your talk pages and I see you're inclined to get into pointless arguments with editors who know more than you do about the subject in question. All I need to know is, do you accept input from people who know more about a subject than you do, yes or no.) [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 17:46, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

: If you think you're such a genius, JosephMac, let's see how well you can do on the [[World History Midterm Exam]]. Or perhaps your skill is only acting like you know it all.

: The evidence is against both of your claims above. Moreover, you censored the statement about Muhammad rather than improving it.

: We don't welcome falsehoods, even by people who pretend to be know-it-alls. Now let's see if you even do as well as the top [[homeschooled]] students on the exam. I bet you'll run away from that opportunity to prove your immense knowledge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

::*No, the evidence isn't against either of the statements above. They're both correct, as I think you actually know.
::*As you also know, I didn't censor the statement about Mohammed; I improved it to say it's in the top 20 of boy's names.
::*I'm not pretending about anything.
::*I would do your exam if I were confident that your historical knowledge was accurate enough to mark it correctly.
::*Mind your language, please.[[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 17:58, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I'm a Brit (English) and I have nary a clue as to where you got that 'Muhammad' thing from. I don't personally know anyone called Muhammad, and I've never heard of a Christian with that name (unless they converted from another religion). In support of JosephMac, I know many people called James, so many that I call them by their last name instead of their first. [[User:LeslieHoyson|LeslieHoyson]] 18:10, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: I'd too see if either you could even score 50% on the [[World History Midterm Exam]]. Looks like both you won't dare display your real knowledge.

:::: It only took 30 seconds to confirm that "Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and '''is likely to rise to No 1 by next year''' [2008], a study by The Times has found."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1890354.ece]

::::: 1 c. 2 d. 3 a. 4 c. 5 c. 6 e. 7 d. 8 e. 9 c. 10 b. 11 b. 12 d. 13 b. 14 b. 15 d. 16 a. 17 d. 18 e. 19 b. 20 a. 21 e. 22 c. 23 c. 24 d. 25 d. 26 c. 27 d. 28 a. 29 b. 30 c. 31 b. 32 e. 33 d. 34 d. 35 a. 36 e. 37 a(*). 38 a. 39 b. 40 e. 41 d. 42 c. 43 d. 44 c. Extra (male) e.
(*) Your numbering is muddled. You've labelled Song as VI before Tang as V in the list. The order is Qin, Han, 3 kingdoms, Sui, Tang, Song.

:::::JosephMac, your score is is 40, and you got some of the most challenging questions! That makes a new second place among internet submissions, and ties for second best among all submissions. Good job.

:::::Also, thanks for catching the error about the dynasties! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:13, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: I'd be happy to help set future exams to help you avoid ambiguous or erroneous answers, of which there are several in this exam.

::::: As for Mohammed, here's a table from the Office of National Statistics, which is the definitive record for England and Wales. [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/specials/babiesnames_boys.asp] Mohammed is no. 17. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 19:30, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: I noticed several of your edits as being incorrect (e.g., replacing "Anglican" with "Protestant") or censoring information (erasing statement about Islam in France). Accordingly, I had to revert your edits. Some revisions of value may have been lost and I'll revisit Saturday. I suggest you be more careful.

:::::: Muhammad has several different spellings, obviously. Your failure to recognize that, even after I gave you an article explaining this, suggests you're more interested in censoring the truth here than in advancing knowledge. Please move elsewhere if you continue to have that attitude.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:10, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Actually, JosephMac is pretty much right in his 2 original points.

There does not appear to be any data suggesting that Muhammed is currently or has ever been the most popular boys name in the UK. In 2007 it (including 14 spelling variations, although some might argue against doing this) was ranked 2nd for newborn boys. Although some said it would overtake the top name, Jack, this does not appear to have happened as of yet.

And there is NOT any legal obstacle to a Catholic becoming Prime Minister as he also correctly stated. This is often mixed up with the laws affecting the monarchy, for which reform has recently been discussed. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:24, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
:::::::Sorry but speaking as a Catholic from England I can confirm that JosephMac is quite correct there is NO legal obstacle to a Catholic becoming Prime Minister in the UK. We potentially had an atheist as Prime Minister and the main objection to him (Michael Foot) was his duffle coat! [[User:BrianNTS|BrianNTS]] 07:31, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

This story from the BBC states precisely this point about Catholicism at the end. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3746398.stm] The belief by some that there was some sort of legal restriction appears to have been heightened by the fact that Blair waited until he left office to convert to Catholicism. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:36, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:I'm just pleased that JosephMac corrected the statement ''Prussia (the former name for Germany)'' to ''Prussia (the most powerful of the German states)'', and that A. Schlafly doesn't object any longer. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 07:51, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

How does "40" by JosephMac become a "new second place" among all submissions? We already have a 40 for second place, so JosephMac would tie for second place. Still a great score.

People are denying too much the ban on Catholicism for the British Prime Minister. The ban plainly does apply to the monarch and spouse of the monarch, and Tony Blair plainly did delay until after abdicating as Prime Minister before converting, and there plainly are legal restrictions that would kick in if a Prime Minister were Catholic. Why do so many Brits insist on denying the ban??? The denial is odd in itself.

ClementB's comment is misleading as I do still object to his suggested change to the Prussia/Germany statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:06, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:You're still clinging to your statement that ''Prussia is a former name for Germany''? And your only justification for doing so is the short entry on the Merriam-Webster, [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prussia stating]

:'' '''Prussia:''' former kingdom & state of Germany * Berlin''

:You misread this entry. This becomes clear when you have a look at the entry on [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/waldeck Waldeck]:

:'' '''Waldeck:''' former county, principality, & state of Germany between Westphalia & Hesse-Nassau * Arolsen''

:Your reading of the Merriam-Webster would make ''Waldeck'' a former name of Germany, too.

:[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 07:04, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Andy, I'm afraid on the point about Catholicism and the Prime Minister you are wrong. There is NO legal restriction against a Catholic Prime Minister. The reason so many Brits 'deny' the ban? Because there isn't one. Sorry, but that fact has to be cleared up. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 11:20, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

: If this point is so important to you, then suggest more precise wording that does not censor the facts that the British Prime Minister has basic duties that could not be fulfilled if he were Catholic, that Prime Minister Tony Blair delayed converting to Catholicism until after he abdicated, and that there has never been a Catholic Prime Minister. And, by the way, the language obscuring how Brits celebrate the anniversary of the alleged "discovery" of the gunpowder plot is going to be corrected also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:53, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
:: This was widely discussed at the time that Iain Duncan Smith (a Catholic) became leader of the Conservative Party, and the conclusion of constitutional scholars was that there is no barrier to a Catholic becoming prime minister -- the largely ceremonial role of the government in giving ecclesiastic advice to the monarch could be performed by ''any'' minister. Tony Blair has never given a public explanation for his decision to wait until he left office, although two explanations have been given by his friends: It had the potential to upset the delicate negotiations in Northern Ireland, and he did not wish for a purely personal decision to be interpreted as a political manoeuvre. [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:09, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

::: "Constitutional scholars" make all sorts of claims, including silly ones. Nothing you say refutes the three facts I cite above, and I welcome alternative wording that does not censor the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:23, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

(unindent) Ignoring the new material above for a moment, I should like to point out that both Joseph and I defeated Mr Schlafly's challenge of gaining more than 50% on the Midterm Exam (he with a score of 40 and I with 37), and I think that in light of his insulting and unchivalrous behaviour towards we who were trying to help, we both deserve an apology so we can all move on. [[User:LeslieHoyson|LeslieHoyson]] 15:45, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

: Apologies for my absence (owing to a misunderstanding about dynamic assignment of IP addresses). Mr Schlafly, this discussion exemplifies exactly what I said above about "pointless arguments with editors who know more than you do about the subject in question". You 've now had numerous British contributors telling you there's no constitutional bar on a catholic becoming Prime Minister. Ian Duncan Smith illustrates this perfectly. He's a Conservative (and conservative) politician who's highly respected across the whole political spectrum. Although he was a poor party leader, the fact that he's catholic was never once considered to prevent him becoming Prime Minister. Why Blair chose not to formally convert to catholicism until after he left office was entirely his own business, which he has never discussed. If the Queen had been concerned about it, she could have chosen any other minister to advise her as Head of the Church of England (although there's no sign she would have been concerned, as her PMs have included two Presbyterians, a Baptist and a Methodist). I must ask you to respect the knowledge of British people on this subject. I will edit Lecture 9 appropriately. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 16:49, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

::If I may add my six-penn'orth, Schlafers is completely wrong on this (as he is on the Prussia/Germany question too). Some humilityy and open-mindedness, such as he demands of Liberals, wuld be welcome. [[User:ThomasF|ThomasF]] 18:06, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Godspeed to you, ThomasF. You are the classic definition of a troll. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:07, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

== Religious Conflict: Ireland ==

I've started improving the part of the 'Religious Conflict in England' section that deals with Ireland. There's a lot of work to do so if anyone else would like to help out, that would be great (I'll be away for a few days). The Protestant/Catholic thing needs to be toned down a bit. Although that dispute is highly visible, the origins of Irish Republicanism were more political than religious - Wolfe Tone was a protestant, the original Fenians were protestant industrial workers from Belfast, etc. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 20:12, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

: You should include the fact that there is some reason why there are anti-Catholic laws in GB, most importantly, the reason that a Catholic can't be monarch is becasue it would be insulting! The British monarch is the official head of the Anglican Church, having a Catholic monarch would be like having a muslim Pope!!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 22:23, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

== Non-German 'Great' Composers==

I notice you claim that "most great composers were German". Musicologists, composers, music students and fans of Boulez, Borodin, Berlioz, Bartok, Mahler, Liszt, Karajan, Holst, Haydn, Grieg,Gould, Vivaldi, Verdi, Tchaikovsky, Sullivan, Stravinsky, Strauss, Sibelius, Shostakovich, Schubert, Schoenberg, Satie, Ravel, Rachmaninoff, Puccini, Prokofiev, Penderecki, Mussorgsky, Paganini, Mozart, or Monteverdi would disagree with you, I suspect. [[User:KBinbota|KBinbota]] 21:25, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

: Good list of mostly obscure composers. Only a few of them would be considered to be in the same league as the great German composers, and even they wouldn't be considered as great as the Germans.

: I know, I know. You probably think all languages are equal, all religions are equal, and ... all nationalities are equal with respect to composers. Well, we tell the truth here. I recommend Wikipedia if you prefer pushing political correctness instead.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:32, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

:: You certainly seem to have a very unusual definition of 'obscure'. [[User:KBinbota|KBinbota]] 21:41, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
::: What a great example of liberal corruption! Denying that Germans are the greatest composers is like denying that the Dutch are superior artists or that Americans are superior inventors!! (Yankee ingenuity anyone)
:::But I have to agree that Strauss was a great composer! Unfortunately for you, he's '''German'''!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 22:23, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
:: Just out of curiosity, who do you consider the great German composers? I can only really think of Bach, Handel, Wagner, Strauss, Schumann and Brahms, and of course Beethoven, amongst the most popular composers in the world. There are certainly many composers of the same calibre from other countries.

:::The mention of Beethoven is problematic. ''"The greatest composer in the history of the world"'' is an opinion shared by many, though are very many others who would claim the same of Mozart (Austrian), Bach or others. The problem, however, is not that people might disagree with your assessment of Beethoven, but that a composer's greatness cannot be quantified. Things like a composer's technical skill, fame during their lifetime, posthumous reception and their influence on later composers can be approximately known. By these criteria, Beethoven was certainly ''among'' the greatest composers who ever lived. But because of the imprecise nature of this evaluation, we must be content with approximate judgments.

:::Next, the description of his achievements, that he ''"revolutionized instrumental music and took it to new heights never before thought possible"'' is one which was also true of many composers before and since. Perhaps you could say something specific to Beethoven, such as how his 32 piano sonatas have been referred to as "The New Testament of the Piano" (the Old Testament being Bach's 48 preludes and fugues), or that in particular he revolutionized the concept of the Symphony as an art form. Prior to him, the symphony was just a four-movement work for orchestra. Mozart wrote over 50 of them. Haydn wrote over 100. Beethoven's 9 symphonies (from the 3rd onward) expanded the scale, the seriousness, and the emotional breadth of what a symphony could be. Another quotation (I don't have sources for these, as I can't remember who said them) is that every symphonic composer since Beethoven has been writing in his shadow.

:::Finally, the phrase ''"A German like most great composers..."'' is most problematic of all. Beethoven was from a Flemish family, was born and raised in Cologne, which at the time was a principality of the Holy Roman Empire, and spent the majority of his life in Vienna. To say he was "German" is an oversimplification. To say that most great composers were also Germans is thus a distortion of history: Bach and Handel would not have been considered as members of the same country during their lifetimes. Second, it is simply not true that the majority of great composers were German. Even if Germany has had more great composers than other countries, the total number of great non-German composers easily dwarfs the total number of great German composers. (do you claim that the best composers were German, or that the German composers were best? The two claims are not the same) Lastly, ''even if'' your statement was true, what point are you trying to make? What conclusion do you expect your students to draw? That the German people are innately superior to non-Germans, at least as far as music is concerned? Surely the reason for great German composers is that there has been a long culture of music-making, which meant that talented children could be directed towards music (and would have the opportunity to get a better music education than their peers in France)? Such cultures, like the Rugby-playing culture in New Zealand, tend to be self-perpetuating once they get started. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 09:01, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: Your real discomfort is apparently in observing that one nationality to be better than others at something. Let me guess: you'd also insist that no language is superior to another, and that no religion is superior to another.

:::: You're in the wrong place if you think we're going to sacrifice the truth for political correctness. We don't. Welcome the truth yourself and you'll won't regret it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:16, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::Regarding nationalities, it does not disturb me in the slightest to observe one nationality be better than others at something. I will take the example of German composers (because I would rather not go any further off-topic). Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that Germany has had a disproportionately large number of great composers compared to other European nations. Leave aside the problems I mentioned above. What this would indicate is that Germany has a long culture of music-making: great concert halls were built there; archbishops commissioned new music all the time; great concert halls were built; the public went to hear music being performed; the greatest teachers moved there; and that, therefore, German children with a natural talent for music would have had their talents nurtured and would have had a better musical education. Such cultures, as I said, are self-perpetuating. It is a cycle which feeds into itself. The alternative possibility, that there is something in the water in Germany, or that Germans have something in their DNA which the rest of us lack, is racist and has no supporting evidence. Or would there be an alternative explanation?

:::::As for languages, I wouldn't insist that that all languages are equal in every respect, though I would have a hard time ranking them in any order of superiority. For ease of learning, and intuitive grammatical sense, Esperanto is superior to Japanese. For the ability to communicate with a large number of people all around the world, English is superior to Swedish. For singing in a classical style, Italian is superior to English. Is this what you're referring to?

:::::And as for religions, I do not consider them all equal. Some religions contain beliefs which are harmful to oneself or others when acted upon, and the number of such beliefs is not the same in every religion.

:::::I am not interested in political correctness, or in censoring the truth. I am glad that you share my opinion. My statements on Beethoven, I repeat are: first, that the title of "world's greatest composer", unlike the title of "world's tallest building", cannot be awarded with truthful objectivity. Your preference for Beethoven is an opinion, not a fact. It would be better to describe Beethoven as being "one of the greatest composers". Second, that what you say about Beethoven is rather vague and conveys little useful information, and would be better and more interesting if it were made more specific. Third, that it is historically imprecise to describe him as German, and that it is potentially misleading to draw the conclusions you did. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 09:58, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Andy, can a musicologist jump in here? I, for one, find nothing contentious about calling Beethoven the "greatest composer" - in fact, my dissertation is over Beethoven, so I'm completely in sympathy with this statement. (That being said, it's been my perception that just as many musicians and music lovers say that either Bach or Mozart are the greatest.) However, I feel that the other posters here bring up a fair point, in that it's problematic to call Beethoven a German, since his heritage was Dutch, and because he found his success from an early age in Vienna, where he lived for most of his life. It's the same problem with Handel, who was German, but most people think of him as an English composer, because he wrote the ''Messiah''.

As far as "most of the great composers" being German, you can only say that if you're willing to leave out a great deal of the most beloved composers: Mozart, Haydn, Schubert (all three Austrians), Chopin (a Pole working in France) Verdi and Puccini (Italians), Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff (Russians), etc. If you polled classical music-lovers, your top ten list would surely include Germans like the "3 B's," but you'd definitely also have Mozart, most likely Chopin, as well as the aforementioned Russians and Italians.

There's nothing "politically correct" about this point. This is about accuracy. Beethoven (or Bach or Mozart) is widely considered to be the greatest composer, but right up there nearby are a pantheon of Russian, French, Italian, Polish, and Czech composers. Why is this such a contentious point? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 11:26, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

: You're most welcome to "jump in here," but it's clear from Eoinc's comment that his objection is ideological. He won't admit that some languages, or religions, are superior to others, and from that liberal point of view he resists admitting that most great composers were German. In fact, he even implies that such an observation might be racist!

: I can't tell if you come from the same liberal camp. You strain mightily -- and unsuccessfully -- to find some other basis for objecting to the observation. A discussion would be more meaningful if you first rejected Eoinc's point of view and considered the issue with an open mind. The truth is not contorted by political correctness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:09, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

::Did I not say that some languages are superior to others? Depending on what criteria you choose (my examples were: ease of learning, ability for widespread use in communication around the world, suitability for use in singing), certain languages are superior to others.

::Did I not also say that I do not consider all religions to be equal? I said that some religions contain harmful beliefs. The implication (which I will now state rather than imply) is that a religion which does not contain harmful beliefs is superior to one which does.

::Next, my implication of racism would only apply '''if''' one claimed that most great composers were German ''for reasons which had nothing to do with German culture''. I don't "resist admitting" that most great composers were German: that implies that I secretly know it to be true, but pretend I don't. I simply doubt that it is the case. I am willing to be shown otherwise. There is no reason why Germany could not have a disproportionately large number of musicians in its population (or for France to have the most chefs, or Italy the most painters, or England the most poets). I allow for the possibility, provided that one does not draw the conclusion from that that German people are innately more musical than people from anywhere else. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 17:28, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

::: "Did I not say ...." No, you didn't admit that some languages are superior to others, and you still won't admit it. Superior not just "on what criteria you choose," but overall. You're just babbling nonsense to deny that. It would like a mathematician pretending that some numbers are not larger than others. Some are. Ditto for religion, as you won't admit that some religions are superior (and more truthful) than others. Some obviously are.

::: If won't admit things that are obviously true, then there's little point in trying to hold a logical discussion with you. First open your mind, please, for your sake.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:02, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

::::When talking about languages, I qualified my remarks in the way I did because I am simply not aware of any one language which is superior to ''every'' other and in ''every'' respect. It's not that I "won't admit" it.

::::When talking about religions, I wrote in terms of harmful beliefs, because it's easier to agree about that. It goes without saying that some religions are more truthful than others, but I didn't want to get drawn into an off-topic discussion about religion.

::::Now, can we please return to the topic of Beethoven? JDWPianist and I raised some concerns about the wording in the lecture. Specifically:

::::* I don't think it is possible to say definitively which composer is the greatest. "One of the greatest", certainly, without a doubt.

::::* Beethoven grew up in an area which is now part of Germany, but was not at the time. His family was from Holland. He spent most of his life in Vienna. To say that "Beethoven was German" is therefore not really accurate.

::::* Many of the greatest composers in music history were from the area now known as Germany. But it is untrue to claim that most great composers were German, unless you ignore Vivaldi, Mozart, Haydn, Schubert, Chopin, Verdi, Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, Debussy, Mahler, and dozens more. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:31, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:World History Lecture Nine

2009-04-06T22:31:37Z

Eoinc: /* Non-German 'Great' Composers */ reply

I've never before heard it said that the Whigs were the anteedents of the Labour Party. The conventioanal argument is that Whig=Liberal and Tory=Conservative, but even that is a gross over-simplification of the changes in political allegiance during the 19th and early 20th centuries. It is probably far truer to say that Whiggism led to economic and political Liberalism in the mid-19th century which in turn greatly influenced the 20th century Conservative Party with its individualist, free trade, laissez faire policies. Mrs Thatcher was nothing if not a classic nineteenth century Liberal. Also, in the late 19th century the Liberal Party split over Home Rule for Ireland and a large faction - known as Liberal Unionists - joined the Conservative Party (hence its full name, the Conservative and Unionist Party - nothing to do with Ulster Unionists). Yes, the late 19th century Liberal Party had trade union candidates, known as 'Lib Labs'; some of these joined the Labour Party when it was established (as the Labour Representation Committee) in 1900. But to say the Whigs developed into Labour is simply not the case. (unsigned)

'''Reply''' by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:48, 27 June 2007 (EDT):

Of course, the lecture's statement that the (leftist) modern Labour Party is a substitute for the (leftist) Whig Party of old is a simplification of this interesting facet of English history. But it is a correct simplication, as confirmed by the Columbia Encyclopedia quoted below. Admittedly, there is a step in between that entailed the more conservative Liberal Party. But the migration from leftist to Liberal to leftist does not break the chain.

From the Columbia Encyclopedia:

The Liberal party was an outgrowth of the Whig party that, after the Reform Bill of 1832 (see Reform Acts), joined with the bulk of enfranchised industrialists and business classes to form a political alliance that, over the next few decades, came to be called the Liberal party. Much of the Liberal program was formulated by an important manufacturing middle-class element of the party known as the Radicals, who were strongly influenced by Jeremy Bentham. The Liberals distinguishing policies included free trade, low budgets, and religious liberty. Their anti-imperialism reflected confidence in Britain's economic supremacy. Most Liberals believed in the economic doctrines of laissez-faire and thought labor unions, factory acts, and substantial poor relief a threat to rapid industrialization.
...

By 1914 the Liberal government had passed substantial welfare legislation but, unwilling to adopt a full socialist program, the Liberals began to lose support to the new Labour party. The party's stubborn adherence to the doctrine of free trade, arguments between the Lloyd George and Asquith factions of the party, long years of depression, the Irish problem, growing labor radicalism, and the rise of a working-class party all account for the rapid postwar decline of the Liberals.
...

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright© 2004, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. All rights reserved.

:: Apologies for omitting to sign above. I think (perhaps mistakenly) that you are drawing your argument and inferring a link from this section of the quotation:''By 1914 the Liberal government had passed substantial welfare legislation but, unwilling to adopt a full socialist program, the Liberals began to lose support to the new Labour party.'' Certainly there was a radical interventionist wing of the party, under Lloyd George, which fostered this 'welfare' legislation; but (as with Lloyd George's post WW1 housing programme) this was to prevent socialism by improving living standards for the poor, rather than to encourage socialism. Some individual liberal politicians moved 'left', but I maintain that there is a much stronger philosophical link between nineteenth century classical economic Liberalism and modern UK Conservatism, and indeed even between mid-C19 radicalism - most of whose exponents were enthusiastic individualists and anti-Socialists - and modern Conservatism. Anyway... thanks in any case for your considered response. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:01, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Religious Persecution ==

''In the 1600s in England, there was some of the worst religious persecution in the history of the world, as Protestants harshly persecuted each other and there was also continuous conflict between Protestants and Catholics. The conflict between Anglicans and Puritans in England was particularly severe, causing many Puritans to flee to New England.''

To class the examples you give as "some of the worst religious persecution in the history of the world" is completely alien to the facts. Conflict between Anglicans and Puritans was not 'particularly severe' by world standards, or even Englsish standards: no executions were involved, by contrast with the hundreds of Catholics killed in the Elizabethan and 17th century persecutions and scores of Protestants killed in the 16th century Marian persecution). Contrast that with the Holocaust, with Tsarist antisemitic pogroms, with the butcheries of the Crusades, with the massacres perpetrated during the German Religious Wars, the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War; the killings of Chinese Christians during the Boxer Rising - I could go on and on. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 12:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Corrections ==

*You simply eliminate Edward VI and Mary I as not being 'noteworthy'. They may have had relatively short reigns but they were important nonetheless.
*To say Elizabeth I is the most popular would need some sort of reliable survey to back it up, and to clarify whether that is from a contemporary perspective or not.
*As it stands the wording suggest she was formally excommunicated before 1559, in fact this took place afterwards in 1570.
*You completely omit the Gunpowder Plot, probably the defining event of James' reign, which is still commemorated to this day.
*Charles I did accept the Petition of Right, though he never intended to abide by it.
*You label the first civil war as purely religious. This was not the case. Yes Cromwell was a Puritan but to say all Parliamentarians were is incorrect. Although there was a split along religious lines the names used for either side, Royalists and Parliamentarians tells the story much better.
*The 'remainder' of William Prynne's ears were not removed but were branded with SL for 'seditious libeller'.
*You jump straight from describing the power wielded by certain Puritans to saying that this caused them to emigrate, though this makes no sense.
*Although Cromwell was essentially a dictator it should be noted that he refused the offer of Kingship.
*The US was not the only example of a revolution that did not lead to dictatorship. Venustiano Carranza became president of Mexico after overthrowing a dictator but did not become one himself. There are of course also many non-violent revolutions that did not lead to dictatorships, especially in recent decades.
*Charles II did not immediately take over after Cromwell's death.
*The Labour Party did NOT form from the Whigs. The Whigs developed into the Liberal party (even then not a straightforward matter), which has under gone many changes to become the Liberal Democrats today, the 3rd largest party. The Labour Party was not created until the early 20th century.
*You fail to mention the Battle of the Boyne. This was a hugely significant battle between Protestant and Catholic and has ramifications to this day. It was also the last battle in which two English kings faced each other.
*Your statement regarding the French revolution ''"ended up with nearly everyone being executed by the guillotine"'' is an overstatement to say the very least!
*You criticise the arbitrary nature of some of the French declarations, but most such statements are arbitrary. The phrase 'pursuit of happiness' is extremely vague for instance.
*I think you are mistaken in attributing any significant credit to Adam Smith for economic expansion as part of the industrial revolution. He was really more of an observer of it such that his ideas were significant later on.
*The vast majority of the cotton for Britain came from its colonies, not America, with the USA being independent by pretty much the start of the industrial revolution. Britain was also engaged in hostilities with the US for some time and so significant trade of cotton was unlikely between them.
*I think your claim that Britain tried to hide the secrets of the Industrial revolution is woefully inaccurate. This portrays it as if the revolution was a single event that was tightly controlled by single group, which of course it was not.
*You suggest the industrial revolution was simply built on the use of iron for example, neglecting the fact that revolutions in the extraction of iron for instance were part of the revolution.
*James Watt did not invent the steam engine (a common misconception), he simply improved it.
*You get into a discussion on the agrarian revolution after discussing the industrial revolution, which is odd given how they occurred the other way around.
*You characterise enclosure as simply the buying up of land. In fact much of it was simply the pre-existing owners enclosing their land. Certainly much buying and selling then occurred but this was not the defining feature of enclosure.
*Again when referring to Spain and Austria-Hungary you put far too great an emphasis on the role of Adam Smith and simply dismiss the consensus amongst historians in favour of said mistake.
*This sentence ''"If you are a businessman or investor, then you love the industrial revolution because it enables you to make money without being a farmer, and gives you access to all sorts of goods and products that might not otherwise be available, such as computers"'' seems to be mixed up in its temporal context.

I hope this has been of use. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:12, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== The Virgin Queen? ==

Is it worth mentioning Elizabeth I's reputation as "The Virgin Queen"? I know historians debate how true that was, but its why one of the colonies that caused Great Britain so much trouble later on is called ''Virgin''ia. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:34, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== Revolution versus Civil War? ==

Might it be worth differentiating between revolutions and civil wars, since both are covered here?

My personal definition is that its a civil war until the rebels win, then the victors get to call it a revolution, but I'm little more than an amateur historian with specific interests (mostly American history, from the <s>Late Unpleasantness</s> Civil War on.) [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:38, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== Prussia vs. Germany ==

To call ''Prussia the former name of Germany'' is like calling ''Maryland the former name of the USA''... [[User:ClementB|ClementB]] 09:20, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

:Look up "Prussia" in the dictionary. Merriam-Webster, 10th Ed., second meaning: "former kingdom and state of Germany." Now complain to it if you still insist on your incorrect view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:10, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::The same Merriam-Webster has this entry on Hesse: "state of Germany & formerly of West Germany including larger part of Hesse-Darmstadt & part of Hesse-Nassau "
::Prussia was a state in Germany. Prussia was never the state of Germany. Hesse, neither. So Bavaria.
::To emphasize: the kingdom of Prussia was never identical to Germany. In fact, Prussia could only become a kingdom in 1701 as it lay outside of the German Empire.
::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 11:08, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::: The lecture doesn't say Prussia was "identical to Germany." But Prussia was the leading state in the German empire, and hence is the predecessor (or former name) of Germany. Your analogy to Maryland is, frankly, beyond absurd.

::: Let me know when you assert your same complaint to Merriam-Webster.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:50, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::::The lecture states ''Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (the former name for Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.'' Does this make Frederick II a former king of Germany? Or a king of former Germany? It gives at least a wrong impression.
::::I have no problems with the Merriam-Webster, as this dictionary (not an encyclopedia, BTW) states that ''Prussia was a German state''. That's absolutely correct, but you seem to misread it as the ''former kingdom of Germany'', when all it implies that it is a ''former German kingdom''.
::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 12:12, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::::As you're so adamant, I changed the entry on [[Germany]] to include this point. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:29, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::Interestingly, I wasn't allowed to introduce this insight into the article on [[Germany]]. In the discussion on my home-page, Karajou linked to the MSN encarta. As the Merriam-Webster, it starts with
:::::''Prussia (German Preussen), former kingdom and state of Germany. ''
:::::But then, you find the line
:::::''Modern Prussia was successively, with geographical modifications, an independent kingdom (1701-1871); the largest constituent kingdom of the German Empire (1871-1918); a constituent state, or land, of the Weimar Republic (1919-1933); and an administrative division, comprising 13 provinces, of the centralized German Third Reich (1934-1945). ''
:::::Do you see how the first sentence never implies that Prussia ''is the predecessor (or former name) of Germany''?
:::::Please, allow me to change the lecture accordingly, i.e., from ''Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (the former name for Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.'' to something like ''Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (a former kingdom in Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.''
:::::If you insist on your view, the line ''A former name of [[Germany]] is [[Prussia]]'' should be added to the article on [[Germany]].
:::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:51, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Clement, your suggested replacement is not an improvement on the lecture. An encyclopedia entry about something (e.g., Germany) obviously goes into more detail, with greater precision, than a lecture should. A good lecture informs with the goal of making something easy to learn and remember. This lecture has done that, just as the dictionary has, and your suggestion is not an improvement. Please move on, at least for now. If this still bothers you after you've focused on other issues, then we can always revisit this. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

::::::: Dear Andrew Schlafly, I'm afraid that the matter still bothers me. I thought about it for quite a while and to get counsel, I've talked to the pastor of my former youth group. He took some time to read my entries - and some of yours - and we discussed the whole exchange at length.
:::::::* He scolded me for being overly aggressive in my replies. Even if mocked, I should have been more humble and considerate. Therefore, I apologize.
:::::::* I apologize to R. J. Jensen, too. It became obvious that he didn't want to be involved in a discussion of the statements of your lectures, but kept his contributions and these lectures separate. I should not have tried to drag him into this argument.
:::::::* You said: ''A good lecture informs with the goal of making something easy to learn and remember. '' We seem to disagree where there is the line between an allowed (over-) simplification and the outright distortion of facts. I'd like to point out that the statement ''ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'' was kept in biology text books around the world because it is ''easy to learn and remember'', though there was no truth in it.
:::::::* I'm thankful that you considered my note on the ''Red Cross'' in your next lecture. On the other hand, you ignored my question on the beginning of the ''industrial revolution'' in Germany: There are discussions whether it was as early as in the 1830s or as late as in the 1850s, but I found no one who gave 1870 as a date. But looking back, it seemed to be prideful to expect that you'd follow all of my annotations: reading the talk pages of the other lectures shows that - seemingly - good advice is often ignored.

::::::: This said, I'll follow what I see as an example set by R. J. Jensen, i.e, I won't comment on the further ''World History Lectures''.
::::::: Yours [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 13:05, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Clement, your conclusion is backhanded at best, and you still seem to push a double standard. I repeat: have you complained to Merriam-Webster yet? It says the same thing the lecture does, as I demonstrated. That you insist on complaining only here without complaining to Merriam-Webster suggests you have two different standards.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:36, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: Andy, I won't complain to Merriam-Webster. Why? Because the statement: ''Prussia: former kingdom and state of Germany.'' is true. It just doesn't mean what you read into it! Merriam-Webster states that Prussia is a former kingdom. And that Prussia is a former state of Germany. It is possible to misread this very short statement as ''Prussia is the former state of Germany''. But your background in history should prevent you from such a misinterpretation! [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 13:57, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Do you actually want editors to help? ==

Mr Schlafly, before I go any further in helping to edit your encyclopedia, please could you let me know if you actually want to use information contributed by editors. On the specific points you reverted,
* Mohammed is not and never has been the most common boy's name in Britain. It has regularly been in the top 20 for the last 30-40 years and famously overtook John about 10 years ago. But the most common name on a long-term basis continues to be James, as it has been for centuries, while Biblical names like Joshua and Adam and Celtic or Saxon names like Liam and Kevin are currently popular.
* There is no bar on a catholic being Prime Minister. As you surely know, the UK has no written constitution and there isn't even an official position of Prime Minister (his official title is First Lord of the Treasury). If a catholic (or muslim, hindu, sikh, jew, etc) became Prime Minister, the Queen could choose to be advised on ecclesiastical matters by the Lord Chancellor or another senior minister. Blair has never revealed why he chose to leave converting to catholicism until he left office but it wouldn't have affected his position as P.M.
So Mr Schlafly, if you'll accept input from an editor who knows what he's talking about, I'll gladly continue to contribute to Conservapedia. Otherwise, I won't waste my time. (I've read some of your talk pages and I see you're inclined to get into pointless arguments with editors who know more than you do about the subject in question. All I need to know is, do you accept input from people who know more about a subject than you do, yes or no.) [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 17:46, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

: If you think you're such a genius, JosephMac, let's see how well you can do on the [[World History Midterm Exam]]. Or perhaps your skill is only acting like you know it all.

: The evidence is against both of your claims above. Moreover, you censored the statement about Muhammad rather than improving it.

: We don't welcome falsehoods, even by people who pretend to be know-it-alls. Now let's see if you even do as well as the top [[homeschooled]] students on the exam. I bet you'll run away from that opportunity to prove your immense knowledge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

::*No, the evidence isn't against either of the statements above. They're both correct, as I think you actually know.
::*As you also know, I didn't censor the statement about Mohammed; I improved it to say it's in the top 20 of boy's names.
::*I'm not pretending about anything.
::*I would do your exam if I were confident that your historical knowledge was accurate enough to mark it correctly.
::*Mind your language, please.[[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 17:58, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I'm a Brit (English) and I have nary a clue as to where you got that 'Muhammad' thing from. I don't personally know anyone called Muhammad, and I've never heard of a Christian with that name (unless they converted from another religion). In support of JosephMac, I know many people called James, so many that I call them by their last name instead of their first. [[User:LeslieHoyson|LeslieHoyson]] 18:10, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: I'd too see if either you could even score 50% on the [[World History Midterm Exam]]. Looks like both you won't dare display your real knowledge.

:::: It only took 30 seconds to confirm that "Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and '''is likely to rise to No 1 by next year''' [2008], a study by The Times has found."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1890354.ece]

::::: 1 c. 2 d. 3 a. 4 c. 5 c. 6 e. 7 d. 8 e. 9 c. 10 b. 11 b. 12 d. 13 b. 14 b. 15 d. 16 a. 17 d. 18 e. 19 b. 20 a. 21 e. 22 c. 23 c. 24 d. 25 d. 26 c. 27 d. 28 a. 29 b. 30 c. 31 b. 32 e. 33 d. 34 d. 35 a. 36 e. 37 a(*). 38 a. 39 b. 40 e. 41 d. 42 c. 43 d. 44 c. Extra (male) e.
(*) Your numbering is muddled. You've labelled Song as VI before Tang as V in the list. The order is Qin, Han, 3 kingdoms, Sui, Tang, Song.

:::::JosephMac, your score is is 40, and you got some of the most challenging questions! That makes a new second place among internet submissions, and ties for second best among all submissions. Good job.

:::::Also, thanks for catching the error about the dynasties! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:13, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: I'd be happy to help set future exams to help you avoid ambiguous or erroneous answers, of which there are several in this exam.

::::: As for Mohammed, here's a table from the Office of National Statistics, which is the definitive record for England and Wales. [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/specials/babiesnames_boys.asp] Mohammed is no. 17. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 19:30, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: I noticed several of your edits as being incorrect (e.g., replacing "Anglican" with "Protestant") or censoring information (erasing statement about Islam in France). Accordingly, I had to revert your edits. Some revisions of value may have been lost and I'll revisit Saturday. I suggest you be more careful.

:::::: Muhammad has several different spellings, obviously. Your failure to recognize that, even after I gave you an article explaining this, suggests you're more interested in censoring the truth here than in advancing knowledge. Please move elsewhere if you continue to have that attitude.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:10, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Actually, JosephMac is pretty much right in his 2 original points.

There does not appear to be any data suggesting that Muhammed is currently or has ever been the most popular boys name in the UK. In 2007 it (including 14 spelling variations, although some might argue against doing this) was ranked 2nd for newborn boys. Although some said it would overtake the top name, Jack, this does not appear to have happened as of yet.

And there is NOT any legal obstacle to a Catholic becoming Prime Minister as he also correctly stated. This is often mixed up with the laws affecting the monarchy, for which reform has recently been discussed. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:24, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
:::::::Sorry but speaking as a Catholic from England I can confirm that JosephMac is quite correct there is NO legal obstacle to a Catholic becoming Prime Minister in the UK. We potentially had an atheist as Prime Minister and the main objection to him (Michael Foot) was his duffle coat! [[User:BrianNTS|BrianNTS]] 07:31, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

This story from the BBC states precisely this point about Catholicism at the end. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3746398.stm] The belief by some that there was some sort of legal restriction appears to have been heightened by the fact that Blair waited until he left office to convert to Catholicism. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:36, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:I'm just pleased that JosephMac corrected the statement ''Prussia (the former name for Germany)'' to ''Prussia (the most powerful of the German states)'', and that A. Schlafly doesn't object any longer. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 07:51, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

How does "40" by JosephMac become a "new second place" among all submissions? We already have a 40 for second place, so JosephMac would tie for second place. Still a great score.

People are denying too much the ban on Catholicism for the British Prime Minister. The ban plainly does apply to the monarch and spouse of the monarch, and Tony Blair plainly did delay until after abdicating as Prime Minister before converting, and there plainly are legal restrictions that would kick in if a Prime Minister were Catholic. Why do so many Brits insist on denying the ban??? The denial is odd in itself.

ClementB's comment is misleading as I do still object to his suggested change to the Prussia/Germany statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:06, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:You're still clinging to your statement that ''Prussia is a former name for Germany''? And your only justification for doing so is the short entry on the Merriam-Webster, [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prussia stating]

:'' '''Prussia:''' former kingdom & state of Germany * Berlin''

:You misread this entry. This becomes clear when you have a look at the entry on [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/waldeck Waldeck]:

:'' '''Waldeck:''' former county, principality, & state of Germany between Westphalia & Hesse-Nassau * Arolsen''

:Your reading of the Merriam-Webster would make ''Waldeck'' a former name of Germany, too.

:[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 07:04, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Andy, I'm afraid on the point about Catholicism and the Prime Minister you are wrong. There is NO legal restriction against a Catholic Prime Minister. The reason so many Brits 'deny' the ban? Because there isn't one. Sorry, but that fact has to be cleared up. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 11:20, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

: If this point is so important to you, then suggest more precise wording that does not censor the facts that the British Prime Minister has basic duties that could not be fulfilled if he were Catholic, that Prime Minister Tony Blair delayed converting to Catholicism until after he abdicated, and that there has never been a Catholic Prime Minister. And, by the way, the language obscuring how Brits celebrate the anniversary of the alleged "discovery" of the gunpowder plot is going to be corrected also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:53, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
:: This was widely discussed at the time that Iain Duncan Smith (a Catholic) became leader of the Conservative Party, and the conclusion of constitutional scholars was that there is no barrier to a Catholic becoming prime minister -- the largely ceremonial role of the government in giving ecclesiastic advice to the monarch could be performed by ''any'' minister. Tony Blair has never given a public explanation for his decision to wait until he left office, although two explanations have been given by his friends: It had the potential to upset the delicate negotiations in Northern Ireland, and he did not wish for a purely personal decision to be interpreted as a political manoeuvre. [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:09, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

::: "Constitutional scholars" make all sorts of claims, including silly ones. Nothing you say refutes the three facts I cite above, and I welcome alternative wording that does not censor the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:23, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

(unindent) Ignoring the new material above for a moment, I should like to point out that both Joseph and I defeated Mr Schlafly's challenge of gaining more than 50% on the Midterm Exam (he with a score of 40 and I with 37), and I think that in light of his insulting and unchivalrous behaviour towards we who were trying to help, we both deserve an apology so we can all move on. [[User:LeslieHoyson|LeslieHoyson]] 15:45, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

: Apologies for my absence (owing to a misunderstanding about dynamic assignment of IP addresses). Mr Schlafly, this discussion exemplifies exactly what I said above about "pointless arguments with editors who know more than you do about the subject in question". You 've now had numerous British contributors telling you there's no constitutional bar on a catholic becoming Prime Minister. Ian Duncan Smith illustrates this perfectly. He's a Conservative (and conservative) politician who's highly respected across the whole political spectrum. Although he was a poor party leader, the fact that he's catholic was never once considered to prevent him becoming Prime Minister. Why Blair chose not to formally convert to catholicism until after he left office was entirely his own business, which he has never discussed. If the Queen had been concerned about it, she could have chosen any other minister to advise her as Head of the Church of England (although there's no sign she would have been concerned, as her PMs have included two Presbyterians, a Baptist and a Methodist). I must ask you to respect the knowledge of British people on this subject. I will edit Lecture 9 appropriately. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 16:49, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

::If I may add my six-penn'orth, Schlafers is completely wrong on this (as he is on the Prussia/Germany question too). Some humilityy and open-mindedness, such as he demands of Liberals, wuld be welcome. [[User:ThomasF|ThomasF]] 18:06, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Godspeed to you, ThomasF. You are the classic definition of a troll. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:07, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

== Religious Conflict: Ireland ==

I've started improving the part of the 'Religious Conflict in England' section that deals with Ireland. There's a lot of work to do so if anyone else would like to help out, that would be great (I'll be away for a few days). The Protestant/Catholic thing needs to be toned down a bit. Although that dispute is highly visible, the origins of Irish Republicanism were more political than religious - Wolfe Tone was a protestant, the original Fenians were protestant industrial workers from Belfast, etc. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 20:12, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

: You should include the fact that there is some reason why there are anti-Catholic laws in GB, most importantly, the reason that a Catholic can't be monarch is becasue it would be insulting! The British monarch is the official head of the Anglican Church, having a Catholic monarch would be like having a muslim Pope!!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 22:23, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

== Non-German 'Great' Composers==

I notice you claim that "most great composers were German". Musicologists, composers, music students and fans of Boulez, Borodin, Berlioz, Bartok, Mahler, Liszt, Karajan, Holst, Haydn, Grieg,Gould, Vivaldi, Verdi, Tchaikovsky, Sullivan, Stravinsky, Strauss, Sibelius, Shostakovich, Schubert, Schoenberg, Satie, Ravel, Rachmaninoff, Puccini, Prokofiev, Penderecki, Mussorgsky, Paganini, Mozart, or Monteverdi would disagree with you, I suspect. [[User:KBinbota|KBinbota]] 21:25, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

: Good list of mostly obscure composers. Only a few of them would be considered to be in the same league as the great German composers, and even they wouldn't be considered as great as the Germans.

: I know, I know. You probably think all languages are equal, all religions are equal, and ... all nationalities are equal with respect to composers. Well, we tell the truth here. I recommend Wikipedia if you prefer pushing political correctness instead.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:32, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

:: You certainly seem to have a very unusual definition of 'obscure'. [[User:KBinbota|KBinbota]] 21:41, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
::: What a great example of liberal corruption! Denying that Germans are the greatest composers is like denying that the Dutch are superior artists or that Americans are superior inventors!! (Yankee ingenuity anyone)
:::But I have to agree that Strauss was a great composer! Unfortunately for you, he's '''German'''!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 22:23, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
:: Just out of curiosity, who do you consider the great German composers? I can only really think of Bach, Handel, Wagner, Strauss, Schumann and Brahms, and of course Beethoven, amongst the most popular composers in the world. There are certainly many composers of the same calibre from other countries.

:::The mention of Beethoven is problematic. ''"The greatest composer in the history of the world"'' is an opinion shared by many, though are very many others who would claim the same of Mozart (Austrian), Bach or others. The problem, however, is not that people might disagree with your assessment of Beethoven, but that a composer's greatness cannot be quantified. Things like a composer's technical skill, fame during their lifetime, posthumous reception and their influence on later composers can be approximately known. By these criteria, Beethoven was certainly ''among'' the greatest composers who ever lived. But because of the imprecise nature of this evaluation, we must be content with approximate judgments.

:::Next, the description of his achievements, that he ''"revolutionized instrumental music and took it to new heights never before thought possible"'' is one which was also true of many composers before and since. Perhaps you could say something specific to Beethoven, such as how his 32 piano sonatas have been referred to as "The New Testament of the Piano" (the Old Testament being Bach's 48 preludes and fugues), or that in particular he revolutionized the concept of the Symphony as an art form. Prior to him, the symphony was just a four-movement work for orchestra. Mozart wrote over 50 of them. Haydn wrote over 100. Beethoven's 9 symphonies (from the 3rd onward) expanded the scale, the seriousness, and the emotional breadth of what a symphony could be. Another quotation (I don't have sources for these, as I can't remember who said them) is that every symphonic composer since Beethoven has been writing in his shadow.

:::Finally, the phrase ''"A German like most great composers..."'' is most problematic of all. Beethoven was from a Flemish family, was born and raised in Cologne, which at the time was a principality of the Holy Roman Empire, and spent the majority of his life in Vienna. To say he was "German" is an oversimplification. To say that most great composers were also Germans is thus a distortion of history: Bach and Handel would not have been considered as members of the same country during their lifetimes. Second, it is simply not true that the majority of great composers were German. Even if Germany has had more great composers than other countries, the total number of great non-German composers easily dwarfs the total number of great German composers. (do you claim that the best composers were German, or that the German composers were best? The two claims are not the same) Lastly, ''even if'' your statement was true, what point are you trying to make? What conclusion do you expect your students to draw? That the German people are innately superior to non-Germans, at least as far as music is concerned? Surely the reason for great German composers is that there has been a long culture of music-making, which meant that talented children could be directed towards music (and would have the opportunity to get a better music education than their peers in France)? Such cultures, like the Rugby-playing culture in New Zealand, tend to be self-perpetuating once they get started. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 09:01, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: Your real discomfort is apparently in observing that one nationality to be better than others at something. Let me guess: you'd also insist that no language is superior to another, and that no religion is superior to another.

:::: You're in the wrong place if you think we're going to sacrifice the truth for political correctness. We don't. Welcome the truth yourself and you'll won't regret it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:16, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::Regarding nationalities, it does not disturb me in the slightest to observe one nationality be better than others at something. I will take the example of German composers (because I would rather not go any further off-topic). Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that Germany has had a disproportionately large number of great composers compared to other European nations. Leave aside the problems I mentioned above. What this would indicate is that Germany has a long culture of music-making: great concert halls were built there; archbishops commissioned new music all the time; great concert halls were built; the public went to hear music being performed; the greatest teachers moved there; and that, therefore, German children with a natural talent for music would have had their talents nurtured and would have had a better musical education. Such cultures, as I said, are self-perpetuating. It is a cycle which feeds into itself. The alternative possibility, that there is something in the water in Germany, or that Germans have something in their DNA which the rest of us lack, is racist and has no supporting evidence. Or would there be an alternative explanation?

:::::As for languages, I wouldn't insist that that all languages are equal in every respect, though I would have a hard time ranking them in any order of superiority. For ease of learning, and intuitive grammatical sense, Esperanto is superior to Japanese. For the ability to communicate with a large number of people all around the world, English is superior to Swedish. For singing in a classical style, Italian is superior to English. Is this what you're referring to?

:::::And as for religions, I do not consider them all equal. Some religions contain beliefs which are harmful to oneself or others when acted upon, and the number of such beliefs is not the same in every religion.

:::::I am not interested in political correctness, or in censoring the truth. I am glad that you share my opinion. My statements on Beethoven, I repeat are: first, that the title of "world's greatest composer", unlike the title of "world's tallest building", cannot be awarded with truthful objectivity. Your preference for Beethoven is an opinion, not a fact. It would be better to describe Beethoven as being "one of the greatest composers". Second, that what you say about Beethoven is rather vague and conveys little useful information, and would be better and more interesting if it were made more specific. Third, that it is historically imprecise to describe him as German, and that it is potentially misleading to draw the conclusions you did. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 09:58, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Andy, can a musicologist jump in here? I, for one, find nothing contentious about calling Beethoven the "greatest composer" - in fact, my dissertation is over Beethoven, so I'm completely in sympathy with this statement. (That being said, it's been my perception that just as many musicians and music lovers say that either Bach or Mozart are the greatest.) However, I feel that the other posters here bring up a fair point, in that it's problematic to call Beethoven a German, since his heritage was Dutch, and because he found his success from an early age in Vienna, where he lived for most of his life. It's the same problem with Handel, who was German, but most people think of him as an English composer, because he wrote the ''Messiah''.

As far as "most of the great composers" being German, you can only say that if you're willing to leave out a great deal of the most beloved composers: Mozart, Haydn, Schubert (all three Austrians), Chopin (a Pole working in France) Verdi and Puccini (Italians), Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff (Russians), etc. If you polled classical music-lovers, your top ten list would surely include Germans like the "3 B's," but you'd definitely also have Mozart, most likely Chopin, as well as the aforementioned Russians and Italians.

There's nothing "politically correct" about this point. This is about accuracy. Beethoven (or Bach or Mozart) is widely considered to be the greatest composer, but right up there nearby are a pantheon of Russian, French, Italian, Polish, and Czech composers. Why is this such a contentious point? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 11:26, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

: You're most welcome to "jump in here," but it's clear from Eoinc's comment that his objection is ideological. He won't admit that some languages, or religions, are superior to others, and from that liberal point of view he resists admitting that most great composers were German. In fact, he even implies that such an observation might be racist!

: I can't tell if you come from the same liberal camp. You strain mightily -- and unsuccessfully -- to find some other basis for objecting to the observation. A discussion would be more meaningful if you first rejected Eoinc's point of view and considered the issue with an open mind. The truth is not contorted by political correctness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:09, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

::Did I not say that some languages are superior to others? Depending on what criteria you choose (my examples were: ease of learning, ability for widespread use in communication around the world, suitability for use in singing), certain languages are superior to others.

::Did I not also say that I do not consider all religions to be equal? I said that some religions contain harmful beliefs. The implication (which I will now state rather than imply) is that a religion which does not contain harmful beliefs is superior to one which does.

::Next, my implication of racism would only apply '''if''' one claimed that most great composers were German ''for reasons which had nothing to do with German culture''. I don't "resist admitting" that most great composers were German: that implies that I secretly know it to be true, but pretend I don't. I simply doubt that it is the case. I am willing to be shown otherwise. There is no reason why Germany could not have a disproportionately large number of musicians in its population (or for France to have the most chefs, or Italy the most painters, or England the most poets). I allow for the possibility, provided that one does not draw the conclusion from that that German people are innately more musical than people from anywhere else. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 17:28, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

::: "Did I not say ...." No, you didn't admit that some languages are superior to others, and you still won't admit it. Superior not just "on what criteria you choose," but overall. You're just babbling nonsense to deny that. It would like a mathematician pretending that some numbers are not larger than others. Some are. Ditto for religion, as you won't admit that some religions are superior (and more truthful) than others. Some obviously are.

::: If won't admit things that are obviously true, then there's little point in trying to hold a logical discussion with you. First open your mind, please, for your sake.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:02, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

::::When talking about languages, I qualified my remarks in the way I did because I am simply not aware of any one language which is superior to ''every'' other and in ''every'' respect. It's not that I "won't admit"

::::When talking about religions, I wrote in terms of harmful beliefs, because it's easier to agree about that. It goes without saying that some religions are more truthful than others, but I didn't want to get drawn into an off-topic discussion about religion.

::::Now, can we please return to the topic of Beethoven? JDWPianist and I raised some concerns about the wording in the lecture. Specifically:

::::* I don't think it is possible to say definitively which composer is the greatest. "One of the greatest", certainly, without a doubt.

::::* Beethoven grew up in an area which is now part of Germany, but was not at the time. His family was from Holland. He spent most of his life in Vienna. To say that "Beethoven was German" is therefore not really accurate.

::::* Many of the greatest composers in music history were from the area now known as Germany. But it is untrue to claim that most great composers were German, unless you ignore Vivaldi, Mozart, Haydn, Schubert, Chopin, Verdi, Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, Debussy, Mahler, and dozens more. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:31, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:World History Lecture Nine

2009-04-06T21:50:46Z

Eoinc: /* Non-German 'Great' Composers */ removed parody by blocked user

Talk:World History Lecture Nine

2009-04-06T21:28:54Z

Eoinc: /* Non-German 'Great' Composers */ reply

Talk:World History Lecture Nine

2009-04-06T13:58:57Z

Eoinc: /* Non-German 'Great' Composers */ reply

Talk:World History Lecture Nine

2009-04-06T13:01:06Z

Eoinc: /* Non-German 'Great' Composers */

Consonant

2009-04-04T13:42:16Z

Eoinc: full list of examples

A '''consonant''' is a sound resulting from the partial or total closure of the passage of air that flows from the lungs through the larynx (voice-box) and the mouth.In [[Linguistics]], consonants are described by the parts of the mouth which come into contact, the state of the air flow, and the state of the larynx.

=== Parts of the mouth ===

The names used for the parts of the mouth are derived from Latin. They are: the lips (''labial''), the teeth (''dental'', which usually refers not to the teeth themselves but a position just behind them), the ridge approximately one half-inch behind the teeth (''alveolar''), the hard palate or "roof" of the mouth (''palatal''), and the soft flap hanging down at the back of the mouth (''uvular'').

Contact between two of these parts results in a consonant. For example, a ''labiodental'' consonant is formed by bringing the teeth in contact with the lips. In English, this produces V or F. A ''bilabial'' consonant is formed by bringing both lips together, such as P or B.

Another way to form a consonant involves bringing the tongue into contact with one of the other parts. In these cases, the Latin word for tongue (''lingua'') is not used in the description: if a consonant is said to be ''alveolar'' (T or D), ''palatal'' (CH or J), ''velar'' (K or hard G), or ''uvular'' (not found in English, but is used for the CH in the Scottish ''loch'', or German ''nacht''), it is assumed that it is the tongue that is making contact with the specified point in the mouth. The prefix ''apico-'', however, is used to denote the tip of the tongue, rather than its flat upper surface. So an ''apico-alveolar'' consonant (not used in English, but found as the R of the Spanish word ''caro'') uses the tip of the tongue to make contact with the alveolar ridge behind the teeth.

Occasionally, the tongue may move towards the hard palate during the pronunciation of the consonant, such as in the -TCH- of ''kitchen''. When this happens, the consonant is said to be ''palatalized''.

=== Air flow ===

A consonant may be produced by fully closing off the passage of air, known as a ''stop'' or ''plosive''. For example, the -PP- in ''apple''. Alternatively, the passage may be partially closed and air forced through it, and the resulting consonant is described as a ''fricative'', such as the V in ''even''.

Within the group known as ''fricatives'', some further groups are defined. Consonants such as S or Z are known as ''spirants''. Consonants in which the air flow changes direction are known as ''continuants'' or ''approximants'', depending on the nature of the change of air flow.

Compound consonants, such as the DG in ''edge'', combine a stop with a fricative. These are known as ''affricates''.

One sound, H, is formed by increasing the rate of exhalation, and is therefore called an ''aspirate''.

=== Voicing ===

A consonant is said to be "voiced" if the larynx is activated, and "voiceless" if the larynx is not activated. This simple distinction defines the difference between pairs such as B and P, V and F, G and K, J and CH, D and T, etc.

You can feel the difference if you place your fingers on your larynx (the Adam's apple) and slowly pronounce the words ''thin'' and ''then''. You will notice that the larynx vibrates for the TH in ''then'', but not in ''thin''. Linguists would describe the TH in ''thin'' as being a ''voiceless interdental fricative'', and the TH of ''then'' as being a ''voiced interdental fricative''.

=== Technical descriptions of English Consonants ===

'''B''' - ''Voiced bilabial stop''. Example: "bid".

'''C''' - ''Voiceless velar stop'', as in "calm". Or ''voiceless alveolar fricative'', as in "centre".

'''D''' - ''Voiced alveolar stop''. Example: "date".

'''F''' - ''Voiceless labiodental fricative''. Example: "fine".

'''G''' - ''Voiced velar stop'', as in "good". Or ''Voiced palato-alveolar affricate'', as in "Germany".

'''H''' - ''Voiceless glottal fricative''. Example: "have".

'''J''' - ''Voiced palato-alveolar affricate'', as in "James".

'''K''' - ''Voiceless velar stop''. Example: "kiss".

'''L''' - ''Voiced alveolar lateral approximant''. Example: "learn".

'''M''' - ''Voiced bilabial nasal''. Example: "man".

'''N''' - ''Voiced alveolar nasal''. Example: "next".

'''P''' - ''Voiceless bilabial stop''. Example: "paper".

'''Q''' - Usually occurs as a combination of '''K''' and '''W'''.

'''R''' - ''Voiced alveolar continuant''. Example: "red".

'''S''' - ''Voiceless alveolar fricative''. Example: "song".

'''T''' - ''Voiceless alveolar stop''. Example: "team".

'''V''' - ''Voiced labiodental fricative''. Example: "very".

'''W''' - Known as a semivowel, because of its similarity to the "oo" vowel.

'''X''' - A combination of '''K''' and '''S'''.

'''Y''' - Known as a semivowel, because of its similarity to the "ee" vowel.

'''Z''' - ''Voiced alveolar fricative''. Example: "zebra".

[[Category:Linguistics]]

Consonant

2009-04-03T20:35:59Z

Eoinc: large expansion

A '''consonant''' is a sound resulting from the partial or total closure of the passage of air that flows from the lungs through the larynx (voice-box) and the mouth.In [[Linguistics]], consonants are described by the parts of the mouth which come into contact, the state of the air flow, and the state of the larynx.

== Parts of the mouth ==

The names used for the parts of the mouth are derived from Latin. They are: the lips (''labial''), the teeth (''dental'', which usually refers not to the teeth themselves but a position just behind them), the ridge approximately one half-inch behind the teeth (''alveolar''), the hard palate or "roof" of the mouth (''palatal''), and the soft flap hanging down at the back of the mouth (''uvular'').

Contact between two of these parts results in a consonant. For example, a ''labiodental'' consonant is formed by bringing the teeth in contact with the lips. In English, this produces V or F. A ''bilabial'' consonant is formed by bringing both lips together, such as P or B.

Another way to form a consonant involves bringing the tongue into contact with one of the other parts. In these cases, the Latin word for tongue (''lingua'') is not used in the description: if a consonant is said to be ''alveolar'' (T or D), ''palatal'' (CH or J), ''velar'' (K or hard G), or ''uvular'' (not found in English, but is used for the CH in the Scottish ''loch'', or German ''nacht''), it is assumed that it is the tongue that is making contact with the specified point in the mouth. The prefix ''apico-'', however, is used to denote the tip of the tongue, rather than its flat upper surface. So an ''apico-alveolar'' consonant (not used in English, but found as the R of the Spanish word ''caro'') uses the tip of the tongue to make contact with the alveolar ridge behind the teeth.

Occasionally, the tongue may move towards the hard palate during the pronunciation of the consonant, such as in the -TCH- of ''kitchen''. When this happens, the consonant is said to be ''palatalized''.

== Air flow ==

A consonant may be produced by fully closing off the passage of air, known as a ''stop'' or ''plosive''. For example, the -PP- in ''apple''. Alternatively, the passage may be partially closed and air forced through it, and the resulting consonant is described as a ''fricative'', such as the V in ''even''.

Within the group known as ''fricatives'', some further groups are defined. Consonants such as S or Z are known as ''spirants''. Consonants in which the air flow changes direction are known as ''continuants'': N and M redirect the air flow to the nose, and are said to be ''nasal continuants'', while L redirects the air stream sideways in the mouth and is called a ''lateral continuant''.

Compound consonants, such as the DG in ''edge'', combine a stop with a fricative. These are known as ''affricates''.

One sound, H, is formed by increasing the rate of exhalation, and is therefore called an ''aspirate''.

== Voicing ==

A consonant is said to be "voiced" if the larynx is activated, and "voiceless" if the larynx is not activated. This simple distinction defines the difference between pairs such as B and P, V and F, G and K, J and CH, D and T, etc.

You can feel the difference if you place your fingers on your larynx (the Adam's apple) and slowly pronounce the words ''thin'' and ''then''. You will notice that the larynx vibrates for the TH in ''then'', but not in ''thin''. Linguists would describe the TH in ''thin'' as being a ''voiceless interdental fricative'', and the TH of ''then'' as being a ''voiced interdental fricative''.

[[Category:Linguistics]]

Spirantization

2009-04-03T19:44:39Z

Eoinc: modern example

'''Spirantization''' is a phonological process by which a [[plosive]] sound (or stop) becomes a [[fricative]] in the same place of articulation. An example is the shift from P to F in many Germanic languages during the Antiquity. In modern Hiberno-English (English as spoken in Ireland), some words ending in T, such as "right" or "cat", have become spirantized. The tongue moves to the same position in the mouth, but does not fully make contact with the soft palette to close off the flow of air. The resulting consonant is sometimes represented in print as SH, which it superficially resembles.

[[Category:Linguistics]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-03-27T14:59:07Z

Eoinc: /* Damned if you do, damned if you don't */clarify

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

== Trip to Canada ==

Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States occured yesterday, to Canada.

Most telling, he declared "I love this country [Canada]" - has he ever even uttered such words about America?

: *sigh* [http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama-loves-america-no-really/ yes, yes he has] --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:40, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== 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)
:: Mr. Schlafly, how that makes someone less christian then somebody else is beyond me. Petty remarks like that does not help conservapedia's image at all[[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:52, 18 February 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)

::::: Islam is a religion trained to not be noticed, it encourages Muslims to remain hidden, any evidence that Obama isn't Muslim is denied by the one fact that Islam is a religion designed to remain hidden until the moment is right to strike. Recent "negotiations" with the Middle East prove this! --[[User:Deadpool]] (EST)

:::::: Even if he is a muslim ,(which i am sure he is not), how does that change anything. Are you suggesting that everyone who is muslim is an amoral terrorist with an agenda to kill all christians and destroy our family values? Are you suggesting that every single muslim follows the tenets unfailingly? Even the most devoted christians i have met follow all of the tenets. A person is a person, religion may play a part in their every day life, but the amount of people willing to die or kill for it is very few. I met the now-president myself once. He was a good man who loved his family and his country, more so than many people I have met, liberals AND conservatives. Even though I voted for McCain, he seemed like a good candidate for president. [[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:51, 18 February 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)

:Wait, by your own admission Obama is half-Caucasian. Shouldn't we say "first president with significantly ethnic roots" or something (not as politically correct, of course)? [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 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)

I'd also note that Michelle is refered to by her maiden name in the info box. Checking the previous Presidents, their wives are referenced in First Last or First Maiden Last (Laura Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton). Any reason not to have Michelle Obama or Michelle Robinson Obama? Is there some dispute about her legal name? As her name has changed in the popular view and the law, this information would appear to be just wrong.

== 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

The claim that Fareed Zakaria's book ''The Post-American World'' "is written from a Muslim point-of-view" is not supported by the reference, [35]. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)

: Ah yes, Fareed Zakaria is actually a Jewish name, written from a Juda perspective. Let's get serious ok? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 15:53, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:: The ''Village Voice'' article that was referenced describes Zakaria as a secular Muslim, but it doesn't mention the book at all. Do you not think it's possible for someone to write a book on a secular topic without injecting his religious point of view? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:20, 19 February 2009 (EST)

==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.

:Nation of Islam's annual convention in a Chicago suburb, a white T-shirt with an image of Obama between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. sold for $10.

:The Muslim community supports their Muslims. MLK just thrown into the mix for his iconic black image. [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGXLhxPilGxuVttW5L588O-y4uAAD96LKH200]

== 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)

Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly "private." There were a number of reporters present. Even if it were private, the first ceremony is the one that is constitutionally binding. In any case, the allegation in the main article needs a citation. There are plenty out there, so get to it!

== 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)

: How about adding a family section now mentioning his half brother in Kenya who was arrested for drug possession? Shouldn't there be something about him on the page? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 08:02, 1 February 2009 (EST)

::This argument doesn't make sense. If he's "anti-family," '''he wouldn't have a family'''. I suppose by "anti-family," you mean pro-abortion. That has nothing do to with whether to include his own family. A good encyclopedia doesn't leave out information for reasons like this. It's relevant and it should be here.[[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:09, 2 March 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)

The article should begin with "Barack Hussein Obama is currently the 44th President of the United States of America." Someone please make this change. [[User:Gadzodilo|Gadzodilo]] 23:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for improving the article's first few words - we now know what his job is and of what country he's President. But I would ask that someone PLEASE look at the grammar in that first sentence - it's absolutely atrocious. Again, since I cannot edit the page, I cannot help but instead can only point out the problems here. First, if you want to make the point about his birthplace, the correct place would be later - and then with an explanation of why this might be a problem (the Constitution states that President's must be born in the USA - there's no mention of this anywhere in the article). If you want to make the point where it is, despite that being a nonsequitor, simply add a period after 'States' and remove the word 'although'. Also please note that the word 'although' is a conditional - and what follows the word 'although' has nothing to do with the opening part of the sentence. You might as well write "He is the President of the USA, although he apparently doesn't like cheese". The two items have no connection. Subject-Object. Next, the entire first sentence is utterly malformed, with a punctuation that woulod shame a four year old, including a period in the middle of the sentence. There is what is presumably a birthdate just floating in the middle of the sentence, undescribed. This is followed by a close-parentheses, where there was no open-parentheses. The sentence then runs on with some gibberish about electoral donations. It also appears as if Joe Biden was his running mate while he was a Senator from Illinois. The first paragraph continues in what can barely be described as comprehensible English with a stream of random, unintroduced facts. Finally, it ends with a nonsensical reference to the absolutely normal practice of politicians referring to the practices of their nation, and addressing their nation as a collective body. I would love to help tidy up this amateur article, but the childish English throughout, combined with the fact that the article is locked, leave me to believe it is not possible, and this encyclopedia is anything but 'trustworthy'. Would you trust your children with this article? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:16, 4 February 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)
::: It doesn't show you're non-conservative. It shows you are not American, or an un-American person. [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 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)

== Article Naming ==

As the article for [[Barack Hussein Obama]] includes his full name, [[John McCain]] should redirect to [[John Sidney McCain III]], [[Joe Biden]] to [[Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*No. But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about. What inconsistency? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 7:08, 30 January 2009
::They are referring to the fact that only Barack Obama's middle name is included in the article name, while the others are not. They are wondering why that is.
::The obvious answer: Hussein is a Muslim name. It helps when trying to portray the slant that President Obama is lying about being a Christian. "Sidney" and "Robinette" are regular Western middle names and serve no significant purpose. A similar line of reasoning can also explain why the Table of Contents is oddly out of view in President Obama's article. [[User:AdamSchaley|AdamSchaley]] 19:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Leave it to a liberal to reduce this discussion to nonsense, innuendo, and pointless name-calling. What's the use of even trying to have this discussion when you won't discuss things rationally? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 19:42, 01/09

::I should remind you that this is a Conservative Christian encyclopedia with an ADMITTED BIAS. The goal is obvious: To show readers that Obama is a Muslim, however this is in line with the principals of the encyclopedia, so there isn't anything really to complain about. Conservatives want everyone to understand Obama is a Muslim. There is no NPOV, get over it (my $.02) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 21:56, 30 January 2009 (EST)

:::I'm pretty sure his religion should have no bearing in the first place. Then again, you're the type of moron who lets a candidate's religious faith influence your vote. "I AINT GON' VOTE FOR NO MUSLIMS OR JEWS." I'm quite sure the color of his skin also has a bearing on you. Let's not forget that there isn't any credible evidence that he's indeed a Muslim. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:45, 7 March 2009 (EST)

== Change of wording? ==

I think "Obama will likely be the first Muslim President" would be better written as "Obama is likely the first Muslim President" ... just a thought [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)
:Nah, let's not. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)

== Update picture? ==

I'd just like to rerequest that the Obama main picture get updated with a higher resolution version. It looks very bad stretched. Here is a URL to an official version (http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)
[[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)
:Done. Thanks for the link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)

::Thanks. Looks a lot better [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 12:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama's religious outlook ==
'''Obama's "outlook is Muslim"? That is simply not true'''

The Obama article presently reads: "Obama's background, education, and '''outlook''' are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity."

I don't think the above sentence is true and I will give two notable cases where it can be shown that Obama's '''outlook''' is not Muslim.

First, Obama heavily promotes the abortion ("pro-choice") ideology.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72511] How many Muslim countries promote the abortion ideology? Not many at all. I cite the following: "The rules are also influenced by the role of religion; in most Muslim countries abortion is prohibited and it is also restricted in Catholic Latin America."[http://www.newsbatch.com/abort.htm]

One of the first things the Obama administration did was to put on the White House website that they were going to promote the homosexual agenda. I cite the following: "President Obama had not even finished his inaugural address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to "overturn" the Supreme Court's precedents on discrimination claims and to demand new laws requiring employers to provide special protections for homosexuals and others with "gender" issues.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86633] I do know for a fact that homosexuality is presently generally looked upon very unfavorably in Muslim countries. I cite the following: "Same-sex intercourse carries the death penalty in five officially Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen. [3] It formerly carried the death penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and in Iraq under a 2001 decree by Saddam Hussein. The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is unclear. In many Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria or the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time, fines or corporal punishment. In some Muslim-majority nations, such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, or Mali, same-sex intercourse is not forbidden by law. However, in Egypt gays have been the victims of laws against "morality"."[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm]

I think it is untrue to say that Obama's outlook is Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)

:His background is [[Islam]]ic, but I am unaware of his theological beliefs. Has he ever espoused a particular Christian or Muslim idea? If so, what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:43, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Historical Ignorance ==

The first statement in the Insights section claims that "Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation."

There are a few things wrong with what Obama said about Pearl Habor, but none of them constitute ignorance. The only things wrong with what he said are that he a) did no pluralize the phrase to "from the bombs that fell on Pearl Habor"; b) he wasn't accurate in the kind of weaponry used because they were actually torpedoes (which is hardly ignorance as it is a largely insignificant fact); or c) the fact that he failed to properly pluralize 'bomb' means that his phrase seems to reference a far more infamous bomb, the one on Hiroshima. This last point of course does not constitute ignorance. Even if he did mistaken Hiroshima for Pearl Habor I would see that as a gaff rather than evidence of impeded ignorance towards American history. But, given that, in the context of 'constantly evolving danger' and the other historical references contained within the whole statement, it is quite clear Obama did not mean Hiroshima, I would be inclined to either edit or remove this phrase entirely.

Politicians make gaffs all the time. If you want to find actual evidence of Obama's 'ignorance' towards American history look somewhere else.

==Rearranged content==
First, very little was removed or changed, but there was some there which was either repetative or in the wrong context. This I hope was corrected.

Second, the place of birth was changed to Hawaii. There has to be ''proof'' that he was ''not'' born in Hawaii, and we cannot allow someone else's opinion in the article which states that he was not. But, the birth controversy is still a relevent topic as far as his possible history and the campaign is concerned, and this feature has been preserved.

And third, there are minor corrections to be made to the article, which include writing and grammer, accuracy, and minor info that could be added as to his presidency. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:50, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I think that Andrew Schafly was right to move the sections back into their previous order. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]]

:I think that speculation should come after factual information in an article. Why are we talking about what Obama "may be" before what he actually is? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 18:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::There you go again! "Actually is" ? I think first, JArneal, in the great tradition of liberals, you need to define what "is" -- ''is''! Please find a new hobby, JArneal, as your present one of constantly arguing and disputing doesn't wear well. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::Why must liberals censor that Obama is likely a Muslim... get over it guys --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Why can't conservatives accept the fact that he isn't...get over it guys --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Sheesh, TK. I'm sorry if I offended you. Do you really want me to define "is"? I was just asking why we don't put factual information in front, and speculation in back. Is there a reason? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama and Sexism ==

In the "Presidential Campaign" section of this article it states "Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being '''a woman''' and outsider." The evidence of Obama mocking Palin for being a woman is explained later: "Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her." Are you talking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eu9Z2hXky0&eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php ? How is this video a "sexist" smear? Not only that, but there is little evidence to support the claim that Obama hired Winner to make this video.

The article suggests that Obama was caught for hiring someone to make a sexist smear video. I am asking for definitive proof that Obama was behind the video, AND definitive proof that the video is a "sexist" smear. If there is no proof, I am at least requesting that the untrue statements about Obama mocking Palin for being a woman are removed. If I do not get a response from one of the editors of this article I will email the owners of Conservapedia directly. [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 19:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)
:First, if you have correct information as to who was actually behind the video in question then it needs to be brought to our attention in a fair manner. Second, the way you brought this about, by making your statement here in the form of a DEMAND, is not going to be tolerated. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)

First of all, if my tone sounded as though i was demanding something from you or seemed disrespectful in some way I apologize, that was not my intent. I am merely requesting that the article changes it's tone. It states: "Obama was caught..." we do not know for certain that Obama was behind the video at all. Are we as Americans not considered innocent until proven guilty?

And what about the charges of sexism? The article calls the video a "sexist" smear. Will someone please tell me what was sexist about it? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:Looking at the references, it is a documented fact that this video was made professionally; it is not an amateur attempt at all. It's also documented that Winner & Associates (including Ethan Winner) are die-hard Obama supporters who have given much to the campaign. While it is not proven from these pages that Obama supported such a video, it is also not proven that he didn't help out the creation of it in some way. I added Ethan Winner's ''alleged'' claim that he made the video alone. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:17, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Well that is a start, thank you. I honestly didn't think I'd get anyone to change anything in the article. But there are still those sexism charges. Can you provide some explanation to those? The line reads: "Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her." Do you think you might be able to take out that word sexist? And maybe reword it in a way that doesn't immediately imply that Obama is behind the video (Until damning evidence is brought forth)? And there is also the claim at the beginning stating: "Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider." The only evidence supposedly supporting the claim that Obama mocked Palin for being "a woman and outsider" is this smear video. Am I just missing something here? How is Obama mocking her for being a woman in this video? How is the video itself at all sexist? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)

*FairMan, you are in danger of being blocked. There was a well-documented news story, during the campaign, showing women were getting paid less on his campaign staff and in his Senate offices, which was hugely embarassing to Obama. [http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obamacommentary/222679,CST-NWS-sweet22.stng] Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called "lack of experience" even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. Please stop your liberal excuse making and time-wasting. Learn the truth, and it will set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Why exactly am I in danger of being blocked? I am aware of that news story, I will save that for another place and time (I don't want to stir up more trouble then I am already in). My main complaint is that the article claimed that Obama mocked Palin for being a woman. The only evidence that supports this claim in the article is the link to the smear video mentioned previously (If there is more evidence then please add it). It is claimed that the video is a sexist smear. Why is my questioning of the label "sexist" being ignored every time someone replies? Please tell me if I am missing something obvious here. It is not my intent to waste anyone's time. I am just looking for answers.

"Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called "lack of experience" even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. "

That is a great example! That is something you could add to the article to back up the claim of Obama mocking Palin for being an outsider. Currently there is nothing in the "Tone" section of the article backing that up.{{unsigned|FairMan}}

*Then that is what you should have said, is exactly my point! Everyone wants to be a critic, while offering nothing, as the box at the top of this page says, that will improve it. If one doesn't do that, how am I, or any editor to distinguish you from the dozens of trolls and disruptor's who sign up everyday? You know how long it took me to find that citation? Less then two minutes. I ask for your understanding, but do not apologize for my comments, simply because I have just pointed out why I would think what I did. "Assume good faith" is something attempted by lots of other places, but it rarely is achieved, and certainly not so often here, where even the most casual reader/editor knows we are constantly set-up by liberal trolls and parodists. Your last comments let all of us see your motivations are perhaps better than assumed, and I do thank you for that. This is how you will build your reputation here, and anywhere else in life. I look forward to other suggestions, offered in the same spirit, and in fact, if you want, put them on my talk to make sure I see them, if you want. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 02:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)

== Category ==

Could a sysop edit this page to add it to [[:Category:Barack Obama]]? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 14:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)

*No, sly mis-naming of the object isn't it? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)

==Minor Edits==
There is a missing parenthesis in his date of birth, and in the "Birth certificate controversy" section, the word "intelligible" should be "ineligible". Those are the only 2 I caught in a quick scan of the page. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)
:Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Hi, I'm a new user. I was curious as to whether this talk page is actualy considered in the editing of this article. What i mean by that is, as this article is locked-down, does the editing administrator read this page and make changes to the article, or will the article always be left as it is? ( I don't mean to offend, as Imentioned, I am a new user, and I am honestly just curious)

== Flag Pin "insights" ==

This section is badly written and requires major change. First, it says Obama didn't provide "adequate" explanation. "Adequate" is subjective. He either provided and explanation or he didn't. The citation indicates he explained. Second, the word "presumably." Encyclopedias aren't supposed to presume things. Third, the word "likely." Again, just an opinion. "Recently" is a vague term; be specific. The assumption about military donors is unsupported speculation. If anyone cares about making this into objective encyclopedic content, it should read as follows:

''Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it, explaining he felt that "Patriotism to me, isn't what you wear on your lapel. "It's what you carry in your heart. I don't need a pin to certify my love for this country."[59] As of DATE, he has begun wearing a pin again.''

I suspect that if I change this, it will be quickly overridden. Are any regular editors/sysop-types willing to change this part? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)

*Dantes, why are you here? If it is to talk, talk, talk, complain, complain, complain, argue, argue, argue, you chose the wrong place. Our tolerance of liberal/socialist Canadians is pretty low. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:24, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::Well, if you bother to read my entries, you'll see that I'm providing civil and rational suggestions for how to make this content more encyclopedic and objective. It's sad that you assume I'm a liberal/socialist just because I'm proposing corrections, and my country of residence is totally irrelevant. The better question would be why are YOU here? I'm here to propose corrections. Apparently you're here to try to insult me. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:40, 3 March 2009 (EST)

== Michelle ==

Could we link to her? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== Religion... ==
Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is no requirement that one must be Christian to be President. Ah, I just checked the constitution and it mentions nothing about religion except once, in the first amendment. He's not a Muslim, which has been confirmed, and even if he were, what does it matter? Maybe this should be reconsidered?[[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: You're wrong on multiple points. How about learning first, and then preaching second?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:: Actually, I'm correct on multiple points as per the United States Constitution. And Hussein is not a 'Muslim' name. Muslim is the word used to denote a person whose religion is Islam. Hussein is an ''Arab'' derived name Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::: The Constitution also mentions religion in Article VI "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Whatever faith Obama is, he is not a Christian<ref>http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Xld3RpINYVUJ:www.conversantlife.com/politics/is-barack-obama-really-a-christian+obama+quote+christian&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us</ref>. For he fails to acknowledge the Nicene creed. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::::: The Nicene creed only applies to Paulian Christians. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: "Pauline Christians" as opposed to .... Muslim Christians???? Got news for you: Paul had nothing to do with the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by all Christians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Heartbeat, try to stick to the point; and don't be so pedantic. Many people use the terms ''[[Muslim]]'' and ''[[Islamic]]'' interchangeably. Such loose usage does not invalidate an argument. You are surely award that the Arab countries are within the Islamic cultural sphere, and that they almost all are places where the required religion is Islam. So having an Arabic name places one within the Islamic sphere and is a [[clue]], anyway, to someone's religious heritage.

These discussions are long on finger-pointing and short on research. Let's have a little more information. Has Obama been attending a church? Is church attendance a better indicator of religious faith than one's father's last name? Was the church he attended Christian? If it doesn't adhere to the [[Nicene Creed]], then is it some sort of heretical variant, or what?

And why is it important what his religion is? Does anyone think he plans to violate the [[First Amendment]] by setting up a [[state religion]] (such as [[Islam]])? Or that he plans to neglect the protection of Americans' [[religious freedom]] even more than President Bush did? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:54, 25 February 2009 (EST)

==== Affirmative Action Question ====

If all of Obama's achievements are linked to affirmative action, how did he get around Harvard Law's anonymous grading procedures? Did he find a way to communicate his race to his professors on his exams? Is there evidence of this? I know that Andy Schlafly was at HLS at the same time as Obama. Maybe he could shed some light on how Obama accomplished that. Was this not official policy when you went to Harvard: http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/handbook/rules-relating-to-law-school-studies/examinations.html [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:15, 23 February 2009 (EST)
:Law schools have almost always graded anonymously. Journals like the Harvard Law Review do, admittedly, have affirmative action policies in selecting their editors, but they do ''not'' use affirmative action in selecting board members. So at most Obama got onto HLR by affirmative action, but his grades and election as President were his own accomplishments. Great point RickD.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 19:01, 23 February 2009 (EST)
::I seem to recall reading that there was a vote in selecting Obama as the President of the Law Review and that a number of conservatives voted for him: http://daggatt.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-harvard-law-days.html

::<blockquote>
::The block of conservatives on the Law Review my year I think was eager to avoid having any of the most political people on the left govern the Review. I mean, the first bedrock criterion, I think for almost all of the editors, was to have somebody with an absolutely first-rate legal mind who would be able to engage competently with the nation's top legal scholars on their scholarship and on these articles, and who would provide the intellectual leadership for the Review that it always needed. That was non-negotiable for almost everybody right or left . . . And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting because he fit that bill far better than the other people who were running. We had all worked with him over the course of a year. And we had all spent countless hours in the presence of Barack, as well as others of our colleagues who were running, in Gannett House [the Law Review offices], and so you get a pretty good sense of people over the course of a year of late nights working on the Review. You know who the rabble-rousers are. You know who the people are who are blinded by their politics. And you know who the people are who, despite their politics, can reach across and be friendly to and make friends with folks who have different views. And Barack very much fell into the latter category.
::</blockquote>
::-Bradford Berenson, #2 lawyer in George W. Bush’s White House, from a Frontline interview [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:::Here is a link to the Frontline interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html
:::This seems to call into question the statement in the article about Obama's success being entirely the result of affirmative action. The single citation currently used to support this point consists of one sentence pulled from an article that otherwise casts Obama in a very positive light. Does anyone have another citation in support of the existing language besides that one, or should we discuss the possibility of changing or removing that paragraph? [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)

At second glance, none of the citations say anything about Obama's HLS achievements being the result of affirmative action. Law students constantly publish articles on subjects that they haven't taken formal courses on. My school doesn't even offer courses dealing with election law, but my friend still published an article about it. The article is missing a logical step between "Obama published an article without taking a class on [science subject] and Constitutional Law" and "Obama's article was published because of his race." Has the writer done any research to justify that inference? [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:20, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== <1% Correction ==

The <1% statistic appears to be legitimate, but it is not presented correctly. According to the source currently used for this statistic (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm), 'The Internet site aljazeera.net published an interview with Ahmad Al Qataani أحمد القطعاني An important Islamic cleric who said: “In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Ever year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity."'

This link puts those numbers into context and gives us the <1% figure: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/young-muslim-and-french/info-graphic-muslim-populations/info-graphic-muslim-populations-worldwide-growth/2526/. However, that is <1% of Muslims worldwide per year, not <1% of all Muslims over their lifetime, as our current wording might lead some to believe.

We could fix this by changing the sentence in the article from its current form
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.''
to
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of the the Muslim population converts to Christianity annually.''

The link I provide my also be of use as an additional source for this. [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:59, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:It also seems like a bad use of statistics. It's useful if you are trying to determine whether a random Muslim converted to Christianity, but is less useful when you're talking about a specific person where lots of other evidence makes a raw percentage meaningless. The percentage of Americans who become President is a lot lower than 1%, but that doesn't mean that Obama didn't become President.[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 14:33, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:: When the inherent fallacy of weak induction is pointed out that is ignored, however the factual correction to the nature of the 1% number probably will not. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)

::: There is nothing fallacious about the 1% statistic, or its use here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:::: But do you agree that the information I presented here, in so far as it relates to the proper wording of this part of the article, is also not false, but is in fact a more reasonable summary of the truth behind the 1% number? I'm not trying to make any statement about how applicable the figure may or may not be when talking about Obama's own religious status; that's clearly a broader debate for another time. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)

:: I know you're committed to this 1% argument and won't change it, but would you care to address my affirmative action question, above, regarding Harvard Law grading and law review editorial board policies?[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:14, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's name in Arabic? ==

Should we show his name in Arabic like Wikipedia does for Muslims? Google translator turned this up "باراك حسين أوباما"

Maybe we could change the opening sentence to be

"Barack Hussein Obama II (Arabic: باراك حسين أوباما)(allegedly born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) " [[User:UnLiberal|UnLiberal]] 15:46, 25 February 2009 (EST)

:Wikipedia does that for Arabs, not Muslims. Also we should get someone who actually reads Arabic rather than a Google translation, anyone can punch something into an internet translator. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:17, 26 February 2009 (EST)

== "Islam can be compatible with the modern world." ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor Ed Poor’s] recent addition to the list of points arguing that Obama is a Muslim is out of context.

:''He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world."''

Examining the cited work, one finds that the lead up to that quote goes as follows:

:''In Indonesia, Obama has said, he saw women with and without head coverings and Muslims living comfortably next to Christians. He has said that his life among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''

Retaining the full content of the second sentence would give readers a better grasp of the context in which he made this statement. Why did you choose to omit this information? And on what basis do you present this as proof that Obama is a Muslim?

Furthermore, knowing the context seems to weaken the point’s usefulness in revealing Obama’s religion, because it suggests that the quote was informed by his time living abroad rather than his own personal beliefs. If I spent several years living in Thailand and later commented that the experience showed me that Buddhism was compatible with the modern world, would you think I was a Buddhist?

If we insist on continuing to build the case for Obama’s religion, let’s please do so carefully so that we do not omit or obscure any relevant information. If the quote is to remain in the article, I propose that the line be altered to read

:''He has said that the experience of living among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''

NB - I would make this and other minor changes myself, but the article is locked. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 18:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)

: The background adds nothing. Obama's promoting Islam with his statement itself, and there will be many more examples during his term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:26, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::While I understand your desire for brevity, I respectfully disagree. I think that a reader's interpretation of the quote could be made very different given the full context, especially considering the heading under which we provide it here. And though I do see how the statement itself could be seen as a promotion of Islam, there are many things which are "compatible" with the modern world that not everyone would want to endorse - homosexuality (even if you disagree with it, there's no question that it is becoming more and more accepted by society every day), war (just look at Africa), and drug use just to name a few. One could correctly state that they are thriving in these times without endorsing them. Lastly, how does the expectation of more examples of his support for Islam have any bearing on the inclusion or exclusion of information regarding this one? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 20:38, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::Conservapedia has [http://www.conservapedia.com/Out_of_context this] to say about quotes taken out of context. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 09:02, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== More religion ==

The intro states that Obama "chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath." His first oath was also real. It was cited as being legally binding. It's misleading to call the second oath "real." Also, did he choose not to use a Bible, or did he just not use one? This is an important point. Anyone care to look into this and change it if necessary? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:19, 2 March 2009 (EST)

: Perhaps you think Obama's aides wouldn't let him use the Bible for his real, private oath??? Please. Obama could have easily used a Bible ... if he wanted to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:: You've ignored my first point, which is that the first oath was also real, valid and legally binding. It's misleading and inaccurate to distinguish the second oath as "real," when the first one was equally so. But as to my second point, it's this kind of thing that prevents Conservapedia from becoming truly encyclopedic; writers are choosing to rely on their own logical deductions instead of verifiable sources. The sentence says Obama "chose not use" a Bible. The point is you don't know he chose not to use one. Maybe Roberts said they didn't need one. Maybe Obama didn't want to use one. Maybe the only Bible available was a Klingon translation. Who knows? But this article confidently states that he "chose not to" use a Bible without anything to back up that statement. This will never be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" if this kind of content is permitted. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)

::: "Dantes", your rant is incoherent. There's no disputing that Obama "chose not to use" a Bible for his real, private oath. Note, by the way, that if the first oath was "real, valid and legally binding," then there would not have been a second oath. No kidding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 6 March 2009 (EST)

:::: I agree with ASchlafly, it's not as if a Bible would have been hard to find, or as if the second oath was so urgent that there was no time to find one. And why is a second oath needed if the first one was 'real, valid and legally binding'? I doubt he did it for his own amusement: "Hey guys, that was fun, let's do it again!" [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:13, 6 March 2009 (EST)

::::: But that isn't the point. And Aschlafly, I'm sorry you couldn't understand my suggestion. But the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it a rant. I'll explain again, in simpler terms:
:::::1) Obama didn't use a bible for his second oath.
:::::2) It is possible, even likely, that he "chose not to use" a bible.
:::::3) However, there is nothing to support the view that he "chose not to." There's no extant source to back this up
:::::4) Therefore, this article is making a logical deduction
:::::5) Encyclopedias do not deduce, speculate, assume or opinionate. They state proven facts

:::::It doesn't matter if that is the only logical explanation. Without any proof, it's just speculation, regardless of how likely it is. Unless someone can supply a reputable source that says Obama chose not to use a bible, this is an assumption. That makes it biased. Saying "there's no disputing" something isn't the same as proving it.

::::: As to the "real" oath, basic research indicates it was done out of a "superabundance of caution," not because it was legally necessary. See this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJKZrJDhy6g52PZNb7phfFmsQVow A "seeker of truth" would know this, or at least try to find out. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 14:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

== Obama is likely the first Muslim President ==
Found yet another example. Muslim helps Obama get into Harvard. ''"It was former Malcom X lawyer and New York City mayoral candidate Percy Sutton who inadvertently revealed how Obama could even afford to get into Harvard. In a New York television show entitled “Inside City Hall”, Sutton admitted that orthodox Muslim, Black Nationalist, and Black Panther mentor Dr. Khalid al-Mansour personally asked Sutton to help Obama get into Harvard."'' [http://blogs.newberlinnow.com/speaking_the_truth/default.aspx Barack Obama Couldn't Pass a Background Investigation In His Own Administration] --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 23:49, 3 March 2009 (EST)
:Blogs are nice. But if you're going to use one as a source for this article, I would prefer they disclose their own sources so that those sources can be checked. Unfortunately, there was not a single link in the entire post. Maybe an actual video clip of the interview, or a coverage of the story by a news organization? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 01:00, 4 March 2009 (EST)
::Dear comrad, you have the peoples names, you have the name of the show, are you mad it is not sourced further for you?-[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:13, 4 March 2009 (EST)
:::I'm not mad, though I am a little disappointed that not everyone here seems interested in pushing for greater quality. We are an internet encyclopedia, and as such are expected to provide credible outside sources for all our material. In any case, I took your advice and went looking for additional sources and found [http://mediamatters.org/items/200809080018 this coverage] as well as [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/mansourian_candidate.htm this post]. Note that, although both of these are internet blogs, they both provide material in the form of outside links to back up their discussion; the latter even does this with a video of the interview. Yes, the first one is from Media Matters, but it contains some good follow-up. If you're really interested in presenting the truth, more information always helps, even if it means having to dig around and analyze all of it before you figure out what exactly what the truth is. I hope these prove useful. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::: SStaples, now that you've overcome your initial denial and confirmed the accuracy of the statement, do yourself a favor and open your own mind further. Start recognizing that over half of what you see on television and learned in school is liberal deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::::Andy, with respect, I never denied the accuracy of Jpatt's quotation. I merely wanted a better source so that both it and this article as a whole would be better supported. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:32, 5 March 2009 (EST)

==Obama's Tax Cut Claims During the Campaign==
I would like to add this text right before the "Campaign financing" secion:
:During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families."”. The Wall Street Journal asked, “how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?” <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html</ref> In truth, Obama was calling government handouts “tax credits” and counting those as tax cuts. The WSJ wondered why McCain “allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered”. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 19:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Good point. I just unlocked the page for you to insert info as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:48, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: I added this text. Thanks. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

==Obama & Che Guevara / Fidel Castro etc==
I was surprised this page had such little about all the connections out there. Thus I have added the fact that his poster is taken to resemble Jim Fitzpatricks Che poster. Also during the campaign his workers were found with Cuban flags bearing the face of Marxist "hero" (puke) [[Che Guevara]]. I added this fact as well with a ref. thanks and Cuba Libre ! (free Cuba from Commie-nism) [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Can an admin possibly help me add some images to the page. I want to add [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8Mo9wgzZpRk/SFLC2eJtvXI/AAAAAAAAA8I/zV0AwV3hbVM/s400/obamachehouston2__oPt.jpg This one] of Obamas campaign HQ, with a Cuban Che flag. just google it for more info. Someone also needs to add [http://ecarson.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/im000541.jpg this brilliant image] to the article, showing all of Obamas Commie pals. Story behind it [http://ecarson.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/communist-obama-display/ here]. Lastly I want to add [http://www.virtuousplanet.com/shops/userimages/00003/00000000008/section/00000000000000061879.png this image] I made to his political view section. thanks and Viva Conservatism! [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

== Abandoned ==

This article is starting to look like nothing more than an abandoned campaign ad. [[User:Everett3|Everett3]] 00:05, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: please be more specific? [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:22, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

==Page should be unlocked==
Right now it seems that registered users can't edit the article. Why is that? How do we expect to compete with the Communists at Wikipedia, if we ham string some of our best talent. Things are happening everyday, and our nation irks closer to disaster and Marxist takeover. This article should be our best one, and our most updated. Come on fellas, this is a war of ideas. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:30, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

*The reason that it is locked is comments like yours. Communists at Wikipedia? That is so over the top, it rounds the bend and meets up with the liberals wacky comments, PaulRevere. I will be happy to unlock it for you, so long as you read what it says at the bottom of the edit screen: ''"If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here."'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: With all due respect TK, I disagree on Wikipedia being communist infiltrated in many ways. Just read their Obama article compared to the one here. As for sources and added info, there is tons of good info at [http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2289 this article] that I wanted to add. Basically Obama should be described right off the bat as a MARXIST, no if ands or butts about it. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:47, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:::Remember encyclopedia's do not use speculation or conjecture. While you and I might agree as to the plausibility of of many of the items in the article, the author's opinion, absent facts, is just that; the opinion of the author. I have unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

==Age template==

I mentally calculated his age wrong, which is embarrassing for a math tutor! Anyway, I added an {{tl|age}} template, so on August 4th he'll age one year. And the year after that another, and so on. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:50, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

: Ha ha. You're a genius, Ed!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

::Not to boast, but the [[Template:Age]] which I created over at Wikipedia is in over 50,000 articles. It's hard to find a bio there which doesn't use it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== Referring to America in 3rd person? ==
"We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there."- this is 1st person plural, surely? Sorry to nit pick, but it ''is'' on the front page after all. [[User:WillD|WillD]] 17:27, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== Damned if you do, damned if you don't ==

On the subject of his American flag lapel pin, the "Insights" section says that he ceased wearing one because it "presumably" would have hurt his relations with anti-military campaign donors. Then he starts to wear it again, and this is explained as being "likely" to do with political pandering. It sounds as if the author is determined to view every action Obama takes in a negative light. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:58, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-03-27T14:58:31Z

Eoinc: /* Damned if you do, damned if you don't */ new section

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

== Trip to Canada ==

Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States occured yesterday, to Canada.

Most telling, he declared "I love this country [Canada]" - has he ever even uttered such words about America?

: *sigh* [http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama-loves-america-no-really/ yes, yes he has] --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:40, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== 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)
:: Mr. Schlafly, how that makes someone less christian then somebody else is beyond me. Petty remarks like that does not help conservapedia's image at all[[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:52, 18 February 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)

::::: Islam is a religion trained to not be noticed, it encourages Muslims to remain hidden, any evidence that Obama isn't Muslim is denied by the one fact that Islam is a religion designed to remain hidden until the moment is right to strike. Recent "negotiations" with the Middle East prove this! --[[User:Deadpool]] (EST)

:::::: Even if he is a muslim ,(which i am sure he is not), how does that change anything. Are you suggesting that everyone who is muslim is an amoral terrorist with an agenda to kill all christians and destroy our family values? Are you suggesting that every single muslim follows the tenets unfailingly? Even the most devoted christians i have met follow all of the tenets. A person is a person, religion may play a part in their every day life, but the amount of people willing to die or kill for it is very few. I met the now-president myself once. He was a good man who loved his family and his country, more so than many people I have met, liberals AND conservatives. Even though I voted for McCain, he seemed like a good candidate for president. [[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:51, 18 February 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)

:Wait, by your own admission Obama is half-Caucasian. Shouldn't we say "first president with significantly ethnic roots" or something (not as politically correct, of course)? [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 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)

I'd also note that Michelle is refered to by her maiden name in the info box. Checking the previous Presidents, their wives are referenced in First Last or First Maiden Last (Laura Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton). Any reason not to have Michelle Obama or Michelle Robinson Obama? Is there some dispute about her legal name? As her name has changed in the popular view and the law, this information would appear to be just wrong.

== 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

The claim that Fareed Zakaria's book ''The Post-American World'' "is written from a Muslim point-of-view" is not supported by the reference, [35]. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)

: Ah yes, Fareed Zakaria is actually a Jewish name, written from a Juda perspective. Let's get serious ok? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 15:53, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:: The ''Village Voice'' article that was referenced describes Zakaria as a secular Muslim, but it doesn't mention the book at all. Do you not think it's possible for someone to write a book on a secular topic without injecting his religious point of view? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:20, 19 February 2009 (EST)

==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.

:Nation of Islam's annual convention in a Chicago suburb, a white T-shirt with an image of Obama between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. sold for $10.

:The Muslim community supports their Muslims. MLK just thrown into the mix for his iconic black image. [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGXLhxPilGxuVttW5L588O-y4uAAD96LKH200]

== 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)

Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly "private." There were a number of reporters present. Even if it were private, the first ceremony is the one that is constitutionally binding. In any case, the allegation in the main article needs a citation. There are plenty out there, so get to it!

== 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)

: How about adding a family section now mentioning his half brother in Kenya who was arrested for drug possession? Shouldn't there be something about him on the page? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 08:02, 1 February 2009 (EST)

::This argument doesn't make sense. If he's "anti-family," '''he wouldn't have a family'''. I suppose by "anti-family," you mean pro-abortion. That has nothing do to with whether to include his own family. A good encyclopedia doesn't leave out information for reasons like this. It's relevant and it should be here.[[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:09, 2 March 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)

The article should begin with "Barack Hussein Obama is currently the 44th President of the United States of America." Someone please make this change. [[User:Gadzodilo|Gadzodilo]] 23:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for improving the article's first few words - we now know what his job is and of what country he's President. But I would ask that someone PLEASE look at the grammar in that first sentence - it's absolutely atrocious. Again, since I cannot edit the page, I cannot help but instead can only point out the problems here. First, if you want to make the point about his birthplace, the correct place would be later - and then with an explanation of why this might be a problem (the Constitution states that President's must be born in the USA - there's no mention of this anywhere in the article). If you want to make the point where it is, despite that being a nonsequitor, simply add a period after 'States' and remove the word 'although'. Also please note that the word 'although' is a conditional - and what follows the word 'although' has nothing to do with the opening part of the sentence. You might as well write "He is the President of the USA, although he apparently doesn't like cheese". The two items have no connection. Subject-Object. Next, the entire first sentence is utterly malformed, with a punctuation that woulod shame a four year old, including a period in the middle of the sentence. There is what is presumably a birthdate just floating in the middle of the sentence, undescribed. This is followed by a close-parentheses, where there was no open-parentheses. The sentence then runs on with some gibberish about electoral donations. It also appears as if Joe Biden was his running mate while he was a Senator from Illinois. The first paragraph continues in what can barely be described as comprehensible English with a stream of random, unintroduced facts. Finally, it ends with a nonsensical reference to the absolutely normal practice of politicians referring to the practices of their nation, and addressing their nation as a collective body. I would love to help tidy up this amateur article, but the childish English throughout, combined with the fact that the article is locked, leave me to believe it is not possible, and this encyclopedia is anything but 'trustworthy'. Would you trust your children with this article? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:16, 4 February 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)
::: It doesn't show you're non-conservative. It shows you are not American, or an un-American person. [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 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)

== Article Naming ==

As the article for [[Barack Hussein Obama]] includes his full name, [[John McCain]] should redirect to [[John Sidney McCain III]], [[Joe Biden]] to [[Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*No. But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about. What inconsistency? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 7:08, 30 January 2009
::They are referring to the fact that only Barack Obama's middle name is included in the article name, while the others are not. They are wondering why that is.
::The obvious answer: Hussein is a Muslim name. It helps when trying to portray the slant that President Obama is lying about being a Christian. "Sidney" and "Robinette" are regular Western middle names and serve no significant purpose. A similar line of reasoning can also explain why the Table of Contents is oddly out of view in President Obama's article. [[User:AdamSchaley|AdamSchaley]] 19:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Leave it to a liberal to reduce this discussion to nonsense, innuendo, and pointless name-calling. What's the use of even trying to have this discussion when you won't discuss things rationally? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 19:42, 01/09

::I should remind you that this is a Conservative Christian encyclopedia with an ADMITTED BIAS. The goal is obvious: To show readers that Obama is a Muslim, however this is in line with the principals of the encyclopedia, so there isn't anything really to complain about. Conservatives want everyone to understand Obama is a Muslim. There is no NPOV, get over it (my $.02) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 21:56, 30 January 2009 (EST)

:::I'm pretty sure his religion should have no bearing in the first place. Then again, you're the type of moron who lets a candidate's religious faith influence your vote. "I AINT GON' VOTE FOR NO MUSLIMS OR JEWS." I'm quite sure the color of his skin also has a bearing on you. Let's not forget that there isn't any credible evidence that he's indeed a Muslim. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:45, 7 March 2009 (EST)

== Change of wording? ==

I think "Obama will likely be the first Muslim President" would be better written as "Obama is likely the first Muslim President" ... just a thought [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)
:Nah, let's not. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)

== Update picture? ==

I'd just like to rerequest that the Obama main picture get updated with a higher resolution version. It looks very bad stretched. Here is a URL to an official version (http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)
[[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)
:Done. Thanks for the link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)

::Thanks. Looks a lot better [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 12:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama's religious outlook ==
'''Obama's "outlook is Muslim"? That is simply not true'''

The Obama article presently reads: "Obama's background, education, and '''outlook''' are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity."

I don't think the above sentence is true and I will give two notable cases where it can be shown that Obama's '''outlook''' is not Muslim.

First, Obama heavily promotes the abortion ("pro-choice") ideology.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72511] How many Muslim countries promote the abortion ideology? Not many at all. I cite the following: "The rules are also influenced by the role of religion; in most Muslim countries abortion is prohibited and it is also restricted in Catholic Latin America."[http://www.newsbatch.com/abort.htm]

One of the first things the Obama administration did was to put on the White House website that they were going to promote the homosexual agenda. I cite the following: "President Obama had not even finished his inaugural address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to "overturn" the Supreme Court's precedents on discrimination claims and to demand new laws requiring employers to provide special protections for homosexuals and others with "gender" issues.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86633] I do know for a fact that homosexuality is presently generally looked upon very unfavorably in Muslim countries. I cite the following: "Same-sex intercourse carries the death penalty in five officially Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen. [3] It formerly carried the death penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and in Iraq under a 2001 decree by Saddam Hussein. The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is unclear. In many Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria or the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time, fines or corporal punishment. In some Muslim-majority nations, such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, or Mali, same-sex intercourse is not forbidden by law. However, in Egypt gays have been the victims of laws against "morality"."[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm]

I think it is untrue to say that Obama's outlook is Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)

:His background is [[Islam]]ic, but I am unaware of his theological beliefs. Has he ever espoused a particular Christian or Muslim idea? If so, what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:43, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Historical Ignorance ==

The first statement in the Insights section claims that "Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation."

There are a few things wrong with what Obama said about Pearl Habor, but none of them constitute ignorance. The only things wrong with what he said are that he a) did no pluralize the phrase to "from the bombs that fell on Pearl Habor"; b) he wasn't accurate in the kind of weaponry used because they were actually torpedoes (which is hardly ignorance as it is a largely insignificant fact); or c) the fact that he failed to properly pluralize 'bomb' means that his phrase seems to reference a far more infamous bomb, the one on Hiroshima. This last point of course does not constitute ignorance. Even if he did mistaken Hiroshima for Pearl Habor I would see that as a gaff rather than evidence of impeded ignorance towards American history. But, given that, in the context of 'constantly evolving danger' and the other historical references contained within the whole statement, it is quite clear Obama did not mean Hiroshima, I would be inclined to either edit or remove this phrase entirely.

Politicians make gaffs all the time. If you want to find actual evidence of Obama's 'ignorance' towards American history look somewhere else.

==Rearranged content==
First, very little was removed or changed, but there was some there which was either repetative or in the wrong context. This I hope was corrected.

Second, the place of birth was changed to Hawaii. There has to be ''proof'' that he was ''not'' born in Hawaii, and we cannot allow someone else's opinion in the article which states that he was not. But, the birth controversy is still a relevent topic as far as his possible history and the campaign is concerned, and this feature has been preserved.

And third, there are minor corrections to be made to the article, which include writing and grammer, accuracy, and minor info that could be added as to his presidency. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:50, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I think that Andrew Schafly was right to move the sections back into their previous order. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]]

:I think that speculation should come after factual information in an article. Why are we talking about what Obama "may be" before what he actually is? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 18:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::There you go again! "Actually is" ? I think first, JArneal, in the great tradition of liberals, you need to define what "is" -- ''is''! Please find a new hobby, JArneal, as your present one of constantly arguing and disputing doesn't wear well. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::Why must liberals censor that Obama is likely a Muslim... get over it guys --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Why can't conservatives accept the fact that he isn't...get over it guys --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Sheesh, TK. I'm sorry if I offended you. Do you really want me to define "is"? I was just asking why we don't put factual information in front, and speculation in back. Is there a reason? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama and Sexism ==

In the "Presidential Campaign" section of this article it states "Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being '''a woman''' and outsider." The evidence of Obama mocking Palin for being a woman is explained later: "Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her." Are you talking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eu9Z2hXky0&eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php ? How is this video a "sexist" smear? Not only that, but there is little evidence to support the claim that Obama hired Winner to make this video.

The article suggests that Obama was caught for hiring someone to make a sexist smear video. I am asking for definitive proof that Obama was behind the video, AND definitive proof that the video is a "sexist" smear. If there is no proof, I am at least requesting that the untrue statements about Obama mocking Palin for being a woman are removed. If I do not get a response from one of the editors of this article I will email the owners of Conservapedia directly. [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 19:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)
:First, if you have correct information as to who was actually behind the video in question then it needs to be brought to our attention in a fair manner. Second, the way you brought this about, by making your statement here in the form of a DEMAND, is not going to be tolerated. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)

First of all, if my tone sounded as though i was demanding something from you or seemed disrespectful in some way I apologize, that was not my intent. I am merely requesting that the article changes it's tone. It states: "Obama was caught..." we do not know for certain that Obama was behind the video at all. Are we as Americans not considered innocent until proven guilty?

And what about the charges of sexism? The article calls the video a "sexist" smear. Will someone please tell me what was sexist about it? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:Looking at the references, it is a documented fact that this video was made professionally; it is not an amateur attempt at all. It's also documented that Winner & Associates (including Ethan Winner) are die-hard Obama supporters who have given much to the campaign. While it is not proven from these pages that Obama supported such a video, it is also not proven that he didn't help out the creation of it in some way. I added Ethan Winner's ''alleged'' claim that he made the video alone. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:17, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Well that is a start, thank you. I honestly didn't think I'd get anyone to change anything in the article. But there are still those sexism charges. Can you provide some explanation to those? The line reads: "Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her." Do you think you might be able to take out that word sexist? And maybe reword it in a way that doesn't immediately imply that Obama is behind the video (Until damning evidence is brought forth)? And there is also the claim at the beginning stating: "Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider." The only evidence supposedly supporting the claim that Obama mocked Palin for being "a woman and outsider" is this smear video. Am I just missing something here? How is Obama mocking her for being a woman in this video? How is the video itself at all sexist? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)

*FairMan, you are in danger of being blocked. There was a well-documented news story, during the campaign, showing women were getting paid less on his campaign staff and in his Senate offices, which was hugely embarassing to Obama. [http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obamacommentary/222679,CST-NWS-sweet22.stng] Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called "lack of experience" even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. Please stop your liberal excuse making and time-wasting. Learn the truth, and it will set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Why exactly am I in danger of being blocked? I am aware of that news story, I will save that for another place and time (I don't want to stir up more trouble then I am already in). My main complaint is that the article claimed that Obama mocked Palin for being a woman. The only evidence that supports this claim in the article is the link to the smear video mentioned previously (If there is more evidence then please add it). It is claimed that the video is a sexist smear. Why is my questioning of the label "sexist" being ignored every time someone replies? Please tell me if I am missing something obvious here. It is not my intent to waste anyone's time. I am just looking for answers.

"Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called "lack of experience" even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. "

That is a great example! That is something you could add to the article to back up the claim of Obama mocking Palin for being an outsider. Currently there is nothing in the "Tone" section of the article backing that up.{{unsigned|FairMan}}

*Then that is what you should have said, is exactly my point! Everyone wants to be a critic, while offering nothing, as the box at the top of this page says, that will improve it. If one doesn't do that, how am I, or any editor to distinguish you from the dozens of trolls and disruptor's who sign up everyday? You know how long it took me to find that citation? Less then two minutes. I ask for your understanding, but do not apologize for my comments, simply because I have just pointed out why I would think what I did. "Assume good faith" is something attempted by lots of other places, but it rarely is achieved, and certainly not so often here, where even the most casual reader/editor knows we are constantly set-up by liberal trolls and parodists. Your last comments let all of us see your motivations are perhaps better than assumed, and I do thank you for that. This is how you will build your reputation here, and anywhere else in life. I look forward to other suggestions, offered in the same spirit, and in fact, if you want, put them on my talk to make sure I see them, if you want. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 02:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)

== Category ==

Could a sysop edit this page to add it to [[:Category:Barack Obama]]? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 14:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)

*No, sly mis-naming of the object isn't it? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)

==Minor Edits==
There is a missing parenthesis in his date of birth, and in the "Birth certificate controversy" section, the word "intelligible" should be "ineligible". Those are the only 2 I caught in a quick scan of the page. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)
:Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Hi, I'm a new user. I was curious as to whether this talk page is actualy considered in the editing of this article. What i mean by that is, as this article is locked-down, does the editing administrator read this page and make changes to the article, or will the article always be left as it is? ( I don't mean to offend, as Imentioned, I am a new user, and I am honestly just curious)

== Flag Pin "insights" ==

This section is badly written and requires major change. First, it says Obama didn't provide "adequate" explanation. "Adequate" is subjective. He either provided and explanation or he didn't. The citation indicates he explained. Second, the word "presumably." Encyclopedias aren't supposed to presume things. Third, the word "likely." Again, just an opinion. "Recently" is a vague term; be specific. The assumption about military donors is unsupported speculation. If anyone cares about making this into objective encyclopedic content, it should read as follows:

''Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it, explaining he felt that "Patriotism to me, isn't what you wear on your lapel. "It's what you carry in your heart. I don't need a pin to certify my love for this country."[59] As of DATE, he has begun wearing a pin again.''

I suspect that if I change this, it will be quickly overridden. Are any regular editors/sysop-types willing to change this part? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)

*Dantes, why are you here? If it is to talk, talk, talk, complain, complain, complain, argue, argue, argue, you chose the wrong place. Our tolerance of liberal/socialist Canadians is pretty low. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:24, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::Well, if you bother to read my entries, you'll see that I'm providing civil and rational suggestions for how to make this content more encyclopedic and objective. It's sad that you assume I'm a liberal/socialist just because I'm proposing corrections, and my country of residence is totally irrelevant. The better question would be why are YOU here? I'm here to propose corrections. Apparently you're here to try to insult me. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:40, 3 March 2009 (EST)

== Michelle ==

Could we link to her? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== Religion... ==
Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is no requirement that one must be Christian to be President. Ah, I just checked the constitution and it mentions nothing about religion except once, in the first amendment. He's not a Muslim, which has been confirmed, and even if he were, what does it matter? Maybe this should be reconsidered?[[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: You're wrong on multiple points. How about learning first, and then preaching second?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:: Actually, I'm correct on multiple points as per the United States Constitution. And Hussein is not a 'Muslim' name. Muslim is the word used to denote a person whose religion is Islam. Hussein is an ''Arab'' derived name Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::: The Constitution also mentions religion in Article VI "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Whatever faith Obama is, he is not a Christian<ref>http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Xld3RpINYVUJ:www.conversantlife.com/politics/is-barack-obama-really-a-christian+obama+quote+christian&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us</ref>. For he fails to acknowledge the Nicene creed. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::::: The Nicene creed only applies to Paulian Christians. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: "Pauline Christians" as opposed to .... Muslim Christians???? Got news for you: Paul had nothing to do with the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by all Christians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Heartbeat, try to stick to the point; and don't be so pedantic. Many people use the terms ''[[Muslim]]'' and ''[[Islamic]]'' interchangeably. Such loose usage does not invalidate an argument. You are surely award that the Arab countries are within the Islamic cultural sphere, and that they almost all are places where the required religion is Islam. So having an Arabic name places one within the Islamic sphere and is a [[clue]], anyway, to someone's religious heritage.

These discussions are long on finger-pointing and short on research. Let's have a little more information. Has Obama been attending a church? Is church attendance a better indicator of religious faith than one's father's last name? Was the church he attended Christian? If it doesn't adhere to the [[Nicene Creed]], then is it some sort of heretical variant, or what?

And why is it important what his religion is? Does anyone think he plans to violate the [[First Amendment]] by setting up a [[state religion]] (such as [[Islam]])? Or that he plans to neglect the protection of Americans' [[religious freedom]] even more than President Bush did? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:54, 25 February 2009 (EST)

==== Affirmative Action Question ====

If all of Obama's achievements are linked to affirmative action, how did he get around Harvard Law's anonymous grading procedures? Did he find a way to communicate his race to his professors on his exams? Is there evidence of this? I know that Andy Schlafly was at HLS at the same time as Obama. Maybe he could shed some light on how Obama accomplished that. Was this not official policy when you went to Harvard: http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/handbook/rules-relating-to-law-school-studies/examinations.html [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:15, 23 February 2009 (EST)
:Law schools have almost always graded anonymously. Journals like the Harvard Law Review do, admittedly, have affirmative action policies in selecting their editors, but they do ''not'' use affirmative action in selecting board members. So at most Obama got onto HLR by affirmative action, but his grades and election as President were his own accomplishments. Great point RickD.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 19:01, 23 February 2009 (EST)
::I seem to recall reading that there was a vote in selecting Obama as the President of the Law Review and that a number of conservatives voted for him: http://daggatt.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-harvard-law-days.html

::<blockquote>
::The block of conservatives on the Law Review my year I think was eager to avoid having any of the most political people on the left govern the Review. I mean, the first bedrock criterion, I think for almost all of the editors, was to have somebody with an absolutely first-rate legal mind who would be able to engage competently with the nation's top legal scholars on their scholarship and on these articles, and who would provide the intellectual leadership for the Review that it always needed. That was non-negotiable for almost everybody right or left . . . And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting because he fit that bill far better than the other people who were running. We had all worked with him over the course of a year. And we had all spent countless hours in the presence of Barack, as well as others of our colleagues who were running, in Gannett House [the Law Review offices], and so you get a pretty good sense of people over the course of a year of late nights working on the Review. You know who the rabble-rousers are. You know who the people are who are blinded by their politics. And you know who the people are who, despite their politics, can reach across and be friendly to and make friends with folks who have different views. And Barack very much fell into the latter category.
::</blockquote>
::-Bradford Berenson, #2 lawyer in George W. Bush’s White House, from a Frontline interview [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:::Here is a link to the Frontline interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html
:::This seems to call into question the statement in the article about Obama's success being entirely the result of affirmative action. The single citation currently used to support this point consists of one sentence pulled from an article that otherwise casts Obama in a very positive light. Does anyone have another citation in support of the existing language besides that one, or should we discuss the possibility of changing or removing that paragraph? [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)

At second glance, none of the citations say anything about Obama's HLS achievements being the result of affirmative action. Law students constantly publish articles on subjects that they haven't taken formal courses on. My school doesn't even offer courses dealing with election law, but my friend still published an article about it. The article is missing a logical step between "Obama published an article without taking a class on [science subject] and Constitutional Law" and "Obama's article was published because of his race." Has the writer done any research to justify that inference? [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:20, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== <1% Correction ==

The <1% statistic appears to be legitimate, but it is not presented correctly. According to the source currently used for this statistic (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm), 'The Internet site aljazeera.net published an interview with Ahmad Al Qataani أحمد القطعاني An important Islamic cleric who said: “In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Ever year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity."'

This link puts those numbers into context and gives us the <1% figure: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/young-muslim-and-french/info-graphic-muslim-populations/info-graphic-muslim-populations-worldwide-growth/2526/. However, that is <1% of Muslims worldwide per year, not <1% of all Muslims over their lifetime, as our current wording might lead some to believe.

We could fix this by changing the sentence in the article from its current form
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.''
to
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of the the Muslim population converts to Christianity annually.''

The link I provide my also be of use as an additional source for this. [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:59, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:It also seems like a bad use of statistics. It's useful if you are trying to determine whether a random Muslim converted to Christianity, but is less useful when you're talking about a specific person where lots of other evidence makes a raw percentage meaningless. The percentage of Americans who become President is a lot lower than 1%, but that doesn't mean that Obama didn't become President.[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 14:33, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:: When the inherent fallacy of weak induction is pointed out that is ignored, however the factual correction to the nature of the 1% number probably will not. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)

::: There is nothing fallacious about the 1% statistic, or its use here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:::: But do you agree that the information I presented here, in so far as it relates to the proper wording of this part of the article, is also not false, but is in fact a more reasonable summary of the truth behind the 1% number? I'm not trying to make any statement about how applicable the figure may or may not be when talking about Obama's own religious status; that's clearly a broader debate for another time. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)

:: I know you're committed to this 1% argument and won't change it, but would you care to address my affirmative action question, above, regarding Harvard Law grading and law review editorial board policies?[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:14, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's name in Arabic? ==

Should we show his name in Arabic like Wikipedia does for Muslims? Google translator turned this up "باراك حسين أوباما"

Maybe we could change the opening sentence to be

"Barack Hussein Obama II (Arabic: باراك حسين أوباما)(allegedly born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) " [[User:UnLiberal|UnLiberal]] 15:46, 25 February 2009 (EST)

:Wikipedia does that for Arabs, not Muslims. Also we should get someone who actually reads Arabic rather than a Google translation, anyone can punch something into an internet translator. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:17, 26 February 2009 (EST)

== "Islam can be compatible with the modern world." ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor Ed Poor’s] recent addition to the list of points arguing that Obama is a Muslim is out of context.

:''He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world."''

Examining the cited work, one finds that the lead up to that quote goes as follows:

:''In Indonesia, Obama has said, he saw women with and without head coverings and Muslims living comfortably next to Christians. He has said that his life among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''

Retaining the full content of the second sentence would give readers a better grasp of the context in which he made this statement. Why did you choose to omit this information? And on what basis do you present this as proof that Obama is a Muslim?

Furthermore, knowing the context seems to weaken the point’s usefulness in revealing Obama’s religion, because it suggests that the quote was informed by his time living abroad rather than his own personal beliefs. If I spent several years living in Thailand and later commented that the experience showed me that Buddhism was compatible with the modern world, would you think I was a Buddhist?

If we insist on continuing to build the case for Obama’s religion, let’s please do so carefully so that we do not omit or obscure any relevant information. If the quote is to remain in the article, I propose that the line be altered to read

:''He has said that the experience of living among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''

NB - I would make this and other minor changes myself, but the article is locked. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 18:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)

: The background adds nothing. Obama's promoting Islam with his statement itself, and there will be many more examples during his term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:26, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::While I understand your desire for brevity, I respectfully disagree. I think that a reader's interpretation of the quote could be made very different given the full context, especially considering the heading under which we provide it here. And though I do see how the statement itself could be seen as a promotion of Islam, there are many things which are "compatible" with the modern world that not everyone would want to endorse - homosexuality (even if you disagree with it, there's no question that it is becoming more and more accepted by society every day), war (just look at Africa), and drug use just to name a few. One could correctly state that they are thriving in these times without endorsing them. Lastly, how does the expectation of more examples of his support for Islam have any bearing on the inclusion or exclusion of information regarding this one? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 20:38, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::Conservapedia has [http://www.conservapedia.com/Out_of_context this] to say about quotes taken out of context. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 09:02, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== More religion ==

The intro states that Obama "chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath." His first oath was also real. It was cited as being legally binding. It's misleading to call the second oath "real." Also, did he choose not to use a Bible, or did he just not use one? This is an important point. Anyone care to look into this and change it if necessary? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:19, 2 March 2009 (EST)

: Perhaps you think Obama's aides wouldn't let him use the Bible for his real, private oath??? Please. Obama could have easily used a Bible ... if he wanted to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:: You've ignored my first point, which is that the first oath was also real, valid and legally binding. It's misleading and inaccurate to distinguish the second oath as "real," when the first one was equally so. But as to my second point, it's this kind of thing that prevents Conservapedia from becoming truly encyclopedic; writers are choosing to rely on their own logical deductions instead of verifiable sources. The sentence says Obama "chose not use" a Bible. The point is you don't know he chose not to use one. Maybe Roberts said they didn't need one. Maybe Obama didn't want to use one. Maybe the only Bible available was a Klingon translation. Who knows? But this article confidently states that he "chose not to" use a Bible without anything to back up that statement. This will never be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" if this kind of content is permitted. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)

::: "Dantes", your rant is incoherent. There's no disputing that Obama "chose not to use" a Bible for his real, private oath. Note, by the way, that if the first oath was "real, valid and legally binding," then there would not have been a second oath. No kidding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 6 March 2009 (EST)

:::: I agree with ASchlafly, it's not as if a Bible would have been hard to find, or as if the second oath was so urgent that there was no time to find one. And why is a second oath needed if the first one was 'real, valid and legally binding'? I doubt he did it for his own amusement: "Hey guys, that was fun, let's do it again!" [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:13, 6 March 2009 (EST)

::::: But that isn't the point. And Aschlafly, I'm sorry you couldn't understand my suggestion. But the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it a rant. I'll explain again, in simpler terms:
:::::1) Obama didn't use a bible for his second oath.
:::::2) It is possible, even likely, that he "chose not to use" a bible.
:::::3) However, there is nothing to support the view that he "chose not to." There's no extant source to back this up
:::::4) Therefore, this article is making a logical deduction
:::::5) Encyclopedias do not deduce, speculate, assume or opinionate. They state proven facts

:::::It doesn't matter if that is the only logical explanation. Without any proof, it's just speculation, regardless of how likely it is. Unless someone can supply a reputable source that says Obama chose not to use a bible, this is an assumption. That makes it biased. Saying "there's no disputing" something isn't the same as proving it.

::::: As to the "real" oath, basic research indicates it was done out of a "superabundance of caution," not because it was legally necessary. See this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJKZrJDhy6g52PZNb7phfFmsQVow A "seeker of truth" would know this, or at least try to find out. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 14:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

== Obama is likely the first Muslim President ==
Found yet another example. Muslim helps Obama get into Harvard. ''"It was former Malcom X lawyer and New York City mayoral candidate Percy Sutton who inadvertently revealed how Obama could even afford to get into Harvard. In a New York television show entitled “Inside City Hall”, Sutton admitted that orthodox Muslim, Black Nationalist, and Black Panther mentor Dr. Khalid al-Mansour personally asked Sutton to help Obama get into Harvard."'' [http://blogs.newberlinnow.com/speaking_the_truth/default.aspx Barack Obama Couldn't Pass a Background Investigation In His Own Administration] --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 23:49, 3 March 2009 (EST)
:Blogs are nice. But if you're going to use one as a source for this article, I would prefer they disclose their own sources so that those sources can be checked. Unfortunately, there was not a single link in the entire post. Maybe an actual video clip of the interview, or a coverage of the story by a news organization? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 01:00, 4 March 2009 (EST)
::Dear comrad, you have the peoples names, you have the name of the show, are you mad it is not sourced further for you?-[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:13, 4 March 2009 (EST)
:::I'm not mad, though I am a little disappointed that not everyone here seems interested in pushing for greater quality. We are an internet encyclopedia, and as such are expected to provide credible outside sources for all our material. In any case, I took your advice and went looking for additional sources and found [http://mediamatters.org/items/200809080018 this coverage] as well as [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/mansourian_candidate.htm this post]. Note that, although both of these are internet blogs, they both provide material in the form of outside links to back up their discussion; the latter even does this with a video of the interview. Yes, the first one is from Media Matters, but it contains some good follow-up. If you're really interested in presenting the truth, more information always helps, even if it means having to dig around and analyze all of it before you figure out what exactly what the truth is. I hope these prove useful. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::: SStaples, now that you've overcome your initial denial and confirmed the accuracy of the statement, do yourself a favor and open your own mind further. Start recognizing that over half of what you see on television and learned in school is liberal deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::::Andy, with respect, I never denied the accuracy of Jpatt's quotation. I merely wanted a better source so that both it and this article as a whole would be better supported. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:32, 5 March 2009 (EST)

==Obama's Tax Cut Claims During the Campaign==
I would like to add this text right before the "Campaign financing" secion:
:During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families."”. The Wall Street Journal asked, “how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?” <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html</ref> In truth, Obama was calling government handouts “tax credits” and counting those as tax cuts. The WSJ wondered why McCain “allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered”. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 19:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Good point. I just unlocked the page for you to insert info as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:48, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: I added this text. Thanks. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

==Obama & Che Guevara / Fidel Castro etc==
I was surprised this page had such little about all the connections out there. Thus I have added the fact that his poster is taken to resemble Jim Fitzpatricks Che poster. Also during the campaign his workers were found with Cuban flags bearing the face of Marxist "hero" (puke) [[Che Guevara]]. I added this fact as well with a ref. thanks and Cuba Libre ! (free Cuba from Commie-nism) [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Can an admin possibly help me add some images to the page. I want to add [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8Mo9wgzZpRk/SFLC2eJtvXI/AAAAAAAAA8I/zV0AwV3hbVM/s400/obamachehouston2__oPt.jpg This one] of Obamas campaign HQ, with a Cuban Che flag. just google it for more info. Someone also needs to add [http://ecarson.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/im000541.jpg this brilliant image] to the article, showing all of Obamas Commie pals. Story behind it [http://ecarson.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/communist-obama-display/ here]. Lastly I want to add [http://www.virtuousplanet.com/shops/userimages/00003/00000000008/section/00000000000000061879.png this image] I made to his political view section. thanks and Viva Conservatism! [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

== Abandoned ==

This article is starting to look like nothing more than an abandoned campaign ad. [[User:Everett3|Everett3]] 00:05, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: please be more specific? [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:22, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

==Page should be unlocked==
Right now it seems that registered users can't edit the article. Why is that? How do we expect to compete with the Communists at Wikipedia, if we ham string some of our best talent. Things are happening everyday, and our nation irks closer to disaster and Marxist takeover. This article should be our best one, and our most updated. Come on fellas, this is a war of ideas. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:30, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

*The reason that it is locked is comments like yours. Communists at Wikipedia? That is so over the top, it rounds the bend and meets up with the liberals wacky comments, PaulRevere. I will be happy to unlock it for you, so long as you read what it says at the bottom of the edit screen: ''"If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here."'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: With all due respect TK, I disagree on Wikipedia being communist infiltrated in many ways. Just read their Obama article compared to the one here. As for sources and added info, there is tons of good info at [http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2289 this article] that I wanted to add. Basically Obama should be described right off the bat as a MARXIST, no if ands or butts about it. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:47, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:::Remember encyclopedia's do not use speculation or conjecture. While you and I might agree as to the plausibility of of many of the items in the article, the author's opinion, absent facts, is just that; the opinion of the author. I have unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

==Age template==

I mentally calculated his age wrong, which is embarrassing for a math tutor! Anyway, I added an {{tl|age}} template, so on August 4th he'll age one year. And the year after that another, and so on. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:50, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

: Ha ha. You're a genius, Ed!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

::Not to boast, but the [[Template:Age]] which I created over at Wikipedia is in over 50,000 articles. It's hard to find a bio there which doesn't use it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== Referring to America in 3rd person? ==
"We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there."- this is 1st person plural, surely? Sorry to nit pick, but it ''is'' on the front page after all. [[User:WillD|WillD]] 17:27, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== Damned if you do, damned if you don't ==

On the subject of his American flag lapel pin, the "Insights" section says that he ceased wearing one because it "presumably" would have hurt his relations with anti-military campaign donors. Then he starts to wear it again, and this is explained as being "likely" to do with political pandering. It sounds as if the author is determined to view every action he takes in a negative light. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:58, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-02-20T12:24:18Z

Eoinc: /* Romans */

==Dark Ages==

I have to ask: does this really qualify as a "mystery?" Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: "No, the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't really so backwards." Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the "Dark Ages" in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term "Dark Ages" for precisely that reason.

Should it really be termed a "mystery" just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the "dark ages" with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::Perhaps a better question would be "Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::My question is: ''What specific non-warfare scientific/technological advances were made in Christian Western Europe between the fall of Rome and AD1000?'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::There were some important scholars, notably Isidore of Seville (6th century Spain), Bede (7th century England) and Alcuin of York (8th century England). But, with these possible exceptions, European scholarship is overshadowed by India, China and the Muslim Caliphate in this period. The first European renaissance started when Christian scholars visited Spain and Sicily to benefit from Arab learning.

::::However, the so-called Dark Ages weren't nearly as obscure are the name suggests. There was significant trade with Byzantium and the Caliphate and the most important monasteries had access to classical Latin texts. There were major building projects, especially of monasteries, particularly from the late 8th century onwards. The standard of craftsmanship was exceptional - you couldn't say it declined at all during the "Dark Ages". Witness the jewelry at Sutton Hoo or the illustrated manuscripts produced by Anglo-Saxon scriptoria. The Anglo-Saxon kings, notably Alfred, Athelstan and Edgar, laid the basis of English government which was formalised by the coronation oath of Henry I.

::::Bear in mind that the setback to civilisation was only in Western Europe. Culture flourished in the Eastern Empire, also in the Arab Caliphate, while the Tang and Song Dynasties represent in many ways the peak of Chinese culture. Also, much of the foundations of mathematics were discovered in India in this period. Universities were first founded in Arab lands (Fez was the first, I think) in the 10th century, before spreading to Spain and thence to Christian Europe. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::The operative words in my question above were ''scientific/technological''. I know of Bede and Alcuin and have had occasion to look into Isadore in the last few months. Yes they were scholars, and they shine like beacons. I am also aware of the "Benedictine reformation" and the wonders done by St. Dunstan. But these are beacons in the gloom. Was it Dunstan who had the Benedictine rules translated into "English" because Latin had been largely forgotten? And I love the jewellery of that age. I have had occasion to read much of the [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]] a number of times last year...and it really was a dark and dangerous age. Only Christianity kept western society together (and I know of no historian that denies the good the Church did in those times) but as for science and technological advances, really there was very little, if any at all.
In another context the age is also called ''the great interruption''. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::::Science and technology: almost nothing, I think. The great advances in science during the so-called Dark Ages were in India and the Muslim countries. The West only started to turn the corner in terms of scientific learning when Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II) visited the Muslim universities in Spain, c.1000 (see R.W. Southern, ''The Making of the Middle Ages''). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 17:59, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:Yes! Now all we have to do is get people to agree to it on [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History]] item (10) under "Specific truths that history books deny".[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Humor==
Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]

::: You misunderstand what a Greek "comedy" was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by "humor"? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term "comedy" did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.

::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.
::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.
::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'.
::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.
::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.
::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.
::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.
::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.

::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: It would have been simpler for you to have simply started with the statement that no 'true humor' existed before Christianity, so that we would have known what sort of Scotsman we were dealing with in the first place. At any rate, the Japanese had [http://www.conservapedia.com/Noh_theater#What_is_Ky.C5.8Dgen.3F mature forms of theater] designed to "draw rich laughter from the audience" before Christianity was introduced to Japan.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by "humor" and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you are so adament about so called "genuine humor" mr. Schlafly, then please define it for us.

::::::::Clearly there is a distinction to be made between things that are funny and things that are 'humor'. If it was intended to make people laugh, it qualifies as humor, whether it was funny or not. No doubt plenty of movies made by the Zuckers and the Farrelly brothers aren't funny, but they're still comedies. I don't find Groucho Marx very funny but he still counts as a comedian. What you seem to mean is that you don't find pre-Christian humor amusing. That's fine but it hardly counts as one of the 'greatest mysteries of world history'.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: I agree with Mr Achalfly in that for something to be humorous it needs to have a certain amount of taste and refinement. For example, the article mentions a man getting hit in the crotch by a ball. While some people may find this funny, I daresay there are very few people in the world whi would call this humor. The article also mentions the Jackass movie; again, while a few people may find it amusing, I doubt very many people would define it as humorous. What do these two examples have in common? A lack of taste and refinement. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::Surely someone with an open mind would find such taste and refinement in ancient Greco-Roman political satire (e.g. from Aristophanes). Humor undeniably existed before Christianity. Let's just put this behind us as a misunderstanding (or even a disagreement over personal preference). [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)

For the elucidation of all: "''The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature''" describes Aristophanes as an "Athenian comic poet". Eleven of his plays survive. I know of at least one that has been performed in modern times - "''The Wasps''". I have a CD of it (2 CD set actually) Originally, it was produced in 422 B.C. and is a satirical comedy, poking fun at the Athenian jury system of the time and the state of contemporary politics. It is a comedy of manners, with elements of parody, occasional crudity and slapstick. Sounds like the Restoration writers to me. Or Voltaire. Even Shakespeare indulged in a bit of crudity at times. Modern productions, of course, update some of the scenes.

Aristophanes, who is still read and studied, is only one of many writers of comedies in those times. There was an annual competition for comedy. (''The Wasps'' came 2nd in its year.) Aristophanes' style has been copied by classically trained playwrights since...the Frenchman, Racine, for instance.

The above Oxford Companion devotes over 3 tightly printed pages to ancient Greek and Roman comedy, as well as many mentioned writers getting their own articles. Perhaps we today would not find as funny, but scenes in Shakespeare that had them rolling around in the aisles in 1600 do not quite have that power today. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:remove indent) ETundel, you are confusing "I find it funny" with "it is intended as Humor." I don't find Jackass funny myself, but it is still considered humour. It may be very low comedy, which it is and not everyone will like it, but the fact remains that something does not cease to be "humour" just because X amount of people don't find it funny. [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 16:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

The above discussion is interesting, and I'd like to learn more about "The Wasps." But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary: the "ludicrous" or (more importantly) the "absurdly incongruous."

There are dim-witted people who are amused by compulsive profanity or, as on this site, by mindless vandalism. Parody and sarcasm is also immensely entertaining to the easily amused. But this is not "humor" as defined by the dictionary, and I still haven't seen any compelling examples of pre-Christian humor. A performance like "Trading Places" would qualify, but it didn't exist.

It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Here you go Andy, here is the full text of "The Wasps" for you to read at your leisure here[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/wasps.html]. You can judge for yourself if you find it humorous. Honestly, I'm surprised that you're surprised; you throw out a proposition that runs counter to even the most basic understanding of behavior and psychology, basically saying that before Christ nobody knew how to be genuinely funny, and are surprised when people question that? Having an open mind doesn't mean you accept everything to be true. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 18:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::(EC)"But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary"
::Presumably if ANY of the above is humor as defined by the dictionary, then there was humor that pre-dated Christianity. If Aristophanes wrote a political satire ("a satirical comedy, poking fun ... at the state of contemporary politics"), would that not make it a humorous piece of work by any normal definition?[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: ShawnJ and Sam99foster, please answer my question: are you saying that you believe the proposition to be automatically impossible??? It sure sounds that way from some of the closed-minded postings above. Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: No Andy, I don't find it automatically impossible, I find it impossible after brief consideration. That means I gave your question thought, and found its position to be ludicrous. The question infers that somehow, before Christ, humans did not have access to the full range of their emotions. You can argue over how humor, like ethics and morality, have changed over the years, but it doesn't stop them from existing. Rejecting the notion that humor didn't exist before Christ is not an example of closed-mindedness any more than rejecting the notion that 2+2=76 is. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:22, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Andy, why do you assume that we're automatically dismissing the notion? We are using historical facts and examples which you yourself seem to be dismissing out of hand without giving them any thought. Case in point, your two line rebuttal to a whole list of examples on the grounds that they are all "vulgar." Well, what's vulgar about this? "Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity." Nothing sexual, crude, or otherwise off-color here, just a '''ludicrous''' and '''absurdly incongruous''' situation that could only be intended as humorous, and yet you, without apparently even reading what the user posted, flippantly dismiss it for some reason unbeknownst to the rest of us.

::::: Now, although you are somewhat correct in saying that comedy did not mean the same thing to the ancient Greeks that it does to a modern audience, you blindly overlook two other important points. First, that ancient definition of comedy--or a version of it (Boethian, to be exact)--lasted long past the birth of Christianity. Dante and Shakespeare both wrote their comedies under this ancient definition, which is why something like the The Divine Comedy is called, well, a comedy, despite the fact that the first third of it details brutal torture and punishment without any humor whatsoever, or at least none that I can recall off the top of my head. In essence, to credit Christianity with the rise of modern "comedy" simply because of the history of that word and the genre it represents misses the mark by at least 1500-1600 years.

::::: More importantly, you ignore the fact that Greeks also had a third dramatic form, the satyr play (from which we derive the English word "satire"), which was very close to what we mean by modern comedy. Fewer of these have survived, but the express purpose of these plays was to generate laughter, which is why they were named after satyrs, who were presumed to be pranksters in Greek myth. Very often, these plays simply relied on ludicrous and absurd situations to get the audience laughing. Often these were crude, yes, but not exclusively so.

::::: We aren't automatically dismissing the idea. We're dismissing the idea because it is objectively wrong and every single shred of evidence indicates the exact opposite, even when working within your incredibly limited definition of "humor." --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:10, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Sir, since you say parody is not humor, is [[Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.!|this]], therefore, not funny?

[[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 19:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Do you often speak in non sequiturs?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: How is that a non-sequitur? You argue that parody and satire are not humor, so I point you to something that you presumably wrote as a humorous piece. You certainly didn't reject the accolades that termed it funny.

::: You argue, ''"Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition."'' What dictionary are you using? [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humor According to Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary], this is the definition of humor in the context with which we are concerned (the others definitions concern the dated usage referring to the human body):

* that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Parody and satire seem to fit both the first and third. If you disagree, please explain why.

So, what is your definition? You've not provided one yet; you've merely said "humor is not (fill in the blank)".

I view humor as a gift from God. It allows us to get through our most troubling times. The idea that humor only existed after Christ is as alien to me as the idea that romantic love only existed after Christ. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 20:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: I apologize to Mr. Schlafly in that I charged that he had not provided a definition of humor -- he had, and it was, embarrassingly enough, the same one I cited. This topic has become long, and I missed his definition.

::: However, I still ask this: how do parody and satire '''''not''''' fit that definition?

::: Mr. Schlafly also cites the film ''Trading Places'' as an example of humor. Well, Eddie Murphy was never one of my favorites, since, particularly during the time he made that movie, he was extraordinarily foul-mouthed. But... as I understand it, plot of the movie is two people from different worlds trade lives, and we see how they both handle it, or fail to do so.

::: That strikes me as something that has to be one of the oldest jokes imaginable -- laughing at the "fish out of water" concept. I can easily imagine two Egyptian peasants, toiling down in the Nile Delta, lightening their day by laughing at the thought of the Pharaoh having to do their jobs for a while. "He'd be worried about getting his robes dirty!" "He probably couldn't even fill ten bushels of reeds!" (Of course, "ten bushels of reeds" isn't funny to us, but it might be hilarious to the guy who could pick thirty bushels before a lunch break.)

::: Now, admittedly, I'm speculating, but so is Mr. Schlafly. And I think my speculation is quite reasonable -- ancient people laughing at a concept we still find funny. He, by contrast, apparently imagines humanity consisted of a collection of dour sourpusses and/or vulgarians who couldn't appreciate anything beyond a flatulence joke until somewhere between 1 and 30 AD.

::: He also charges those of us who don't see his viewpoint of being close-minded. Sorry, no -- it is not close-minded to expect extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim. If I said, "perhaps, until Christ was born, the sky was green and the grass was blue", you'd be justified in taking that with a huge grain of salt -- particularly if you presented me with some evidence that, in 200 BC, the sky was blue and the grass was green, and I responded with "well, that's not really ''blue'' and ''green'', that's ''cobalt'' and ''emerald''." [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I'm new here but I don't understand this one. What has Christianity got to do with humour? In any case, the answer is "yes" - as contributors above suggest, go and read (or even better, watch) Aristophanes. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::Whilst shopping just now I nicked into my local newsagency-cum-bookshop. There were Penguin Classics editions on the shelf of Aristophanes' ''Frogs'', ''The Birds'', ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. This not a big shop....so it seems old Aristophanes is alive and kicking, if only as part of a subject at university. (I must admit that I only have the ''Wasps'' CDs because of the wonderful RVW incidental music written for a Cambridge Uni dramatic society performance in 1909, but it shows that he is not completely out of date and that his wit can be applied to modern circumstance.) The word ''wit'' is what I keep coming across regards his plays.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

==="Ancient humor"===
One thing I think many of Mr. Schlafay's detractors are overlooking is the possibility that the works we refer to as "comedies" today might not have been intended as comedies in their own time. The word "[[comedy]]" is English (as are all the other words used to describe Aristophanes' work: [[joke]], [[humor]], etc.), so we are in effect relying on modern translators of Ancient Greek to tell us what the Ancient Greeks thought about their own literary works.

The other day I was looking out my [[window]] and saw two [[squirrel]]s chasing each other up and down a [[tree]] trunk. Suddenly the lead squirrel stopped and turned around so suddenly that the other squirrel bumped into its head and fell off the tree! (It was only six feet or so off the ground, so the squirrel was unharmed.) I laughed at this funny occurrence — but of course the two squirrels weren't ''trying'' to put on a funny show for me; they were just doing what comes naturally to animals. Perhaps when we look into our history books and see the funny things that were done by Aristophanes, we should keep these two squirrels in mind. I think Mr. Schlafay was speaking particularly about the ''conscious'' exercise of humor — the ''intention'' to do funny things, not simply the ''fact'' of having done funny things. Nobody can seriously argue that nothing funny ever happened in antiquity... but ''why'' did it happen? that's the question. --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 21:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: That's an excellent point. Some of the ancient vulgarity, for example, was probably not intended to be "funny" any more than compulsive profanity today is intended to be funny. Someone 1000 years from now may look at dialog between two public school students today as being absolutely hilarious, even though the students are not trying to be funny now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:: The City Dionysia, which is the festival where these plays were preformed had several highly established conventions, including that four plays were to be preformed by each group: three tragedies and then a comedy. Comedies by nature are funny. While vulgar humor was indeed used, they still fit the definition of comedy ("a drama of light and amusing character and typically with a happy ending" according to Merriam-Webster). Whether people find them funny is up to them (I happen to like Scrubs, while my brother despises the show. However, he likes Family Guy, which I dislike). But the original intent of the comedies was to make people laugh, which qualifies it as humor [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:45, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::That's very clever thinking, Garth. Fortunately, we have contemporary reviews of the work of authors like Aristophanes, which described them as being humorous (or in some cases not humorous enough!).
::I suspect that this debate might be in order to get people thinking outside the box while at the same time testing their composure. Of course, humor could have not predated Christianity and of course, that is not the case. But how are you going to react when someone doggedly pursues the contrary? How are you going to react when someone refuses to define their terms or moves the goalpost or shifts ground? Will you calmly research and respond? Or will you resort to liberal deceit and condescend to them. Not only should you survey the responses you see here, you should also be doing research of your own before you form your conclusions.
::If you do your research, you will probably find the evidence for pre-Christian humor that you find compelling. Either way, come back here and attempt to argue your point. Remember to stay calm, approachable and accommodating. I urge you to engage in this exercise and wish you the best. [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 22:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Garth, there were no "''funny things done by Aristophanes''" any more than there were ''funny things done by'' humorous writers of modern times. He wrote plays, in verse, using the formal dramatic restraints of his day. In 5th century Athens there were two distinct forms of stage performances. There were the Tragedies, the most famed writers of which are Euripides and Aeschylus; and the Comedies, represented today by our mate Aristophanes. Never the twain did meet. They probably both developed out of pre-Classical Dionysian ritual, but by Classical times they were distinct from each other. Unlike the tragedians, Aristophanes set out to make people laugh; and to do this he used many of the forms used today - funny or fantastical situations, plays on words, ridicule of people in power, etc., He is supposed to have been very witty. He had a way with words. He was also a serious man who was concerned at perceived faults in the society he lived in, and used humor as a weapon against these things. He is recorded as saying "comedy knows what is right." He brought the powerful down a peg or two. My "Dictionary of Greek Civilisation", a book set for university courses during the 1970s, called him "a comic genius". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafay: Thank you. ENorman and "Fundie": It sounds like you are resorting to [[appeal to authority]] in this case. Remember that we do not actually have "contemporary reviews" of Aristophanes; what we have are ''modern translations'' of those works. I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review. "Fundie", I'm glad we agree about the value of exercise. AlanE: If Aristophanes never did anything funny, then in what sense was he a comedian? You describe him as a "serious man" who "ridicule[d] people in power"; this Aristophanes sounds like something of a [[liberal]] [[radical]]! :) --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 23:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:Who were the "liberals" - those in power or Aristophanes? Let's not bring today's concepts into describing someone who lived 2500years ago. He was not a comedian any more than Jonathan Swift was when he used ''Gulliver's Travels'' to lampoon the foibles of his age. Have you read him? The use of comedy to prick the inflated egos of the powerful, whether they be politicians, judges, or whatever, has a long and noble history, both for those on the left and on the right. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: This is so ignorant it's just adorable:

:: <blockquote>"I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review."</blockquote>

:: What in the wide wide world of sports do you think Aristotle's ''Poetics'' was? --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:33 12 February 2009

:Remember to do a little research! The first line of Aristophanes' ''[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/frogs.html The Frogs]'':
::<blockquote>XANTHIAS: Shall I crack any of those old jokes, master, At which the audience never fail to laugh?</blockquote>
:I'm almost positive there is some implication of humor somewhere in there! Form your own conclusions! [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 23:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Well done, Fundie! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::Having read this controversy with interest, I am forced to agree with Mr Schalfly. There is a difference between the theatre of cruelty - sarcasm and cruel raillery - that was the hallmark of the pagan Greeks, and true humour, which to be effective needs access to the depths of ones heart and soul, a perspective that only became real through the incarnation and suffering of Christ. Similarly, the coarseness of peasant nonsense such as was available to primitive peoples - the ancient equivalent of gurning through horse collars - has no right to be defined as humour. What Mr Schlafly is attempting to describe (albeit to a deliberately unreceptive audience) is something wiser, something altogether more refined and insightful. I wish him luck in persuading the unpersuadable. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 14:25, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Hi and welcome to CP, Regal! I'm interested in your view of my quote from ''The Frogs'' (above) in light of CP's definition of [[Humor]]:

:::::<blockquote>Humor is an act, statement, or other form of communication done to invoke laughter, amusement, or happiness in the audience.</blockquote>

:::::If you agree that Xanthias intended to invoke laughter by cracking jokes and continue to believe that this is not humor, please explain how you would like to see our definition of 'humor' changed. [[User:MattL|MattL]] 14:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::::::And G'day from me, Regal. Can you tell us what dictionary you use? All of mine say more or less the same things. What is refined humour,? Wise humour. Insightful humour. Can we have examples? BTW, all the things you find detestable in so-called ''pagan'' humour is found unabated in Chaucer and the ''Decamaron'' and the other medieval story-tellers. Shakespeare used it. Scatalogical humour was the rage through most of the reformation times and later. Mozart wrote scatalogical songs. The bedroom farce has always been popular - we had no senior churchmen refusing to go to ''The Marriage of Figaro''. The Greeks laughed at the dolt and so do we - hence the undying popularity of the Inspector Clouseau type character through history. Nothing changed. No one is denying that much pagan humour was coarse; but what I am saying is that it has never stopped being coarse, and I am also saying that before Christ there was humour of the kind that we find in Wodehouse or Wilde, and the one-liners of Groucho Marx or Dorothy Parker, which are clever because they manage to nail an aspect of the human condition in so few words. Aristophanes could do that.(Unlike I, who go on and on...:))[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: It appears that discussing humor with [[atheists]] is a fool's errand because they, like the ancient Greeks, are unable (or refuse) to open their minds to what real humor is. I've defined it several times, as does the dictionary; it is something "ludicrous" or "absurdly incongruous." Vulgarities may amuse the simple-minded to no end, and so may slapstick comedy (which is all the "Frogs" is referencing in its opening line), but it's not humor.

::::::: We've learned something from this discussion. It's not just the pre-Christians who were without humor, but so are [[atheists]] today. It's unfortunate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::"Ludicrous": amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity; causing laughter because of absurdity; broadly or extravagantly humorous, resembling farce. All of these definitions are fulfilled in the examples that have already been stated in this discussion. For that matter, they are all fulfilled by the image on [http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/r/wine_bowl,_apulia.aspx this vase in the British Museum] from the fourth century BC.
::::::::::If your second paragraph is meant to imply that your whole premise behind claiming that there was no humor before Christianity was to poke fun of atheists - since only atheists are so humorless as to take such a ludicrous proposition seriously - then I am afraid that your Modest Proposal has been found lacking.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Now that we've established that humor is a post-Christian phenomenon, we would do well to explore it's origins within Christianity. Do you have early Christian examples? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:03, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: In regards to something ludicrous or absurdly incongruous, from Plutarch's ''The Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero'':

:::::::::<blockquote>So also we are told that when Cicero, being consul, undertook the defence of Murena against Cato's prosecution, by way of bantering Cato, he made a long series of jokes upon the absurd paradoxes, as they are called, of the Stoic set; so that a loud laughter passing from the crowd to the judges, Cato, with a quiet smile, said to those that sat next him, "My friends, what an amusing consul we have."</blockquote> We can plainly see that this is absurd. Now for the incongruity - A paradox, as defined by MW, is "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true". Incongruous, as defined by MW, describes "something inconsistent with itself". Could this possibly be an example of humor? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Merriam-Webster also says that humor is "something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing." Doesn't that describe Aristophanes? [[User:BenjaminC|BenjaminC]] 17:38, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:It seems that I go away an hour and suddenly I am "without humour" and an atheist,Andy. Why have you reverted to (a) being personal to someone whose sense of humour you know nothing about and who has based his arguments on basic well-documented scholarly texts in a generally polite manner and (b)decided on a definition of humour that is at odds with every dictionary and encyclopedia I can find? Whether I am a Methodist, atheist, Catholic or calathumpian has nothing to do with the my arguments which, like most of my words in this site, are based on a lifetime of reading the canon of western literature and about it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:20, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::I don't know why Mr Schlafly should have to defend himself against such an intemperate passive-aggressive assault. And if, as you claim, you are an expert on the entire canon of western culture, I should expect to find you in concordance with his ideas. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 11:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I didn't say, nor mean to imply, I was "''an expert on the entire canon of western culture''", Regal. What I can say is that that I, especially in this case, is that I am basing my statements on books (you know...those old fashioned things with pages that people used to read and geriatrics like me still do - I own thousands of them and have read untold thousands more.) So if I talk about the humour in Chaucer or Shakespeare, or mention Voltaire, or Beaumarchais (who? he says), Regal, it's because I've been there, mate, and done that, and have the tee shirt. (Even if, half the time now I have forgotten where I've put it!) Now, I assume you are being silly, perhaps "parodical", in your final phrase, but I am not in the mood. Andrew Schafly might be able to turn off severe sciatica with a quick prayer, but I can't; so I want to take it out on people: and seeing its not yet dawn and the rest of the family is still fast asleep, that means you! So do me one favour...go and find one reference - just one - from a reputable reference source, that "humour" started with Christianity. (And while you are at it, try and help Andrew by finding a reference for the Chinese inventing bamboo.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)

::The assumption that anyone who disagrees with Mr. S must be an atheist is indeed a pretty flimsy deflecting tactic. The claim being debated is not quite as bizarre as saying that there was no epic poetry before Christ.
::I'll chime in re the claim that the pagans had only farcical, bawdy, dirty type humor. I'm only familiar with 2 Aristophanes plays, ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. ''Lysistrata'' does have a bawdy premise - the women of Greece conspire to not go to bed with their husbands until they end their war - but the play's point was political, not sexual, and it spoke on a real contemporary topic (the Peloponessian War) and addressed leading politicians by name. ''Clouds'' is a purely intellectual satire, making fun of the sophists in general and Socrates in particular. (Soc. was not actually a sophist but was apparently identified with them.) There are also a few poop jokes thrown in there, but that's no different from a lot of intellectual comedy today: I think of ''Little Miss Sunshine,'' that had jokes about Proust and Nietzshe, but also jokes about the dirty old grandfather character.
::My favorite thing about ''Clouds'' is that the main butt of the jokes, Socrates, was ''actually there in the audience'' watching it. The intro to my copy says that at the performance, the mask for the Socrates actor was such a good caricature, they had Socrates himself stand up so the audience could applaud the mask maker. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 20:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::A lot of this boils down to arguing definitions - a fruitless argument that could go on endlessly if we had nothing better to do. What does interest me is the idea of a new form of humor emerging during or after the life of Jesus. Does anyone have any examples of a first- or second-century shift towards more refined types of humor? Perhaps "What is the earliest example of genuine humor" could be added to the list of mysteries?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I don't know if this has been brought up, but it appears that Mr. Schlafly doesn't find the "crude" humour entertaining (nothing wrong with that, it'd not everybody's thing) but what about wordplay and the double negative? I sumbit my favorite passage from Homer's Odyssey: When captured by the Cyclops, Odysseus tells him that his name is "Nobody." Later, after they attack the Cyclops and blind him, he storms around his cave in a rage screaming "Nobody will not get out alive" a double negative, and then calls to his brothers that "Nobody has blinded me, Nobody has blinded me." The Cyclops thinks he is calling for help, but not understanding what he is actually saying, his brothers misunderstand him and stay away... This type of humour leads directly to the modern examples of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" routine, as well as the Chico and Groucho's constant back and forth in their movies "Chico:(looking at a Contract) What'sa this?" "Groucho: That's just the standard Sanity Clause" "Chico:You can't fool me, there ain't no Sanity Claus." [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 12:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)

==Who was right - Catholics or Protestants?==

Can you explain what you mean by this question? It's a bit like asking - who is right, Christians of Buddhists? Do you mean, regarding Transubstantiation? Or do you mean celibacy? Or the infallibility of the Pope? Maybe you could phrase it a little more clearly? Finally, do you think it's helpful to the world to see the world like this? Doesn't every faith believe it's 'right'? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 17:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Surely you don't think that just because different people hold different views that each think are right, truth therefore does not exist. If I told that some cultures believe that 2+2 equals infinity, and are convinced they are right, would that change your view that 2+2=4 and not infinity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:50, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::Well, yes, I do? Despite my own faith, I cannot in all sincerity tell a Buddhist that their faith is nonsense - I simply don't believe that's a way to get along with the rest of the planet, the pursuit of which is, after all, is our bounden duty here on this Earth. My own faith (Catholicism) has experienced many controversies, and although I hold fast to my faith, I acknowledge that it is not without its flaws and appalling mistakes. Jesus taught us to "love thy neighbour", after all. But to return to the question at hand - "who is right, Catholics or Protestants?". As an Irish Catholic married to an Irish Protestant, I'm sure you'll understand there's a great deal of sensitivity over this issue on our Island. And I'm certainly not about to tell my partner that her beliefs are 'wrong'. But what 'right' are you referring to? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 19:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)

To keep this conversation from devolving into an ideological argument, I thought I might try to clarify the original question: I interpret it as referring to the issues at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, namely the allegations of abuses of power within the Catholic Church, the selling of indulgences, the lack of reliance on Scripture, etc. Some of these are purely theological points, but I think historical discussion can bring light to the issue of whether or not the Protestants were justified in some of their more pragmatic claims. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: In reply to TadghOB, one thing about Jesus is indisputable: He did tell others they were wrong, and was very clear that He was divisive rather than uniting.

: In reply to Economist, there is the issue of how to deal with the problems, and what the subsequent centuries and today illustrate. I'm not yet taking a position on the question, but am pointing out how your list is incomplete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Why did Islam grow so rapidly? ==

Not sure there's a lot of mystery here. The rise of Islam is well documented in both Arab and Byzantine sources. The "mystery", if there is one, is how Mohammed managed to convert a sizeable number of followers in his lifetime and how they became organised into a small but effective military force. Thereafter, Islam spread for several reasons. Initially, it was confined to Arab soldiers and their families and was something of an elite religion. But the Arabs were generally welcomed by the common people in the Byzantine territories because they imposed lighter taxes, their military levies were less oppressive and they didn't cut people's heads off because they disagreed with the Emperor's theological opinions. The same factors are reflected in the decline of the Byzantine empire, to the benefit of the Arabs in West Asia and North Africa: excessive taxation, too many able-bodied men from wealthy families joining the priesthood to evade military service, and continuous demoralisation of the population through religious disputes. Added to that was the over-centralisation of power in the Byzantine Empire, with the result that when the Emperor was out of action, there were few men with both the authority and the competence to wield power effectively. Such was the situation at the decisive Battle of the Yarmouk, in what is now northern Jordan, when the Emperor Heraclius was ill and unable to take the field, resulting in a decisive victory for the Arabs.

Islam spread in the territories conquered by the Arabs for similar reasons to the spread of Christianity in Europe: local rulers ingratiating themselves with their overlord (the Arab Caliph in this case), the prestige of being part of the official religion, the apparent evidence that God must favour the Muslims because he enabled them to win battles, and lower taxation for Muslims.

It's much harder to understand why the Byzantine Empire lasted as long as it did. Also, why did the Arabs not conquer most of the West? The post-Roman kingdoms in the West seem to have been more organised and effective than historians gave them credit for until recently.

See e.g. John Julius Norwich's history of Byzantium (three volumes but extremely - even addictively - readable). Also 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin, the standard modern work on the interplay of Church and State in the Byzantine Empire; she shows that the church wasn't always a negative influence, as Edward Gibbon supposed. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:In addition to Fred's information above, Islam burst out of Arabia at a time when both the Byzantines and the Persians were completely exhausted from fighting each other interminably. There is also talk of a plague epidemic that wasted the so-called civilised powers but had little effect in the sparcely populated Arabian desert. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Romans ==

''Did the Romans recognize or understand the concept of "truth"?''

What reason do you have to think that they did not? We would surely disagree with any ancient people (not just the Romans) about whether certain ideas are true or false, but that would not mean that the people did not understand the ''concept'' of truth. What meaning do you think the word ''veritas'' had for the Romans?--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:18, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-02-20T12:18:55Z

Eoinc: /* Romans */ new section

==Dark Ages==

I have to ask: does this really qualify as a "mystery?" Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: "No, the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't really so backwards." Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the "Dark Ages" in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term "Dark Ages" for precisely that reason.

Should it really be termed a "mystery" just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the "dark ages" with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::Perhaps a better question would be "Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::My question is: ''What specific non-warfare scientific/technological advances were made in Christian Western Europe between the fall of Rome and AD1000?'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::There were some important scholars, notably Isidore of Seville (6th century Spain), Bede (7th century England) and Alcuin of York (8th century England). But, with these possible exceptions, European scholarship is overshadowed by India, China and the Muslim Caliphate in this period. The first European renaissance started when Christian scholars visited Spain and Sicily to benefit from Arab learning.

::::However, the so-called Dark Ages weren't nearly as obscure are the name suggests. There was significant trade with Byzantium and the Caliphate and the most important monasteries had access to classical Latin texts. There were major building projects, especially of monasteries, particularly from the late 8th century onwards. The standard of craftsmanship was exceptional - you couldn't say it declined at all during the "Dark Ages". Witness the jewelry at Sutton Hoo or the illustrated manuscripts produced by Anglo-Saxon scriptoria. The Anglo-Saxon kings, notably Alfred, Athelstan and Edgar, laid the basis of English government which was formalised by the coronation oath of Henry I.

::::Bear in mind that the setback to civilisation was only in Western Europe. Culture flourished in the Eastern Empire, also in the Arab Caliphate, while the Tang and Song Dynasties represent in many ways the peak of Chinese culture. Also, much of the foundations of mathematics were discovered in India in this period. Universities were first founded in Arab lands (Fez was the first, I think) in the 10th century, before spreading to Spain and thence to Christian Europe. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::The operative words in my question above were ''scientific/technological''. I know of Bede and Alcuin and have had occasion to look into Isadore in the last few months. Yes they were scholars, and they shine like beacons. I am also aware of the "Benedictine reformation" and the wonders done by St. Dunstan. But these are beacons in the gloom. Was it Dunstan who had the Benedictine rules translated into "English" because Latin had been largely forgotten? And I love the jewellery of that age. I have had occasion to read much of the [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]] a number of times last year...and it really was a dark and dangerous age. Only Christianity kept western society together (and I know of no historian that denies the good the Church did in those times) but as for science and technological advances, really there was very little, if any at all.
In another context the age is also called ''the great interruption''. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::::Science and technology: almost nothing, I think. The great advances in science during the so-called Dark Ages were in India and the Muslim countries. The West only started to turn the corner in terms of scientific learning when Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II) visited the Muslim universities in Spain, c.1000 (see R.W. Southern, ''The Making of the Middle Ages''). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 17:59, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:Yes! Now all we have to do is get people to agree to it on [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History]] item (10) under "Specific truths that history books deny".[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Humor==
Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]

::: You misunderstand what a Greek "comedy" was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by "humor"? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term "comedy" did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.

::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.
::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.
::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'.
::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.
::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.
::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.
::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.
::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.

::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: It would have been simpler for you to have simply started with the statement that no 'true humor' existed before Christianity, so that we would have known what sort of Scotsman we were dealing with in the first place. At any rate, the Japanese had [http://www.conservapedia.com/Noh_theater#What_is_Ky.C5.8Dgen.3F mature forms of theater] designed to "draw rich laughter from the audience" before Christianity was introduced to Japan.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by "humor" and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you are so adament about so called "genuine humor" mr. Schlafly, then please define it for us.

::::::::Clearly there is a distinction to be made between things that are funny and things that are 'humor'. If it was intended to make people laugh, it qualifies as humor, whether it was funny or not. No doubt plenty of movies made by the Zuckers and the Farrelly brothers aren't funny, but they're still comedies. I don't find Groucho Marx very funny but he still counts as a comedian. What you seem to mean is that you don't find pre-Christian humor amusing. That's fine but it hardly counts as one of the 'greatest mysteries of world history'.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: I agree with Mr Achalfly in that for something to be humorous it needs to have a certain amount of taste and refinement. For example, the article mentions a man getting hit in the crotch by a ball. While some people may find this funny, I daresay there are very few people in the world whi would call this humor. The article also mentions the Jackass movie; again, while a few people may find it amusing, I doubt very many people would define it as humorous. What do these two examples have in common? A lack of taste and refinement. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::Surely someone with an open mind would find such taste and refinement in ancient Greco-Roman political satire (e.g. from Aristophanes). Humor undeniably existed before Christianity. Let's just put this behind us as a misunderstanding (or even a disagreement over personal preference). [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)

For the elucidation of all: "''The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature''" describes Aristophanes as an "Athenian comic poet". Eleven of his plays survive. I know of at least one that has been performed in modern times - "''The Wasps''". I have a CD of it (2 CD set actually) Originally, it was produced in 422 B.C. and is a satirical comedy, poking fun at the Athenian jury system of the time and the state of contemporary politics. It is a comedy of manners, with elements of parody, occasional crudity and slapstick. Sounds like the Restoration writers to me. Or Voltaire. Even Shakespeare indulged in a bit of crudity at times. Modern productions, of course, update some of the scenes.

Aristophanes, who is still read and studied, is only one of many writers of comedies in those times. There was an annual competition for comedy. (''The Wasps'' came 2nd in its year.) Aristophanes' style has been copied by classically trained playwrights since...the Frenchman, Racine, for instance.

The above Oxford Companion devotes over 3 tightly printed pages to ancient Greek and Roman comedy, as well as many mentioned writers getting their own articles. Perhaps we today would not find as funny, but scenes in Shakespeare that had them rolling around in the aisles in 1600 do not quite have that power today. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:remove indent) ETundel, you are confusing "I find it funny" with "it is intended as Humor." I don't find Jackass funny myself, but it is still considered humour. It may be very low comedy, which it is and not everyone will like it, but the fact remains that something does not cease to be "humour" just because X amount of people don't find it funny. [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 16:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

The above discussion is interesting, and I'd like to learn more about "The Wasps." But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary: the "ludicrous" or (more importantly) the "absurdly incongruous."

There are dim-witted people who are amused by compulsive profanity or, as on this site, by mindless vandalism. Parody and sarcasm is also immensely entertaining to the easily amused. But this is not "humor" as defined by the dictionary, and I still haven't seen any compelling examples of pre-Christian humor. A performance like "Trading Places" would qualify, but it didn't exist.

It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Here you go Andy, here is the full text of "The Wasps" for you to read at your leisure here[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/wasps.html]. You can judge for yourself if you find it humorous. Honestly, I'm surprised that you're surprised; you throw out a proposition that runs counter to even the most basic understanding of behavior and psychology, basically saying that before Christ nobody knew how to be genuinely funny, and are surprised when people question that? Having an open mind doesn't mean you accept everything to be true. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 18:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::(EC)"But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary"
::Presumably if ANY of the above is humor as defined by the dictionary, then there was humor that pre-dated Christianity. If Aristophanes wrote a political satire ("a satirical comedy, poking fun ... at the state of contemporary politics"), would that not make it a humorous piece of work by any normal definition?[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: ShawnJ and Sam99foster, please answer my question: are you saying that you believe the proposition to be automatically impossible??? It sure sounds that way from some of the closed-minded postings above. Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: No Andy, I don't find it automatically impossible, I find it impossible after brief consideration. That means I gave your question thought, and found its position to be ludicrous. The question infers that somehow, before Christ, humans did not have access to the full range of their emotions. You can argue over how humor, like ethics and morality, have changed over the years, but it doesn't stop them from existing. Rejecting the notion that humor didn't exist before Christ is not an example of closed-mindedness any more than rejecting the notion that 2+2=76 is. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:22, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Andy, why do you assume that we're automatically dismissing the notion? We are using historical facts and examples which you yourself seem to be dismissing out of hand without giving them any thought. Case in point, your two line rebuttal to a whole list of examples on the grounds that they are all "vulgar." Well, what's vulgar about this? "Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity." Nothing sexual, crude, or otherwise off-color here, just a '''ludicrous''' and '''absurdly incongruous''' situation that could only be intended as humorous, and yet you, without apparently even reading what the user posted, flippantly dismiss it for some reason unbeknownst to the rest of us.

::::: Now, although you are somewhat correct in saying that comedy did not mean the same thing to the ancient Greeks that it does to a modern audience, you blindly overlook two other important points. First, that ancient definition of comedy--or a version of it (Boethian, to be exact)--lasted long past the birth of Christianity. Dante and Shakespeare both wrote their comedies under this ancient definition, which is why something like the The Divine Comedy is called, well, a comedy, despite the fact that the first third of it details brutal torture and punishment without any humor whatsoever, or at least none that I can recall off the top of my head. In essence, to credit Christianity with the rise of modern "comedy" simply because of the history of that word and the genre it represents misses the mark by at least 1500-1600 years.

::::: More importantly, you ignore the fact that Greeks also had a third dramatic form, the satyr play (from which we derive the English word "satire"), which was very close to what we mean by modern comedy. Fewer of these have survived, but the express purpose of these plays was to generate laughter, which is why they were named after satyrs, who were presumed to be pranksters in Greek myth. Very often, these plays simply relied on ludicrous and absurd situations to get the audience laughing. Often these were crude, yes, but not exclusively so.

::::: We aren't automatically dismissing the idea. We're dismissing the idea because it is objectively wrong and every single shred of evidence indicates the exact opposite, even when working within your incredibly limited definition of "humor." --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:10, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Sir, since you say parody is not humor, is [[Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.!|this]], therefore, not funny?

[[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 19:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Do you often speak in non sequiturs?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: How is that a non-sequitur? You argue that parody and satire are not humor, so I point you to something that you presumably wrote as a humorous piece. You certainly didn't reject the accolades that termed it funny.

::: You argue, ''"Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition."'' What dictionary are you using? [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humor According to Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary], this is the definition of humor in the context with which we are concerned (the others definitions concern the dated usage referring to the human body):

* that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Parody and satire seem to fit both the first and third. If you disagree, please explain why.

So, what is your definition? You've not provided one yet; you've merely said "humor is not (fill in the blank)".

I view humor as a gift from God. It allows us to get through our most troubling times. The idea that humor only existed after Christ is as alien to me as the idea that romantic love only existed after Christ. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 20:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: I apologize to Mr. Schlafly in that I charged that he had not provided a definition of humor -- he had, and it was, embarrassingly enough, the same one I cited. This topic has become long, and I missed his definition.

::: However, I still ask this: how do parody and satire '''''not''''' fit that definition?

::: Mr. Schlafly also cites the film ''Trading Places'' as an example of humor. Well, Eddie Murphy was never one of my favorites, since, particularly during the time he made that movie, he was extraordinarily foul-mouthed. But... as I understand it, plot of the movie is two people from different worlds trade lives, and we see how they both handle it, or fail to do so.

::: That strikes me as something that has to be one of the oldest jokes imaginable -- laughing at the "fish out of water" concept. I can easily imagine two Egyptian peasants, toiling down in the Nile Delta, lightening their day by laughing at the thought of the Pharaoh having to do their jobs for a while. "He'd be worried about getting his robes dirty!" "He probably couldn't even fill ten bushels of reeds!" (Of course, "ten bushels of reeds" isn't funny to us, but it might be hilarious to the guy who could pick thirty bushels before a lunch break.)

::: Now, admittedly, I'm speculating, but so is Mr. Schlafly. And I think my speculation is quite reasonable -- ancient people laughing at a concept we still find funny. He, by contrast, apparently imagines humanity consisted of a collection of dour sourpusses and/or vulgarians who couldn't appreciate anything beyond a flatulence joke until somewhere between 1 and 30 AD.

::: He also charges those of us who don't see his viewpoint of being close-minded. Sorry, no -- it is not close-minded to expect extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim. If I said, "perhaps, until Christ was born, the sky was green and the grass was blue", you'd be justified in taking that with a huge grain of salt -- particularly if you presented me with some evidence that, in 200 BC, the sky was blue and the grass was green, and I responded with "well, that's not really ''blue'' and ''green'', that's ''cobalt'' and ''emerald''." [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I'm new here but I don't understand this one. What has Christianity got to do with humour? In any case, the answer is "yes" - as contributors above suggest, go and read (or even better, watch) Aristophanes. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::Whilst shopping just now I nicked into my local newsagency-cum-bookshop. There were Penguin Classics editions on the shelf of Aristophanes' ''Frogs'', ''The Birds'', ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. This not a big shop....so it seems old Aristophanes is alive and kicking, if only as part of a subject at university. (I must admit that I only have the ''Wasps'' CDs because of the wonderful RVW incidental music written for a Cambridge Uni dramatic society performance in 1909, but it shows that he is not completely out of date and that his wit can be applied to modern circumstance.) The word ''wit'' is what I keep coming across regards his plays.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

==="Ancient humor"===
One thing I think many of Mr. Schlafay's detractors are overlooking is the possibility that the works we refer to as "comedies" today might not have been intended as comedies in their own time. The word "[[comedy]]" is English (as are all the other words used to describe Aristophanes' work: [[joke]], [[humor]], etc.), so we are in effect relying on modern translators of Ancient Greek to tell us what the Ancient Greeks thought about their own literary works.

The other day I was looking out my [[window]] and saw two [[squirrel]]s chasing each other up and down a [[tree]] trunk. Suddenly the lead squirrel stopped and turned around so suddenly that the other squirrel bumped into its head and fell off the tree! (It was only six feet or so off the ground, so the squirrel was unharmed.) I laughed at this funny occurrence — but of course the two squirrels weren't ''trying'' to put on a funny show for me; they were just doing what comes naturally to animals. Perhaps when we look into our history books and see the funny things that were done by Aristophanes, we should keep these two squirrels in mind. I think Mr. Schlafay was speaking particularly about the ''conscious'' exercise of humor — the ''intention'' to do funny things, not simply the ''fact'' of having done funny things. Nobody can seriously argue that nothing funny ever happened in antiquity... but ''why'' did it happen? that's the question. --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 21:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: That's an excellent point. Some of the ancient vulgarity, for example, was probably not intended to be "funny" any more than compulsive profanity today is intended to be funny. Someone 1000 years from now may look at dialog between two public school students today as being absolutely hilarious, even though the students are not trying to be funny now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:: The City Dionysia, which is the festival where these plays were preformed had several highly established conventions, including that four plays were to be preformed by each group: three tragedies and then a comedy. Comedies by nature are funny. While vulgar humor was indeed used, they still fit the definition of comedy ("a drama of light and amusing character and typically with a happy ending" according to Merriam-Webster). Whether people find them funny is up to them (I happen to like Scrubs, while my brother despises the show. However, he likes Family Guy, which I dislike). But the original intent of the comedies was to make people laugh, which qualifies it as humor [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:45, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::That's very clever thinking, Garth. Fortunately, we have contemporary reviews of the work of authors like Aristophanes, which described them as being humorous (or in some cases not humorous enough!).
::I suspect that this debate might be in order to get people thinking outside the box while at the same time testing their composure. Of course, humor could have not predated Christianity and of course, that is not the case. But how are you going to react when someone doggedly pursues the contrary? How are you going to react when someone refuses to define their terms or moves the goalpost or shifts ground? Will you calmly research and respond? Or will you resort to liberal deceit and condescend to them. Not only should you survey the responses you see here, you should also be doing research of your own before you form your conclusions.
::If you do your research, you will probably find the evidence for pre-Christian humor that you find compelling. Either way, come back here and attempt to argue your point. Remember to stay calm, approachable and accommodating. I urge you to engage in this exercise and wish you the best. [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 22:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Garth, there were no "''funny things done by Aristophanes''" any more than there were ''funny things done by'' humorous writers of modern times. He wrote plays, in verse, using the formal dramatic restraints of his day. In 5th century Athens there were two distinct forms of stage performances. There were the Tragedies, the most famed writers of which are Euripides and Aeschylus; and the Comedies, represented today by our mate Aristophanes. Never the twain did meet. They probably both developed out of pre-Classical Dionysian ritual, but by Classical times they were distinct from each other. Unlike the tragedians, Aristophanes set out to make people laugh; and to do this he used many of the forms used today - funny or fantastical situations, plays on words, ridicule of people in power, etc., He is supposed to have been very witty. He had a way with words. He was also a serious man who was concerned at perceived faults in the society he lived in, and used humor as a weapon against these things. He is recorded as saying "comedy knows what is right." He brought the powerful down a peg or two. My "Dictionary of Greek Civilisation", a book set for university courses during the 1970s, called him "a comic genius". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafay: Thank you. ENorman and "Fundie": It sounds like you are resorting to [[appeal to authority]] in this case. Remember that we do not actually have "contemporary reviews" of Aristophanes; what we have are ''modern translations'' of those works. I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review. "Fundie", I'm glad we agree about the value of exercise. AlanE: If Aristophanes never did anything funny, then in what sense was he a comedian? You describe him as a "serious man" who "ridicule[d] people in power"; this Aristophanes sounds like something of a [[liberal]] [[radical]]! :) --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 23:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:Who were the "liberals" - those in power or Aristophanes? Let's not bring today's concepts into describing someone who lived 2500years ago. He was not a comedian any more than Jonathan Swift was when he used ''Gulliver's Travels'' to lampoon the foibles of his age. Have you read him? The use of comedy to prick the inflated egos of the powerful, whether they be politicians, judges, or whatever, has a long and noble history, both for those on the left and on the right. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: This is so ignorant it's just adorable:

:: <blockquote>"I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review."</blockquote>

:: What in the wide wide world of sports do you think Aristotle's ''Poetics'' was? --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:33 12 February 2009

:Remember to do a little research! The first line of Aristophanes' ''[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/frogs.html The Frogs]'':
::<blockquote>XANTHIAS: Shall I crack any of those old jokes, master, At which the audience never fail to laugh?</blockquote>
:I'm almost positive there is some implication of humor somewhere in there! Form your own conclusions! [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 23:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Well done, Fundie! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::Having read this controversy with interest, I am forced to agree with Mr Schalfly. There is a difference between the theatre of cruelty - sarcasm and cruel raillery - that was the hallmark of the pagan Greeks, and true humour, which to be effective needs access to the depths of ones heart and soul, a perspective that only became real through the incarnation and suffering of Christ. Similarly, the coarseness of peasant nonsense such as was available to primitive peoples - the ancient equivalent of gurning through horse collars - has no right to be defined as humour. What Mr Schlafly is attempting to describe (albeit to a deliberately unreceptive audience) is something wiser, something altogether more refined and insightful. I wish him luck in persuading the unpersuadable. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 14:25, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Hi and welcome to CP, Regal! I'm interested in your view of my quote from ''The Frogs'' (above) in light of CP's definition of [[Humor]]:

:::::<blockquote>Humor is an act, statement, or other form of communication done to invoke laughter, amusement, or happiness in the audience.</blockquote>

:::::If you agree that Xanthias intended to invoke laughter by cracking jokes and continue to believe that this is not humor, please explain how you would like to see our definition of 'humor' changed. [[User:MattL|MattL]] 14:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::::::And G'day from me, Regal. Can you tell us what dictionary you use? All of mine say more or less the same things. What is refined humour,? Wise humour. Insightful humour. Can we have examples? BTW, all the things you find detestable in so-called ''pagan'' humour is found unabated in Chaucer and the ''Decamaron'' and the other medieval story-tellers. Shakespeare used it. Scatalogical humour was the rage through most of the reformation times and later. Mozart wrote scatalogical songs. The bedroom farce has always been popular - we had no senior churchmen refusing to go to ''The Marriage of Figaro''. The Greeks laughed at the dolt and so do we - hence the undying popularity of the Inspector Clouseau type character through history. Nothing changed. No one is denying that much pagan humour was coarse; but what I am saying is that it has never stopped being coarse, and I am also saying that before Christ there was humour of the kind that we find in Wodehouse or Wilde, and the one-liners of Groucho Marx or Dorothy Parker, which are clever because they manage to nail an aspect of the human condition in so few words. Aristophanes could do that.(Unlike I, who go on and on...:))[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: It appears that discussing humor with [[atheists]] is a fool's errand because they, like the ancient Greeks, are unable (or refuse) to open their minds to what real humor is. I've defined it several times, as does the dictionary; it is something "ludicrous" or "absurdly incongruous." Vulgarities may amuse the simple-minded to no end, and so may slapstick comedy (which is all the "Frogs" is referencing in its opening line), but it's not humor.

::::::: We've learned something from this discussion. It's not just the pre-Christians who were without humor, but so are [[atheists]] today. It's unfortunate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::"Ludicrous": amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity; causing laughter because of absurdity; broadly or extravagantly humorous, resembling farce. All of these definitions are fulfilled in the examples that have already been stated in this discussion. For that matter, they are all fulfilled by the image on [http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/r/wine_bowl,_apulia.aspx this vase in the British Museum] from the fourth century BC.
::::::::::If your second paragraph is meant to imply that your whole premise behind claiming that there was no humor before Christianity was to poke fun of atheists - since only atheists are so humorless as to take such a ludicrous proposition seriously - then I am afraid that your Modest Proposal has been found lacking.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Now that we've established that humor is a post-Christian phenomenon, we would do well to explore it's origins within Christianity. Do you have early Christian examples? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:03, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: In regards to something ludicrous or absurdly incongruous, from Plutarch's ''The Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero'':

:::::::::<blockquote>So also we are told that when Cicero, being consul, undertook the defence of Murena against Cato's prosecution, by way of bantering Cato, he made a long series of jokes upon the absurd paradoxes, as they are called, of the Stoic set; so that a loud laughter passing from the crowd to the judges, Cato, with a quiet smile, said to those that sat next him, "My friends, what an amusing consul we have."</blockquote> We can plainly see that this is absurd. Now for the incongruity - A paradox, as defined by MW, is "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true". Incongruous, as defined by MW, describes "something inconsistent with itself". Could this possibly be an example of humor? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Merriam-Webster also says that humor is "something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing." Doesn't that describe Aristophanes? [[User:BenjaminC|BenjaminC]] 17:38, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:It seems that I go away an hour and suddenly I am "without humour" and an atheist,Andy. Why have you reverted to (a) being personal to someone whose sense of humour you know nothing about and who has based his arguments on basic well-documented scholarly texts in a generally polite manner and (b)decided on a definition of humour that is at odds with every dictionary and encyclopedia I can find? Whether I am a Methodist, atheist, Catholic or calathumpian has nothing to do with the my arguments which, like most of my words in this site, are based on a lifetime of reading the canon of western literature and about it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:20, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::I don't know why Mr Schlafly should have to defend himself against such an intemperate passive-aggressive assault. And if, as you claim, you are an expert on the entire canon of western culture, I should expect to find you in concordance with his ideas. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 11:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I didn't say, nor mean to imply, I was "''an expert on the entire canon of western culture''", Regal. What I can say is that that I, especially in this case, is that I am basing my statements on books (you know...those old fashioned things with pages that people used to read and geriatrics like me still do - I own thousands of them and have read untold thousands more.) So if I talk about the humour in Chaucer or Shakespeare, or mention Voltaire, or Beaumarchais (who? he says), Regal, it's because I've been there, mate, and done that, and have the tee shirt. (Even if, half the time now I have forgotten where I've put it!) Now, I assume you are being silly, perhaps "parodical", in your final phrase, but I am not in the mood. Andrew Schafly might be able to turn off severe sciatica with a quick prayer, but I can't; so I want to take it out on people: and seeing its not yet dawn and the rest of the family is still fast asleep, that means you! So do me one favour...go and find one reference - just one - from a reputable reference source, that "humour" started with Christianity. (And while you are at it, try and help Andrew by finding a reference for the Chinese inventing bamboo.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)

::The assumption that anyone who disagrees with Mr. S must be an atheist is indeed a pretty flimsy deflecting tactic. The claim being debated is not quite as bizarre as saying that there was no epic poetry before Christ.
::I'll chime in re the claim that the pagans had only farcical, bawdy, dirty type humor. I'm only familiar with 2 Aristophanes plays, ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. ''Lysistrata'' does have a bawdy premise - the women of Greece conspire to not go to bed with their husbands until they end their war - but the play's point was political, not sexual, and it spoke on a real contemporary topic (the Peloponessian War) and addressed leading politicians by name. ''Clouds'' is a purely intellectual satire, making fun of the sophists in general and Socrates in particular. (Soc. was not actually a sophist but was apparently identified with them.) There are also a few poop jokes thrown in there, but that's no different from a lot of intellectual comedy today: I think of ''Little Miss Sunshine,'' that had jokes about Proust and Nietzshe, but also jokes about the dirty old grandfather character.
::My favorite thing about ''Clouds'' is that the main butt of the jokes, Socrates, was ''actually there in the audience'' watching it. The intro to my copy says that at the performance, the mask for the Socrates actor was such a good caricature, they had Socrates himself stand up so the audience could applaud the mask maker. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 20:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::A lot of this boils down to arguing definitions - a fruitless argument that could go on endlessly if we had nothing better to do. What does interest me is the idea of a new form of humor emerging during or after the life of Jesus. Does anyone have any examples of a first- or second-century shift towards more refined types of humor? Perhaps "What is the earliest example of genuine humor" could be added to the list of mysteries?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I don't know if this has been brought up, but it appears that Mr. Schlafly doesn't find the "crude" humour entertaining (nothing wrong with that, it'd not everybody's thing) but what about wordplay and the double negative? I sumbit my favorite passage from Homer's Odyssey: When captured by the Cyclops, Odysseus tells him that his name is "Nobody." Later, after they attack the Cyclops and blind him, he storms around his cave in a rage screaming "Nobody will not get out alive" a double negative, and then calls to his brothers that "Nobody has blinded me, Nobody has blinded me." The Cyclops thinks he is calling for help, but not understanding what he is actually saying, his brothers misunderstand him and stay away... This type of humour leads directly to the modern examples of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" routine, as well as the Chico and Groucho's constant back and forth in their movies "Chico:(looking at a Contract) What'sa this?" "Groucho: That's just the standard Sanity Clause" "Chico:You can't fool me, there ain't no Sanity Claus." [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 12:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)

==Who was right - Catholics or Protestants?==

Can you explain what you mean by this question? It's a bit like asking - who is right, Christians of Buddhists? Do you mean, regarding Transubstantiation? Or do you mean celibacy? Or the infallibility of the Pope? Maybe you could phrase it a little more clearly? Finally, do you think it's helpful to the world to see the world like this? Doesn't every faith believe it's 'right'? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 17:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Surely you don't think that just because different people hold different views that each think are right, truth therefore does not exist. If I told that some cultures believe that 2+2 equals infinity, and are convinced they are right, would that change your view that 2+2=4 and not infinity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:50, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::Well, yes, I do? Despite my own faith, I cannot in all sincerity tell a Buddhist that their faith is nonsense - I simply don't believe that's a way to get along with the rest of the planet, the pursuit of which is, after all, is our bounden duty here on this Earth. My own faith (Catholicism) has experienced many controversies, and although I hold fast to my faith, I acknowledge that it is not without its flaws and appalling mistakes. Jesus taught us to "love thy neighbour", after all. But to return to the question at hand - "who is right, Catholics or Protestants?". As an Irish Catholic married to an Irish Protestant, I'm sure you'll understand there's a great deal of sensitivity over this issue on our Island. And I'm certainly not about to tell my partner that her beliefs are 'wrong'. But what 'right' are you referring to? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 19:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)

To keep this conversation from devolving into an ideological argument, I thought I might try to clarify the original question: I interpret it as referring to the issues at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, namely the allegations of abuses of power within the Catholic Church, the selling of indulgences, the lack of reliance on Scripture, etc. Some of these are purely theological points, but I think historical discussion can bring light to the issue of whether or not the Protestants were justified in some of their more pragmatic claims. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: In reply to TadghOB, one thing about Jesus is indisputable: He did tell others they were wrong, and was very clear that He was divisive rather than uniting.

: In reply to Economist, there is the issue of how to deal with the problems, and what the subsequent centuries and today illustrate. I'm not yet taking a position on the question, but am pointing out how your list is incomplete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Why did Islam grow so rapidly? ==

Not sure there's a lot of mystery here. The rise of Islam is well documented in both Arab and Byzantine sources. The "mystery", if there is one, is how Mohammed managed to convert a sizeable number of followers in his lifetime and how they became organised into a small but effective military force. Thereafter, Islam spread for several reasons. Initially, it was confined to Arab soldiers and their families and was something of an elite religion. But the Arabs were generally welcomed by the common people in the Byzantine territories because they imposed lighter taxes, their military levies were less oppressive and they didn't cut people's heads off because they disagreed with the Emperor's theological opinions. The same factors are reflected in the decline of the Byzantine empire, to the benefit of the Arabs in West Asia and North Africa: excessive taxation, too many able-bodied men from wealthy families joining the priesthood to evade military service, and continuous demoralisation of the population through religious disputes. Added to that was the over-centralisation of power in the Byzantine Empire, with the result that when the Emperor was out of action, there were few men with both the authority and the competence to wield power effectively. Such was the situation at the decisive Battle of the Yarmouk, in what is now northern Jordan, when the Emperor Heraclius was ill and unable to take the field, resulting in a decisive victory for the Arabs.

Islam spread in the territories conquered by the Arabs for similar reasons to the spread of Christianity in Europe: local rulers ingratiating themselves with their overlord (the Arab Caliph in this case), the prestige of being part of the official religion, the apparent evidence that God must favour the Muslims because he enabled them to win battles, and lower taxation for Muslims.

It's much harder to understand why the Byzantine Empire lasted as long as it did. Also, why did the Arabs not conquer most of the West? The post-Roman kingdoms in the West seem to have been more organised and effective than historians gave them credit for until recently.

See e.g. John Julius Norwich's history of Byzantium (three volumes but extremely - even addictively - readable). Also 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin, the standard modern work on the interplay of Church and State in the Byzantine Empire; she shows that the church wasn't always a negative influence, as Edward Gibbon supposed. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:In addition to Fred's information above, Islam burst out of Arabia at a time when both the Byzantines and the Persians were completely exhausted from fighting each other interminably. There is also talk of a plague epidemic that wasted the so-called civilised powers but had little effect in the sparcely populated Arabian desert. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Romans ==

''Did the Romans recognize or understand the concept of "truth"?''

What reason do you have to think that they did not? We would surely disagree with any ancient people (not just the Romans) about whether certain ideas are true or false, but that would not mean that the people did not understand the ''concept'' of truth. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:18, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Twelve Angry Men

2009-02-17T15:02:18Z

Eoinc:

Deleted the part about aspects "unique" to American justice, since they arent unique.

___
Whoever wrote the above was right - the statement that these three aspects of legal process are "unique to American democracy" is simply false. I haven't changed anything, and I don't suppose anyone will respond given how old this article and its talk page are, but it really is quite a bizarre thing to say, considering that... it's completely untrue. Why was this guy's edit reverted when it served only to remove an untruth? [[User:PeteSC|PeteSC]] 09:23, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:I've added some new information to the article, and in the process I've reworded that passage slightly. Legal concepts such as "innocent until proven guilty" are hallmarks of the American justice system, but they are not unique to it. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:02, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Twelve Angry Men

2009-02-17T15:00:12Z

Eoinc:

'''Twelve Angry Men''' is a play written by Reginald Rose about the deliberations of a jury in a murder trial. It was originally written for television, and first broadcast in 1954. Rose then adapted his script into a play. A second adaptation was filmed in 1957, starring Henry Fonda, and a third version was filmed in 1997 with Jack Lemmon playing Henry Fonda's role. The 1957 film version, which was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director (Sidney Lumet) and Best Adapted Screenplay, is the most well-known version of the story.

== Plot ==

A young man from a slum has been charged with the fatal stabbing of his father. The movie opens with the judge reminding the jurors that, since this is a capital crime, their verdict must be unanimous. The jurors retire to begin their deliberations in a hot, airless room, and at first it appears as though the evidence of the defendant's guilt is incontestable.

The evidence against the defendant is as follows:
* The defendant and his father had been arguing earlier in the evening.
* An old man, lying in bed in the flat downstairs, heard somebody shout "I'm gonna kill you!", and a moment later heard a body hit the floor. He ran to his door and opened it just in time to see the defendant leaving the building.
* A woman across the street, unable to sleep, claimed to have seen the stabbing through the windows of a passing L-train and identified the defendant as the assailant.
* The father was stabbed with a knife identical to one which the defendant had recently bought and shown to his friends. The owner of the knife shop claimed it was a very rare design and that he had none others like it.
* The defendant's alibi was that he had been at a movie theatre when the murder took place. But, upon his arrest, he had been unable to name the movies he had seen or any of the actors / actresses in them.

A preliminary vote by secret ballot gives a result of eleven "guilty" votes and one "not guilty". Juror no. 8 (the men are not named), who voted not guilty, explains that he has no more reason than the other men to believe that the defendant is innocent. However, because of the defendant's age and the fact that his life depends on their decision, Juror 8 believes that they ought to discuss the facts of the case more thoroughly before deciding.

One by one, the pieces of evidence are shown to be faulty, and the jurors gradually change their minds.

* If the murder had taken place while an L-train was passing, the old man would not have heard the sound of a shout from upstairs. The jurors, who had observed his slow, shuffling gait during the trial, re-enact his journey from his bed to his front door, and find that he could not have walked quickly enough to see the killer running out of the building. They conclude that the old man wanted some attention, and for people to listen to him.
* The woman across the street wore glasses, and would not have been wearing them while in bed. She could not have seen the killing clearly.
* The owner of the knife shop had been lying about the knife's rarity. Juror no. 8 produces an identical knife, which he had bought from the same shop.
* The defendant's forgetfulness is attributed to shock and "emotional stress".

Interestingly enough, the audience never finds out whether the defendant is guilty; this further stresses "innocence until proven guilty".<ref>'Most courtroom movies feel it necessary to end with a clear-cut verdict. But "12 Angry Men" never states whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. It is about whether the jury has a reasonable doubt about his guilt.' [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020929/REVIEWS08/209290301/1023 (Roger Ebert)] </ref>

The movie illustrates three particulars of the [[justice|United States legal process]]:
#the defendant does not have to demonstrate his innocence. He is innocent until proven guilty.
#the verdict must be unanimous, since unanimity guards against a miscarriage of justice.
#the defendant can be convicted only in the absence of [[reasonable doubt]] on the part of the jury. [http://www.bookrags.com/studyguide-twelve-angry-men/themes.html]

==External links==

*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/quotes Extensive quotes from the movie] showing the tactic by which Juror #8 ([[Henry Fonda]]) establishes doubt in the minds of the other jury members.

[[category:Drama]]
[[category:plays]]

Twelve Angry Men

2009-02-17T14:58:21Z

Eoinc:

'''Twelve Angry Men''' is a play written by Reginald Rose about the deliberations of a jury in a murder trial. It was originally written for television, and first broadcast in 1954. Rose then adapted his script into a play. A second adaptation was filmed in 1957, starring Henry Fonda, and a third version was filmed in 1997 with Jack Lemmon playing Henry Fonda's role. The 1957 film version, which was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director (Sidney Lumet) and Best Adapted Screenplay, is the most well-known version of the story.

== Plot ==

A young man from a slum has been charged with the fatal stabbing of his father. The movie opens with the judge reminding the jurors that, since this is a capital crime, their verdict must be unanimous. The jurors retire to begin their deliberations in a hot, airless room, and at first it appears as though the evidence of the defendant's guilt is incontestable.

The evidence against the defendant is as follows:
* The defendant and his father had been arguing earlier in the evening.
* An old man, lying in bed in the flat downstairs, heard somebody shout "I'm gonna kill you!", and a moment later heard a body hit the floor. He ran to his door and opened it just in time to see the defendant leaving the building.
* A woman across the street, unable to sleep, claimed to have seen the stabbing through the windows of a passing L-train and identified the defendant as the assailant.
* The father was stabbed with a knife identical to one which the defendant had recently bought and shown to his friends. The owner of the knife shop claimed it was a very rare design and that he had none others like it.
* The defendant's alibi was that he had been at a movie theatre when the murder took place. But, upon his arrest, he had been unable to name the movies he had seen or any of the actors / actresses in them.

A preliminary vote by secret ballot gives a result of eleven "guilty" votes and one "not guilty". Juror no. 8 (the men are not named), who voted not guilty, explains that he has no more reason than the other men to believe that the defendant is innocent. However, because of the defendant's age and the fact that his life depends on their decision, Juror 8 believes that they ought to discuss the facts of the case more thoroughly before deciding.

One by one, the pieces of evidence are shown to be faulty, and the jurors gradually change their minds.

* If the murder had taken place while an L-train was passing, the old man would not have heard the sound of a shout from upstairs. The jurors, who had observed his slow, shuffling gait during the trial, re-enact his journey from his bed to his front door, and find that he could not have walked quickly enough to see the killer running out of the building. They conclude that the old man wanted some attention, and for people to listen to him.
* The woman across the street wore glasses, and would not have been wearing them while in bed. She could not have seen the killing clearly.
* The owner of the knife shop had been lying about the knife's rarity. Juror no. 8 produces an identical knife, which he had bought from the same shop.
* The defendant's forgetfulness is attributed to shock and "emotional stress".

Interestingly enough, the audience never finds out whether the defendant is guilty; this further stresses "innocence until proven guilty".<ref>'Most courtroom movies feel it necessary to end with a clear-cut verdict. But "12 Angry Men" never states whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. It is about whether the jury has a reasonable doubt about his guilt.' [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020929/REVIEWS08/209290301/1023 (Roger Ebert)] </ref>

The movie illustrates three particulars of [[justice]] unique to American democracy:
#the defendant does not have to demonstrate his innocence. He is innocent until proven guilty.
#the verdict must be unanimous, since unanimity guards against a miscarriage of justice.
#the defendant can be convicted only in the absence of [[reasonable doubt]] on the part of the jury. [http://www.bookrags.com/studyguide-twelve-angry-men/themes.html]

==External links==

*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/quotes Extensive quotes from the movie] showing the tactic by which Juror #8 ([[Henry Fonda]]) establishes doubt in the minds of the other jury members.

[[category:Drama]]
[[category:plays]]