Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Scotland

2009-11-04T14:22:18Z

Euaaan: Undo revision 715339 by RJJensen (Talk)

{{Country
|name =''Scotland''
|map =Scotland-map.jpg
|flag =Flag of Scotland.png
|arms =Lion rampant.png
|capital =Edinburgh
|capital-raw =
|government =Devolved parliamentary democracy
|government-raw =
|language =[[English]], [[Gaelic]]
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =Alex Salmond (''First Minister'')
|area =
|pop =
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =
|gdp-pc =
|currency =
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Scotland''' is the second-largest and northern-most of the four countries in the [[United Kingdom]].
It is about three-eighths the size of its southern neighbour England, but is much less populous; most of the population lives in the ''central belt'', a band across central Scotland between the capital [[Edinburgh]] and the largest city, [[Glasgow]]. Other cities are [[Aberdeen]] and [[Dundee]].

Scottish nationalists in recent years have sought greater regional autonomy, and have been granted control over some issues, including justice and education.

The Scottish government damaged its relationship with the USA in August, 2009, when it released convicted terrorist Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahl, the only man convicted in the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. He had served only 8 years of his term when he was released on grounds of compassion because he had terminal cancer. He was welcomed home in Libya as a national hero, to the disgust of many, most especially the USA, given that the majority of the victims were US citizens.

==Symbol==
The symbol of Scotland is the [[thistle]]. The Scottish flag is the Cross of St. Andrew, a white diagonal cross on a dark blue background. The design originated in the 9th century.
Scotland's motto is ''Nemo Me Impune Lacessit'' ("No one provokes me with impunity")<ref>http://www.scotland-guide.co.uk/ALL_AREAS_IN_SCOTLAND/Glasgow/Areas/Centre/Mercat_Cross.htm </ref>

==Geography==
Scotland is split into three distinct geographical regions; the mountainous Highlands to the north, the rolling countryside of the Central Lowlands (where the major urban centres are located) and the hilly Southern Uplands that lie next to the English border. Scotland also includes the island groups of [[Orkney]], [[Shetland]], the [[Inner Hebrides|Inner]] and [[Outer Hebrides]], the islands of the [[Firth of Clyde]] including [[Arran]], [[Bute]], [[Cumbrae]] & [[Wee Cumbrae]], the [[St. Kilda]] archipelago, [[Rockall]] and various other smaller islands.

[[Ben Nevis]], the highest mountain in the [[United Kingdom]], is in the Scottish [[Highlands of Scotland|Highlands]], as are most of the nation's highest mountains. Those with heights above 3000 feet are eponymously named [[Munro| Munros]] after Sir Hector Munro, the first person to compile a list of such mountains.<ref> for a complete list of Munros see http://www.sol.co.uk/d/dickwall/munroes.htm</ref>

Scotland has some 2,300 miles of coastline, including numerous estuaries called ''firths'' and sea lochs. Major rivers include the Spey, Tweed, Clyde, and Forth with the Tay being Scotland's longest river. Lakes, called ''lochs'' in the region, are abundant, with the name applied both to freshwater lakes and to sea inlets; Lochs Lomond, Morar, and Ness are the largest in the British Isles and well-known for their picturesque beauty, with Loch Ness having additional fame as the home of a legendary monster.

==People==

====Religion====
* see [[Church of Scotland]]

Scotland is historically Christian; the national church is the [[Church of Scotland]].

Scotland was a Catholic nation until the time of the [[Reformation]], when [[John Knox]] (1510-1572), George Wishart(1513-46) and other scholars returned from their travels in Germany excited by the works of [[John Calvin]] and to a lesser extent [[Martin Luther]].

Many of the lords became Protestant and in 1560, the Scottish Parliament formally rejected Papal jurisdiction. The Protestants ousted the Catholic queen, Mary Stuart ('Mary, Queen of Scots') and replaced her with her son, [[James VI]] (later to become [[James I]] of England).

Scotland became overwhelmingly Protestant with Catholicism surviving only in the remote and sparsely populated Highlands. About a third of the Presbyterians split off in the "Disruption of 1843" to form the Free Church of Scotland. After various other splits most of the Free Church reunited with the Church of Scotland in 1929. The Church of Scotland had about 960,000 adult members in 1980 but only 600,000 in 2006.

From the mid 19th century until the interwar period, there were large scale immigrations of Irish Catholics to Scotland's industrial urban centres and this changed the religious demography. Today there are a similar number of communicants of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland although both religions have suffered considerable declines in church going attendances. The Anglican (Episcopalian) Church is predominant in the north-east. Recent immigration has produced significant populations of Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Sikhs in Scotland's major cities (Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee).

====Culture and sports====

Scotland has given the English speaking world many of the language's finest writers, poets and philosophers. Among these are Adam Smith, David Hume, Sir Walter Scott, Robert Burns, Frances Hutcheson, James Hogg, Robert Louis Stevenson, Arthur Conan Doyle, J.M Barrie and Hugh MacDiarmid. The Scottish intellectual and cultural tradition can be traced back to the Scottish Enlightenment, a remarkable period in the 18th century characterized by an outpouring of intellectual and scientific accomplishments. Indeed it was Voltaire who said "we look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation." Scotland is also famous for its disproportionate amount of inventors and scientists such as Alexander Graham Bell (telephone), Lord Kelvin (the Kelvin si unit of temperature), James Watt (condensed steam power), John Napier (logarithms and the decimal point), Joseph Lister (pioneer of antiseptics), Alexander Fleming (penicillin) James Clark Maxwell (electro-magnetism), Robert Watson Watt (radar) and John Logie Baird (television). It is home to ancient world class universities including the three Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and St Andrews and being one of the first industrialised and urbanised nations in the world.

Above all else the national preoccupation is [[football (soccer)]]. Other popular pastimes include [[rugby]], [[lawn bowls]], [[motorsports]], [[horseracing]], [[shinty]] (similar to hockey), [[curling]], sports of the [[Highland Games]] - such as tossing the [[caber]]- and, of course, [[golf]]. Scotland is the home of golf. The Royal and Ancient Golf Club at [[St Andrews]] is the governing body of world golf.

Other things associated with the country are [[kilt]]s ([[tartan]] skirt-like garments worn traditionally worn by Scotsmen), and the haunting music of the [[bagpipes]]. Famous Scottish products include [[pie]]s, [[haggis]] and Scotch [[whisky]].

==Government==
Scotland has its own [[Scottish Parliament]] comprising 129 members (MSPs) as well as sending 59 Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent its interests in the [[United Kingdom]] parliament which sits in [[London]]. Scottish MPs have historically been recognized for their political skills and appointed to the Cabinet in larger numbers than is proportionate. The current Prime Minister [[Gordon Brown]], is Scottish, and formerly he was [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]]. Indeed, even [[Tony Blair]] the Prime Minister prior to Brown, was born in Scotland.

The '''Scottish Government''' (formerly known as the Scottish Executive) is the government in Scotland for devolved matters. Responsibility for all devolved matters was passed to the Scottish Executive from the
'''Scottish Office''' and other UK Government departments in 1999. The members of the Scottish Government are chosen from the party or parties holding most seats in the Parliament. The Scottish Government is led by the First Minister, who forms a ministerial team of Cabinet Secretaries. In the election on May 3 2007, the [[Scottish National Party]] won the largest number of seats, but not enough for an absolute majority. At the moment the party forms a minority government.

The Government of Scotland has recently come under global scrutiny for its decision, led by Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill, to release the terrorist responsible for the 1998 [[Lockerbie]] bombing. A majority of the victims were American, and this decision received strong criticism from many Americans as well as the FBI Director Robert Mueller.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/22/fbi-director-slams-scotland-lockerbie-bomber-release/</ref> Libyan ruler Qaddafi profusely thanked British officials, including Prime Minister Gordon Brown, for helping secure the release of the terrorist back to Libya. British Prime Minister Brown replied with a confusing set of denials, a disapproval of the hero's welcome that the terrorist received upon return to Libya, and a partial release of voluminous communications leading up to the release.<ref>http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14376240</ref>

===Principal Government Officials===

The Government of Scotland has a number of departments within the cabinet, headed up by a cabinet secretary, as follows:

First Minister - Alex Salmond 
Deputy Firt Minister and Health Secretary - Nicola Sturgeon 
Finance Secretary - John Swinney 
Education Secretary - Fiona Hyslop 
Justice Secretary - Kenny MacAskill 
Environment Secretary - Richard Lochead

These secretaries are aided in their work by "ministers", working within the cabinet departments, and each having their own specific area of devloved responsibility.

<ref>http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/14944/Scottish-Cabinet</ref>

===Relations with England===
Relationships between Scottish and English MPs before [[devolution]] were sometimes tense because of what the former [[Conservative|Conservative Party]] MP, by then an [[Ulster Unionist]], [[Enoch Powell]] dubbed ''The West Lothian question''. The name arose in 1977 after [[Tam Dalyell]], Labour MP for West Lothian in Scotland, asked during a debate in the [[Houses of Parliament]] over Scottish and Welsh [[devolution]]:

<blockquote>''For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate... at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on British politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?''</blockquote>

He pointed out that he as MP for West Lothian could vote on matters affecting English constituencies but not his own constituency.

==Economy==
Scotland's position at the forefront of the industrial revolution in the 19th century bequeathed a legacy of heavy engineering and manufacturing that lasted well into the 20th century. However with de-industrialisation from the 1970s onwards and latterly the relocation of manufacturing jobs to countries with lower labour costs (eg. Eastern Europe) the Scottish economy is now heavily dependant on tourism, the oil industry, agriculture, the service industry and public sector jobs.

==History==
* see [[History of Scotland]]

Scotland has been inhabited since the first [[Mesolithic]] hunter-gatherers are thought to have migrated to Scotland.<ref>At least 8500 years before recorded history dealt with Britain, according to the uniformitarian timescale. [http://www.scotlandhistory.net/ Scotland History], Wormland, Jenny. Scotland: a History. 2005, Oxford: Oxford University Press. p.1</ref>
These inhabitants showed advanced knowledge of astronomy, creating several [[Stonehenge]]-like monuments.

At the time of the [[Roman]]s the tribes in what became Scotland were similar to those further south, and can be considered to be [[Celtic]] peoples. Those from the North-East were called ‘Picti’ (Picts) by Roman writers, which could mean ‘painted people' and refer to tattoos. The Romans never subdued these northern tribes, and after a brief period when the Antonine Wall between the Firths of Forth and Clyde was the Roman Empire’s northern frontier, they drew back and had [[Hadrian’s Wall]] as the frontier. They did try to influence the tribes between the two Walls, and when kingdoms like Strathclyde emerged in the early [[Dark Ages]], their rulers often bore Roman names or titles, the dynasties having been founded by Roman officials. The Scots themselves began arriving as settlers in the West of Scotland at this time (AD 400-500). They were from a part of the north of [[Ireland]] and spoke Old Irish, which changed to become Scottish [[Gaelic]], and eventually replaced Pictish. They sometimes warred with the Picts and [[Briton]]s and sometimes allied with them, but a unified kingdom under the Scottish king Kenneth Mac Alpin was established in AD 843, called ‘Alba’ (still the [[Gaelic]] name for Scotland). This kingdom took over Strathclyde in the early 11th century to form the basis of Mediaeval Scotland. [[Normans]] and their descendants such as Robert the Bruce ('de Brus' was a Norman surname) became important nobles in Scotland.

====Union with England====
After the death of Queen [[Elizabeth I]] of England in 1603, James VI of Scotland ascended to the Throne of England, becoming [[James I]] of England. He was the first monarch to call himself King of Great Britain. This is referred to as the Union of the Crowns. James was also at this time King of [[Ireland]].

The Parliaments of Scotland and [[England]] were not united until 1707 and it is this date that is recognized as the formation of [[Great Britain]]. This is referred to as the Union of the Parliaments. (The [[United Kingdom]] was to come into being with the addition of [[Ireland]] in 1801.) The formation of the Irish Free State in 1922 resulted in the current name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

====Monarchs of Scotland====
(the years in brackets are the years during which the monarch ruled)
*[[Malcolm II (1005-1034)]]
*[[Duncan I (1034-1040)]]
*[[Macbeth (1040-1057)]]
*[[Malcolm III (1057-1093)]]
*[[Donald Bane (1093-1094)]]
*[[Duncan II (1094)]]
*[[Donald Bane (1093-1097)]]
*[[Edgar (1097-1107)]]
*[[Alexander I (1107-1124)]]
*[[David I (1124-1153)]]
*[[Malcolm IV (1153-1195)]]
*[[William (The Lion) (1165-1214)]]
*[[Alexander II (1214-1249)]]
*[[Alexander III (1249-1286)]]
*[[Margaret of Norway (1286-1290)]]
*[[John Baliol (1292-1296)]]
*[[Robert I (1306-1329)]]
*[[David II|David II (1329-1371)]]
'''House Of Stuart'''
*[[Robert II|Robert II (1371-1390)]]
*[[Robert III (1390-1406)]]
*[[James I (1406-1437)]]
*[[James II (1437-1460)]]
*[[James III (1460-1488)]]
*[[James IV (1488-1513)]]
*[[James V (1513-1542)]]
*[[Mary Queen of Scots]] (1542-1567)
*[[James VI (1567-1625)]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.n-cyclopedia.com/scottish-history/index.htm A Brief History of Scotland]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Scotland]]
[[Category:United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Scottish Culture]]

User talk:RJJensen

2009-11-04T14:13:47Z

Euaaan:

[[/Archive 1]]
==Trinity==
You reverted my edits to the Trinity page, with the comment "The Trinity is Christian". I was a bit baffled by this, but then realized that I had used the Torah as a source. The Torah is just the Old Testament, and is part of the Christian Bible. I did not realize that my language would be so confusing (I am used to it, my parents converted from Judaism to Baptist Christians). You will find that much of the Hebrew Bible (The old Testament) supports Christian concepts. This is because Christian concepts are universal truths!

Haha, yeah the rain has been murderous all week long! I had the misfortune of planning to drive into Athens today, only to find all the roads underwater! I didn't realize until you messaged me that my talk page has the info intended for my user page, so thank you for your inadvertant help (also, yes, it appears my grammar died while I was writing it!) Are you from the area as well? Always good to meet a fellow southerner who understands the Obama Crisis. There are so many hayseed liberals down here it makes me sick! Don't worry tho, you won't hear me crying out for a confederate south:) Long live a STRONG CONSERVATIVE UNION, with a surplus export of integrity! [[User:RoyP|RoyP]] 20:33, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
::thanks for the update. I'm actually a Yankee now living in Montana, but I have had a strong interest in the South since I studiesd with C. Vann Woodward some years back.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:36, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
:::I can forgive a Yank, I used to be one (Mt. Vernon, Washington)! Unfortunately, that town's Conservative fervor lives solely in the words of one Glenn Beck (that man's done for intelligent conservatism what Sean Penn did for photographers dentistry.) [[User:RoyP|RoyP]] 20:45, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
::::Now, what kind of a snide insult is that? Beck is a thoughtful, honest fighter for the conservative cause, and if people are angered at the government by his exposés, all the better for the nation. Both he, and those of us who respect him, are intelligent people. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 20:59, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::Forgive any intrusion or stamping upon your own loyalties. But surely you must admit that the movement suffers from a lack of Irving Kristol or William Buckley type figures. I long for the days when conservatism nakedly confessed that the intellectuals were the brains of the movement while the power of the people were its fists. OF COURSE a weapon must be weighted properly, with the correct balances, but it is only in retrospect that people might discuss its craftsmanship and the components which constituted it. I would venture to say that anyone slain by Excalibur would comment on anything but the sharpness of its blade, which in this most basic analogy, would comprise the incisive wit of conservatives who have lived and then gone to meet God in heaven. The fires of anger burn with intense heat in the belly of American conservatism, but to stoke these fires, as Beck often does, produces little but flash and smoke. It will be some current or future leader, a Reagan-type, I pray, who shall light his torch with such a flame and bring it to the halls of Congress or to the Obama home and say, "See, this same flame has burned for ages now let it singe you!". God, conservatism, the side of moral right; all are the same, and united they are all consuming. But it must take SOMEONE...a prophet, a politician who does God's work, a priest with God's word in him...someone, SOMEONE must carry that torch. [[User:RoyP|RoyP]] 21:15, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

== Quakerism category ==
Thanks for setting it up! I'll try to contribute a few more new articles to insert. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:20, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

== "Revert vandalism" on the Chavez article ==

Does [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hugo_Chavez&curid=5224&diff=703420&oldid=703401 this edit] really count as "vandalism"? Or would it be more fair of you to qualify it as a different point of view? A point of view that may be criticized, perhaps, one that may or may not be backed up by whatever evidence is cited--but where is the "vandalism"? [[User:Wayne|Wayne]] 08:44, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
::it's vandalism--it was designed to attack and denigrate and damage a CP article. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:10, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
:::Introducing a different point of view--with a citation, no less--is denigrating and damaging to the article? Is the article that fragile? [[User:Wayne|Wayne]] 10:25, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
:::that was his goal. to sabotage the article by making it contradictory. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:38, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
::::Would it not add to the credibility of the article and the site as a whole to engage with the ideas that the editor brought to the table on their own merits--or lack thereof-- as opposed to dismissing them as vandalism? [[User:Wayne|Wayne]] 12:16, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::vandals seeking to weaken or ruin articles are not welcome here. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:20, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

== speedy delete? ==

[[Nonlineardog]]

== Dear Dr. Jensen, ==

i think your edits are far above the average quality here. I am quite liberal (and not American), so i don't always agree with your opinions, however i enjoy to read your articles, since they are written in a quite concise and interesting manner from the right distance of view and i usually learn something about topics i don't know much about.

Regards, --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 12:45, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
::thanks! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:22, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Why did you revert my edit calling for a citation? [[User:AZF|AZF]] 17:11, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
::you're making work for other people; if you want to add a citation please do so. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:14, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
:::The person who made the initial assertion was making work for other people. [[User:AZF|AZF]] 17:19, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

==Columbia==
In the 1872 painting; are you sure she holds a school book? Might it be the Bible?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:03, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
::my students always ask that--it says "School Book" on it. you can read it at [http://cprr.org/CPRR_Discussion_Group/2005/11/question-american-progress-by-john_11.html larger image] [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:07, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Thank you, a beautiful picture btw.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:13, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

== Milton/Paradise Lost ==
1st of all, thanks for the encouragement on my talk page. We now seem to be sort of collaborating on the Milton and PL pages. I came across some public-domain images of Blake's watercolors for PL that would be great to add to that page. How do we go about making that happen? [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 17:58, 29 October 2009 (EDT)
:yes--it's fun! I can upload files if you gove me URL's or email to me at rjensen@uic.edu [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:04, 29 October 2009 (EDT)
::Here is the site: http://www.pitt.edu/~ulin/Paradise/Blake1808.htm [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 20:09, 29 October 2009 (EDT)
:::OK which ones do you want to use? 04:45, 30 October 2009 (EDT)
::::So hard to choose! I think "The Expulsion from Eden" (Book XII) is essential for the PL article. If there is room, my next choice would be "The Downfall of the Rebel Angels" (Book VI), and then "The Temptation of Eve" (Book IX). [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 11:24, 30 October 2009 (EDT)
::::: done: see File:Blake-xii.jpg File:Blake-vi.jpg and File:Blake-ix.jpg [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 05:19, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

== William, Mary, etc. ==

Hello Richard;

Just noticed you doing some 17th century history - could I ask for a bit of a hand getting William of Orange's article up? He doesn't have one, at the moment, I think, and 'William and Mary' redirects [[College of William and Mary|here]]. Thanks, and nice articles. [[User:AungSein|AungSein]] 14:45, 1 November 2009 (EST)
::look at [[William III]]. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:16, 1 November 2009 (EST)
::::Pesky Stadtholder ... ;) [[User:AungSein|AungSein]] 15:22, 1 November 2009 (EST)

== DerekE ==

Just because someone is a "nasty vandal" is no need to erase every sign of his presence from the website. That's a tactic that might have been appropriate for the great Soviet Encyclopedia. I fail to see how it's suitable for an America conservative project. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 19:49, 3 November 2009 (EST)
::DerekE -- or someone using his account-- has tried to seriously damage CP (look at the edits a few minutes ago on Obama Administration). That destroys his entire credibility from A to Z, in my opinion. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:58, 3 November 2009 (EST)
:::That doesn't answer my question. removing a talk page post--in effect trying to make him a "non-person"--has nothing to do with the situation you describe. We've always been at war with East Asia. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 20:02, 3 November 2009 (EST)
::::we don't want saboteurs at CP and we remove their work. It's like a team changing the record book when an illegal player is involved. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:17, 3 November 2009 (EST)

==Scotland Revert==

Hello, i noticed you reverted an edit by DWiggins on the scotland article, saying in the edit description that "civilized world seems to cover the reaction pretty well". I've undone your edit as it was biased and misleading, if the "civilized world"(could you specify what the civilized world is?) universally thought it was disgusting, why was there so much controversy? perhaps from an american perspective but outside of the states "disgust" doesnt cover it at all, unless you meant to imply that the civilized world is solely the USA, in which case all credibility of claims about conservapedia being fair or trustworthy are lost. also, please dont ban me, i'm just trying to bring some balance and i dont mean to troll, but as im scottish it annoys me when people try and spin the lockerbie story, thanks. [[User:Euaaan|Euaaan]] 09:13, 4 November 2009 (EST)

Scotland

2009-10-03T04:06:50Z

Euaaan:

{{Country
|name =''Scotland''
|map =Scotland-map.jpg
|flag =Flag of Scotland.png
|arms =Lion rampant.png
|capital =Edinburgh
|capital-raw =
|government =Devolved parliamentary democracy
|government-raw =
|language =[[English]], [[Gaelic]]
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =Alex Salmond (''First Minister'')
|area =
|pop =
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =
|gdp-pc =
|currency =
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Scotland''' is the second-largest and northern-most of the four countries in the [[United Kingdom]].
It is about three-eighths the size of its southern neighbour England, but is much less populous; most of the population lives in the ''central belt'', a band across central Scotland between the capital [[Edinburgh]] and the largest city, [[Glasgow]]. Other cities are [[Aberdeen]] and [[Dundee]].

Scottish nationalists in recent years have sought more local autonomy from London, and have been granted control over some local issues, including justice. The Scottish government damaged its relationship with the USA in August, 2009, when it released convicted terrorist Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahl, the only man convicted in the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. He had served only 8 years of his term when he was released on grounds of compassion because he had terminal cancer. He was welcomed home in Libya as a national hero, to the disgust of the civilized world.

==Symbol==
The symbol of Scotland is the [[thistle]]. The Scottish flag is the Cross of St. Andrew, a white diagonal cross on a dark blue background. The design originated in the 9th century.
Scotland's motto is ''Nemo Me Impune Lacessit'' ("No one provokes me with impunity")<ref>http://www.scotland-guide.co.uk/ALL_AREAS_IN_SCOTLAND/Glasgow/Areas/Centre/Mercat_Cross.htm </ref>

==Geography==
Scotland is split into three distinct geographical regions; the mountainous Highlands to the north, the rolling countryside of the Central Lowlands (where the major urban centres are located) and the hilly Southern Uplands that lie next to the English border. Scotland also includes the island groups of [[Orkney]], [[Shetland]], the [[Inner Hebrides|Inner]] and [[Outer Hebrides]], the islands of the [[Firth of Clyde]] including [[Arran]], [[Bute]], [[Cumbrae]] & [[Wee Cumbrae]], the [[St. Kilda]] archipelago, [[Rockall]] and various other smaller islands.

[[Ben Nevis]], the highest mountain in the [[United Kingdom]], is in the Scottish [[Highlands of Scotland|Highlands]], as are most of the nation's highest mountains. Those with heights above 3000 feet are eponymously named [[Munro| Munros]] after Sir Hector Munro, the first person to compile a list of such mountains.<ref> for a complete list of Munros see http://www.sol.co.uk/d/dickwall/munroes.htm</ref>

Scotland has some 2,300 miles of coastline, much of it in broad or narrow bays called ''firths''. Major rivers include the Tay, Tweed, Clyde, and Forth. The Spey is Scotland's longest river. Freshwater lakes (or ''lochs'') are abundant; Lochs Lomond, Morar, and Ness are the largest in the British Isles and well-known for their picturesque beauty, with Loch Ness having additional fame as the home of a legendary monster.

==People==

====Religion====
* see [[Church of Scotland]]

Scotland is historically Christian; the national church is the [[Church of Scotland]].

Scotland was a Catholic nation until the time of the [[Reformation]], when [[John Knox]] (1510-1572), George Wishart(1513-46) and other scholars returned from their travels in Germany excited by the works of [[John Calvin]] and to a lesser extent [[Martin Luther]].

Many of the lords became Protestant and in 1560, the Scottish Parliament formally rejected Papal jurisdiction. The Protestants ousted the Catholic queen, Mary Stuart ('Mary, Queen of Scots') and replaced her with her son, [[James VI]] (later to become [[James I]] of England).

Scotland became overwhelmingly Protestant with Catholicism surviving only in the remote and sparsely populated Highlands. About a third the Presbyterians split off in the "Disruption of 1843" to form the Free Church of Scotland. After various other splits most of the Free Church reunited with the Church of Scotland in 1929. The Church of Scotland had about 960,000 adult members in 1980 but only 600,000 in 2006.

From the mid 19th century until the interwar period, there were large scale immigrations of Irish Catholics to Scotland's industrial urban centres and this changed the religious demography. Today there are a similar number of communicants of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland although both religions have suffered considerable declines in church going attendances. The Anglican (Episcopalian) Church is predominant in the north-east. Recent immigration has produced significant populations of Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Sikhs in Scotland's major cities (Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee).

====Culture and sports====

Scotland has given the English speaking world many of the languages finest writers, poets and philosophers. Among these are Adam Smith, David Hume, Sir Walter Scott, Robert Burns, Frances Hutcheson, James Hogg, Robert Louis Stevenson, Arthur Conan Doyle, J.M Barrie and Hugh Macdairmid. The Scottish intellectual and cultural tradition can be traced back to the Scottish Enlightenment, a remarkable period in the 18th century characterized by an outpouring of intellectual and scientific accomplishments. Indeed it was Voltaire who said "we look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation." Scotland is also famous for its disproportionate amount of inventors and scientists such as Alexander Graham Bell (telephone), Lord Kelvin (the Kelvin si unit of temperature), James Watt (condensed steam power), John Napier (logarithms and the decimal point), Joseph Lister (pioneer of antiseptics), Alexander Fleming (penicillin) James Clark Maxwell (electro-magnetism), Robert Watson Watt (radar) and John Logie Baird (television). It is home to ancient world class universities such as Edinburgh, Glasgow and St Andrews Universities and being one of the first industrialised and urbanised nations in the world.

Above all else the national preoccupation is [[football (soccer)]]. Other popular pastimes include [[rugby]], [[lawn bowls]], [[motorsports]], [[horseracing]], [[shinty]] (similar to hockey), [[curling]], sports of the [[Highland Games]] - such as tossing the [[caber]]- and, of course, [[golf]]. Scotland is the home of golf. The Royal and Ancient Golf Club at [[St Andrews]] is the governing body of world golf.

Other things associated with the country are [[kilt]]s ([[tartan]] skirtlike garments worn by Scotsmen), and the haunting music of the [[bagpipes]]. Famous Scottish products include [[pie]]s, [[haggis]] and Scotch [[whisky]].

==Government==
Scotland has its own [[Scottish Parliament]] comprising 129 members (MSPs) as well as sending 59 Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent its interests in the [[United Kingdom]] parliament which sits in [[London]]. Scottish MPs have historically been recognized for their political skills and appointed to the Cabinet in larger numbers than is proportionate. The current Prime Minister [[Gordon Brown]], is Scottish, and formerly he was [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]].

The '''Scottish Government''' (formerly known as the Scottish Executive) is the government in Scotland for devolved matters. Responsibility for all devolved matters was passed to the Scottish Executive from the
'''Scottish Office''' and other UK Government departments in 1999. The members of the Scottish Government are chosen from the party or parties holding most seats in the Parliament. The Scottish Government is led by the First Minister, who forms a ministerial team of Cabinet Secretaries. In the election on May 3 2007, the [[Scottish National Party]] won the largest number of seats, but not enough for an absolute majority. At the moment the party forms a minority government.

The Government of Scotland has recently come under global scrutiny for its decision, led by Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill, to release the terrorist responsible for the 1998 #REDIRECT [[Lockerbie]] bombing. A majority of the victims were American, and this decision received strong criticism from many Americans as well as the FBI Director Robert Mueller.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/22/fbi-director-slams-scotland-lockerbie-bomber-release/</ref> Libyan ruler Qaddafi profusely thanked British officials, including Prime Minister Gordon Brown, for helping secure the release of the terrorist back to Libya. British Prime Minister Brown replied with a confusing set of denials, a disapproval of the hero's welcome that the terrorist received upon return to Libya, and a partial release of voluminous communications leading up to the release.<ref>http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14376240</ref>

===Principal Government Officials===

The Government of Scotland has a number of departments within the cabinet, headed up by a cabinet secretary, as follows:

First Minister - Alex Salmond 
Deputy Firt Minister and Health Secretary - Nicola Sturgeon 
Finance Secretary - John Swinney 
Education Secretary - Fiona Hyslop 
Justice Secretary - Kenny MacAskill 
Environment Secretary - Richard Lochead

These secretaries are aided in their work by "ministers", working within the cabinet departments, and each having their own specific area of devloved responsibility.

<ref>http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/14944/Scottish-Cabinet</ref>

===Relations with England===
Relationships between Scottish and English MPs before [[devolution]] were sometimes tense because of what the former [[Conservative|Conservative Party]] MP, by then an [[Ulster Unionist]], [[Enoch Powell]] dubbed ''The West Lothian question''. The name arose in 1977 after [[Tam Dalyell]], Labour MP for West Lothian in Scotland, asked during a debate in the [[Houses of Parliament]] over Scottish and Welsh [[devolution]]:

<blockquote>''For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate... at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on British politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?''</blockquote>

He pointed out that he as MP for West Lothian could vote on matters affecting English constituencies but not his own constituency.

==Economy==
Scotland's position at the forefront of the industrial revolution in the 19th century bequeathed a legacy of heavy engineering and manufacturing that lasted well into the 20th century. However with de-industrialisation from the 1970s onwards and latterly the relocation of manufacturing jobs to countries with lower labour costs (eg. Eastern Europe) the Scottish economy is now heavily dependant on tourism, the oil industry, agriculture, the service industry and public sector jobs.

==History==
* see [[History of Scotland]]

Scotland has been inhabited since the first [[Mesolithic]] hunter-gatherers are thought to have migrated to Scotland.<ref>At least 8500 years before recorded history dealt with Britain, according to the uniformitarian timescale. [http://www.scotlandhistory.net/ Scotland History], Wormland, Jenny. Scotland: a History. 2005, Oxford: Oxford University Press. p.1</ref>
These inhabitants showed advanced knowledge of astronomy, creating several [[Stonehenge]]-like monuments.

At the time of the [[Roman]]s the tribes in what became Scotland were similar to those further south, and can be considered to be [[Celtic]] peoples. Those from the North-East were called ‘Picti’ (Picts) by Roman writers, which could mean ‘painted people' and refer to tattoos. The Romans never subdued these northern tribes, and after a brief period when the Antonine Wall between the Firths of Forth and Clyde was the Roman Empire’s northern frontier, they drew back and had [[Hadrian’s Wall]] as the frontier. They did try to influence the tribes between the two Walls, and when kingdoms like Strathclyde emerged in the early [[Dark Ages]], their rulers often bore Roman names or titles, the dynasties having been founded by Roman officials. The Scots themselves began arriving as settlers in the West of Scotland at this time (AD 400-500). They were from a part of the north of [[Ireland]] and spoke Old Irish, which changed to become Scottish [[Gaelic]], and eventually replaced Pictish. They sometimes warred with the Picts and [[Briton]]s and sometimes allied with them, but a unified kingdom under the Scottish king Kenneth Mac Alpin was established in AD 843, called ‘Alba’ (still the [[Gaelic]] name for Scotland). This kingdom took over Strathclyde in the early 11th century to form the basis of Mediaeval Scotland. [[Normans]] and their descendants such as Robert the Bruce ('de Brus' was a Norman surname) became important nobles in Scotland.

====Union with England====
After the death of Queen [[Elizabeth I]] of England in 1603, James VI of Scotland ascended to the Throne of England, becoming [[James I]] of England. He was the first monarch to call himself King of Great Britain. This is referred to as the Union of the Crowns. James was also at this time King of [[Ireland]].

The Parliaments of Scotland and [[England]] were not united until 1707 and it is this date that is recognized as the formation of [[Great Britain]]. This is referred to as the Union of the Parliaments. (The [[United Kingdom]] was to come into being with the addition of [[Ireland]] in 1801.) The formation of the Irish Free State in 1922 resulted in the current name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

====Monarchs of Scotland====
(the years in brackets are the years during which the monarch ruled)
*[[Malcolm II (1005-1034)]]
*[[Duncan I (1034-1040)]]
*[[Macbeth (1040-1057)]]
*[[Malcolm III (1057-1093)]]
*[[Donald Bane (1093-1094)]]
*[[Duncan II (1094)]]
*[[Donald Bane (1093-1097)]]
*[[Edgar (1097-1107)]]
*[[Alexander I (1107-1124)]]
*[[David I (1124-1153)]]
*[[Malcolm IV (1153-1195)]]
*[[William (The Lion) (1165-1214)]]
*[[Alexander II (1214-1249)]]
*[[Alexander III (1249-1286)]]
*[[Margaret of Norway (1286-1290)]]
*[[John Baliol (1292-1296)]]
*[[Robert I (1306-1329)]]
*[[David II|David II (1329-1371)]]
'''House Of Stuart'''
*[[Robert II|Robert II (1371-1390)]]
*[[Robert III (1390-1406)]]
*[[James I (1406-1437)]]
*[[James II (1437-1460)]]
*[[James III (1460-1488)]]
*[[James IV (1488-1513)]]
*[[James V (1513-1542)]]
*[[Mary Queen of Scots]] (1542-1567)
*[[James VI (1567-1625)]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.n-cyclopedia.com/scottish-history/index.htm A Brief History of Scotland]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Scotland]]
[[Category:United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Scottish Culture]]

User:Euaaan

2009-10-03T03:54:34Z

Euaaan:

Hello, I'm Euan, im agnostic and i'm considered a libertarian liberal, i'm quite possibly not very welcome here but please judge me on what i say and do rather than on my faith and what political ideology i support.

Yep, i made this account mainly for the debate pages, but as i think to be trustworthy an encyclopedia needs to be objective, which im sorry to say in my opinion conservapedia is not, on the whole, i'm also here because i would like to help change that.

I study sociology and psychology at a high school level in college, cos i left school, joined the army and am now a civilian again. the full circle. :P

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2009-10-03T03:43:03Z

Euaaan:

{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== Validity of claims of Evolution page bias ==

I find this statement to be rather hypocritical:

"Wikipedia's evolution article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section its evolution article which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position despite the evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it."

It seems like a vindictive ad hominem attack against "liberals" rather than a legitimate argument. You cannot assert that "which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored...etc." and honestly think that you are being unbiased. Sarcasm is not a valid way to respectfully argue against another's theories.

A liberal could just as easily state,

"Conservapedia's creationism article certainly does not have a robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section, which is not surprising since conservatives are rather enamored of the creationism position despite having a total lack of evidence supporting it."

and be just as "accurate" as whoever wrote the original conservative criticism. I'm not debating whether evolution or creationism is the correct theory (I'm neutral), but rather trying to suggest a way to improve your arguments. If you want to accuse someone of being baised, then you can't be biased yourself.

== I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that Eric Holder..." ==

I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that [[Obama]]'s Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] called the United States a "nation of cowards" when it comes to the discussion of race."

The citation was a link to an old revision of a Wikipedia page. The new revision DOES mention this. --[[User:Andrew1123|Andrew1123]] 17:22, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

==Reference Needed for Claim that Wikipedia Called Bush a Nazi==

The claim that G. W. Bush "was called a supporter of the Nazi regime" on his wikipedia page is very believable, but could someone find a reference proving it? [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

== Is #150 really relevant? (The criticism of GWB/BHO) ==

Looking back at the history of the "Presidency of George W. Bush" article, the Criticism section was not added to the article until July 5th, 2006. If Wikipedia had a liberal bias wouldn't they have added that much sooner? BHO has been in power for less then two months, not enough time to form a valid criticism of his presidency as a whole.

:I'm sorry - and you are?
::20:34, March 9, 2009 Dparker (Talk | contribs | block) New user ‎
::20:44, March 9, 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia‎ (→Is #150 really relavent? (The criticism of GWB/BHO): new section)
:Do you have any interest here other than this issue?
:Anyway, to answer your question, the articles are not simply about criticism of the men as they acted as president. They are about them in general. B.O. has been around quite a while before January 20, 2009. Was there no criticism of him before that date? Has there been no criticism of him after it? And what, pray tell, defines criticism as "valid" or not and what is the official figure for how much time must pass for the criticism to be worthy of Wikipedia? I mean, is criticism of George W. Bush's personality - his ''personality'' for crying out loud! - valid? This is a ridiculous line from the ridiculous WP article:
:<blockquote>"Raised in West Texas, Bush's accent, vacations on his Texas ranch, and penchant for country metaphors contribute to his folksy, American cowboy image, which occasionally served as fodder for criticism."</blockquote>
:Oh, my dear Lord in Heaven, NOOOOOO!!!! His accent! His ranch! His metaphors! Why did we ever let such a man be president with all these valid criticisms?! Chimpeachment!
:Okay, I freely admit that was gratuitous sarcasm, but it sure felt good.
:Bottom line: the excuses people are putting forth to excuse the blatant B.O. worship and kowtowing on WP are lame and don't hold water. I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:28, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

The WP articles are referenced in the "example of bias" are "Presidency of" articles, not general articles. You would know if you read them. But I guess reading an article on a site with a "liberal bias" is a lot to expect from someone here. Laying the sarcasm so thick isn't helping your argument either. If you think that line is so ridiculous then you've obviously blocked out the last eight years from your memory, not to mention that his attitude is probably the weakest criticism anyone has of GWB. Also, it should be mentioned that if that page on WP is ridiculous, then how do you describe this: [[Religion of Barack Obama]]. The rabbit hole of crazy goes really deep here.

: Your unsigned comment is incoherent. But in answer to your question, it is biased to point of absurdity to criticize Bush for his "accent" and his "ranch". Do you see similar criticisms of Obama and Ted Kennedy on Wikipedia???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Gothic architecture ==

I am confused by the entry. It is maybe linked to the wrong wikipedia article? Because right now anyway, the article "Gothic Architecture" has its whole 3rd paragraph, out of 5 in the introduction section, about churches and cathedrals. And after that, there is the section "Religious influences" which is talking about christian monastary orders. Then it does mention moslems but only to say that their architecture had pointed arches, and i agree this is bias because there is no reason to think christians did not invent pointed arches themselves, but i still think that the entry bullet point makes little sense. The article mentions christianty in the third paragraph, after maybe 100 words not 1 500. It credits Christianity first and not moslems. It mentions christians many times through out, not "never mentioning christianity again." I am not saying it is unbiased but what we say about it is incorrect in fact. And it is strange to open with this, too. The list should start with the worst, like the black-list on intelligent design and climate sceptics, the celebirty gossip, and then on. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 00:24, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

:I agree that this article is a poor example of bias. The article says that "Gothic architecture is most familiar as the architecture of many of the great cathedrals, abbeys and parish churches of Europe," in the first sentence of the third paragraph. These are definitely Christian buildings, not Muslim. If a specific mention of Christianity is necessary, the article mentions the Cistercians by name after 1,097 words (1,280 words if you include the table contents), which is well earlier than the claim of 1,500 words and also before any mention of Islam. Unless somebody can show [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture Wikipedia's article on Gothic architecture] to be biased, I am going to delete this entry in the list of biases. [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 22:28, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

::Wikipedia bias includes a refusal to credit ''Christianity''. This is an example of that. There are many other examples also. When Wikipedia gives credit where it is due with respect to Christianity, then this entry can be updated. That hasn't happened yet at Wikipedia, and probably never will.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:39, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

:::How, exactly, does the Wikipedia article not credit Christianity? The points made in the entry are untrue: Christianity is mentioned before Islam, Christianity is mentioned well before 1500 words, and the article frequently references churches, cathedrals, and other distinctly Christian structures. The article may be biased, or it may not be, but the facts currently presented in the bullet point are not true. If you want to show that Wikipedia's article on Gothic Architecture is biased, you'll need supporting evidence that is factually correct. Maybe an older version of the article was biased?[[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 11:26, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

== Drudge Bias ==

I don't have the time now but will somebody compare (and post a summary of) the existing Wikipedia DRUDGE REPORT and MATT DRUDGE entries with the existing Wikipedia entries for BILL MAHER, ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, and KEITH OLBERMANN? You will see that the DR and Matt Drudge, '''news aggregators,''' are cited in the first sentence as "conservative" while no such labels are applied to the latter '''pundits''' in even the first paragraph. Instead, they are buried well down the page or omitted entirely. In fact, it was the case recently that none were objectively called liberals but instead made use of sleight of hand, e.g., saying they had been critical of certain right-wingers at certain times, but not mentioning that they were proudly liberal. Good example of Wiki bias, in my estimation.

: You're right. Thanks for your insight. Please add a point about this, or I will if you don't get around to it. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

Personally, whilst I don't disagree as such with your observations, there is still an element of bias in them as well. You have cited just 3 'liberal' examples against 2 'conservative' examples. Who's to say there aren't others on each side which in fact show the opposite to what these do. It seems highly selective to select these few for comparison. The Michael Moore article for example does state in the opening that he is a 'liberal', so basically I think you would have to see how wide ranging this is before calling it bias. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 18:59, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

: You're right that we cannot make sweeping generalizations from a handful of articles, but that was never my intention. My point was that '''at this point in time and on each of those articles,''' there was resistance to "equalizing" the labels so that they were applied to all or none. The most dedicated editors made sure to protect accusations of conservatism while preventing--EVEN BANNING--those who suggested the others were liberal. Additionally, Matt Drudge is a '''news aggregator''' who has claimed to be libertarian, and he gets the 'conservative' label even while '''pundits''' who are proud and open of their liberalism get to play shy about it? And until recently, the Drudge Report was labeled while its openly liberal challenger, The Drudge Retort, was described as merely "left-leaning." In summary, I don't mean to make broad claims from narrow examples, just to acknowledge that those examples are there. Added together, hundreds or thousands of examples can suggest, if nothing else, an important trend. [[User:Iamchipdouglas|Iamchipdouglas]] 21:21, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

== Organizing instances in order of severity? ==

While I don't really agree with the comment about "Gothic Architecture" above, the author may have a point: would it be better to list the most egregious examples of bias first? Perhaps have a section for the most blatant instances of bias, and then a section for other instances? It just seems like good common sense to present the strongest arguments first. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:00, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

Dear Conservapedia editors

Firstly, I would like to disclose that I am a regular Wikipedia editor. I wanted to thank this site for this particular article. I regularly review it for errors Wikipedia might have missed, and whilst I don't agree that every complaint raised in this article is valid, a reasonable number have proven to be correct. This site, and I wish to stress I don't agree with a lot of it, does serve as a watchdog which many Wikipedia editors value for its investigations, and helps to keep us on our toes. Thanks again. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 14:52, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

:Thank you! No place is immune from the benefits of "outside" eyes, offering suggestions or solutions. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:57, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

== Thank you as well! ==

:Thank you as well! I am sure that a growing number of contributors to Wikipedia are beginning to rethink their alleged objectivity and purveyors of unfettered information in a quest for the unvarnished truth, as well as a genuine effort "to present all sides" in a so-called fair manner, especially when "fairness" is tangible and wholly subjective in a multitude of cases. Their editorial staff once seemed to be the paragon of inclusion; now, an increasingly harsh tone of what cannot but be considered pious liberal subterfuge seems to confront the participant. Indeed, the forbearance manifested by the editors of Conservapedia - apparently from editors secure in their own intellect and the resilience of their faith - is a most nonthreatening and refreshing antithesis to those of us who have been savaged by an ever-noxious and insipid constriction of the truth or, as said, objectivity of the presentation. What one unfortunately faces on WP is a sort of editorial goon squad set about to investigate the alleged self-serving proprieties of them who deign to taint their presuppositions--tragic denial of their quest for greater information. I see in the current socio-religious (and socio-political) culture wars which currently afflict this nation a most disturbing phenomenon played out in the generation of information made available to the masses through the internet: The war of words and information waged between what appears to be an encroaching governmental superiority vs. the rights of man. If we are not careful, that which we feared the most shall come upon us--God help us all if the truth that sets us free is submerged in the blather of the self-righteous platitudes of so-called progressives whose purposeful and/or inadvertent desire is to manifest their disdain of any and all absolutes (especially those which the faithful project) - and in so doing, descend to a most horrible absolute wherein truth becomes fiction and fiction becomes the truth. The matter astounds - they who profess such indignity toward personal aggrandizement are countered (thankfully) by the accused who embrace their absolutes with calm and persistent expression of unfettered information which irritates the so-called guardians of information. Keep up the good work! [[User:Kriegerdwm|Kriegerdwm]] 00:13, 29 March 2009 (EDT)kriegerdwm[[User:Kriegerdwm|Kriegerdwm]] 00:13, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

== Update regarding the "Controversies and criticism" section at Wikipedia's Presidency of George W. Bush article ==

Regarding current example 153: "Wikipedia clearly adds a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"... but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"".

After consensus was reached on Wikipedia that this section on George W. Bush was not appropriate, it has now been removed. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 14:10, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

:The word "criticism" or "critics" appears 24 times in the George W. Bush article. It only appears twice in the article on Obama, one referring to his criticism of others. So they can reshuffle the page all they want, but it's the content that matters.--[[User:FredCorps|FredCorps]] 14:15, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

==Why do they do it?==

Let's turn this article into a table with two columns: next to each example should be the '''reason''' Wikipedia presents the information the way they do. For example, is it policy, or just the current editorial consensus? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:29, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

==Cassie Bernall==

Number 11, as it stands, is simply not true. The Wikipedia page currently echoes what is written on the truthorfiction site: "Emily Wyant, who had been sitting with Bernall in the library as the shootings began, asserted that the exchange did not take place. Wyant stated that she and Bernall were studying together when the gunmen broke in. According to her account Bernall exclaimed, "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home." Wyant described how Eric Harris suddenly slammed his hand onto the table top and yelled "Peek-a-boo!" before fatally shooting Cassie Bernall." This is exactly what is described at the truthorfiction site. In fact, the Wikipedia article has been accurate about this since at least 2006, ''before'' the Conservapedia article was amended to include this example of supposed "bias." It should be removed. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 12:47, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:Please quote the sentence in Number 11 which you feel is not true. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

::"Wikipedia's entry about the Christian martyr at Columbine refuses to admit that she was murdered by an atheist as she was expressing her faith in God, as confirmed by multiple witnesses."--Actually, the Wikipedia article acknowledges that Cassie was praying, "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home," before Eric Harris shot her. This is what the link cited as a reference also claims. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 12:59, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:::So you are saying that Wikipedia '''does''' admit she was murdered by an atheist? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:03, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

::::Is Wikipedia's failure to note Eric Harris's atheism what is considered "biased"? If so, I guess 11 should stand. The sentence makes it sound like Wikipedia didn't note that Bernall was praying when she was shot (which it does). In any case, the truthorfiction site linked doesn't note Harris as an atheist, either. I'm sure he was but I don't have a link off-hand for it--I'll try to find one later. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 13:15, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

== Negative Words ==

While alot of this article is valid, alot of negative words are using. This simply makes the facts come across as angry attacks at wikipedia. Words like "vulger", "frivolous" and "blatant" aren't neccessary and make this wikipedia look very unprofessional. If anybody has any concern with the removal of these words, let me know. --[[User:Carceous|Carceous]] 08:00, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

===Racistpedia===
I checked the link, and a good majority of the search results are from book titles, song/album names, direct quotes, and other such media. In the first 50 results, only 8 instances can be justified as being frivolous--not in the form of a proper noun or direct quotes. [[User:JonathanG|JonG]][[User_talk:JonathanG|Tennisu no Boifriendo]] 21:40, 27 June 2009 (EDT)
:I concur. Wikipedia isn't perfect, and I hope my posts have demonstrated that is my view, but most of the results are legitimate. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 20:04, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

::These postings are incoherent. What are you referring to?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

::My sincere apologies for not replying earlier. #164 says "The scope and depth of racism prevalent on Wikipedia is despicable. Over a thousand pages that include the ethnic slur 'Nigger', many in the page title." What I, and I think JonG, was getting at, is that the results listed when you click the link at the end of #164, are mostly legitimate; i.e. the word "nigger" is used in the title for songs, books, even an island which have names with the word "nigger", and that makes those results legitimate because if that is their names then Wikipedia can't really call them anything else. Hope that clears things up. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 19:37, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

:::You make a valid point. But "mostly legitimate" is not all that reassuring. Also, I sense the liberal [[double standard]]: liberals often think it's OK for liberals to utter racist terms, but will savage any conservative who does. Surely no one denies the existence of that double standard, and surely no one defends it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:31, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

::::It's not just Wikipedia. [[Mark Twain]] was called a racist way back in the 1970s for using the word ''nigger'' nearly 1,000 times in [[Huckleberry Finn]]. It's just as much an anti-slavery novel as Stowe's [[Uncle Tom]], but some professor counted all the words and assumed that the more times the word is used, the more racist the author must be. I always ask liberals if they recall reading the part where Huck pretends to have been washed off the raft during a storm. His poignant realization that Jim cares more about him than his own father ever did, shows the reader that blacks are just as human as anyone else is. Surely, a novel teaching a lesson like that merits the use of authentic dialogue. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:58, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::Is it agreed then that this particular bullet point is not a legitimate complaint against Wikipedia? [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 21:57, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

== Cover up ==

Looks like Wikipedia is trying to hide up an embarrassing scandal it's involved in. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Blacketer_controversy] Check out how it has been nominated for deletion. Maybe this is significant enough for a front-page report? [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 09:26, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:This ref [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191474/Labour-councillor-David-Boothroyd-caught-altering-David-Camerons-Wikipedia-entry.html] says "Wikipedia appoints supposedly impartial and unpaid moderators to review and correct changes," about one member of its 15-strong international arbitration committee is a fraud. Plus, another ref [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10577178]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:09, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Messy ==

I removed a few lines of things that were off topic, such as the 'while wikipedia has a rainbow banner on the page regarding homosexuality it fails to list the related higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases'

I don't think mentioning that they have rainbow banners is relevant to anything, that is until I see a cult of conservatives who secretly love rainbows. This is highly unlikely.

== o3o ==

Well, it says that Wikipedia has a "smear of Conservapedia" and you guys are mad about this...so why not go on Wikipedia and edit it to what you want? After all, you don't need an account to edit Wikipedia, so it'd be quick and easy. [[User:KnightOfTheNight|KnightOfTheNight]]KnightOfTheNight

:Such edits would last a mere few minutes, if not mere seconds. Liberal, Conservapedia-hating editors would make sure of that (and they'd gang up to game the three-revert-rule to ensure their preferred viewpoint prevailed). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 20:49, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

==Concealing facts==

Can we make a list of facts which are well-referenced but deliberately omitted from Wikipedia articles, along with our best guess as to their motivation for concealing the fact? I daresay a list like that could even be maintained at Wikipedia, on some user subpage at least.

If we get enough cases together, we can rally some support to lobby for the inclusion of these omitted facts - if they are indeed being removed due to something like anti-religious bias.

Or can we start an article (here, of course) on such themes as [[scientists with a religious motivation]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:38, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

==a question==

People, if you think all these things in wikipedia are biased then why not just edit them with valid sources to support your edit? seems simple enough, and if wikipedia was as pro liberal as you claim then wouldnt the conservative page be alot more smeared? it seems factual to me, if established and proven facts conflict with your ideas of the articles' subject, find something valid that challenges whichever part you find conflicts with your views, otherwise accept that your view has been proven wrong for the time being, instead of calling it liberal bias. [[User:Euaaan|Euaaan]] 22:56, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:That "seems simple enough" to someone who doesn't understand the liberal mobocracy that runs Wikipedia. Many Wikipedians quickly revert the conservative truth. These Wikipedians view their role in life as censoring conservative insights and observations wherever possible.

:If you doubt it, then you can try to editing Wikipedia to fix any of the over 100 biased entries listed here. Watch how quickly it is reverted and/or distorted to conform to the liberal/atheistic mindset.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
::Well i would have to disagree with you there, a while back i edited the article on "elitism" to remove an image of barrack obama which was the flagship image of the entire article, it had been there for quite a while, atleast a month if i remember right. Anyway, most of the time i have seen conservative viewpoints removed from wiki is because they are just that: viewpoints, not properly cited. I'm sure there are examples of liberal bias on wikipedia, but my example just goes to show there are also conservative ones, its not just one sided.[[User:Euaaan|Euaaan]] 23:43, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Debate:Is homosexuality responsible for totalitarianism?

2009-10-03T03:19:42Z

Euaaan:

{{debate}}

==Yes==
Apparently, if we look at the [[Soviet Union]], [[Nazi Germany]] (the Nazis didn't fully persecute gays, see [[Homosexuality in Nazi Germany]] and [[Homosexuals and the Holocaust]]), and the [[Roman Empire]], these two countries have homosexuality legal, but these countries lost their freedoms. Also, in [[Britain]], [[Canada]], and [[Sweden]], known to be gay friendly countries, people lost their freedom to criticize gays. --[[User:KStanley|KStanley]] 13:35, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
==No==
Most totalitarian societies have outlawed homosexuality, including Iran's current regime.

KStanley, the Nazis murdered gays, as well as Jews, Slavs, Romani, and the mentally challenged. Murder is murder, no matter the number killed. Canada, Sweden, and the UK, although they are indeed more gay-friendly, are immensely less totalitarian than Nazi Germany and Iran. --[[LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]
:Homosexuality itself does not logically equate to totalitarianism. The argument KStanley makes is irrelevant, "these two countries have homosexuality legal, but these countries lost their freedoms.", by that logic if Nazi Germany encouraged eating oranges then oranges are responsable for totalitarianism. [[User:Euaaan|Euaaan]] 23:19, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

User:Euaaan

2009-10-03T03:09:42Z

Euaaan:

Hello, I'm Euan, im agnostic and i'm considered a libertarian liberal, i'm quite possibly not very welcome here but please judge me on what i say and do rather than on my faith and what political ideology i support.

Yep, i made this account as i think to be trustworthy an encyclopedia needs to be objective, which im sorry to say in my opinion conservapedia is not, on the whole, so if i can i would like to help change that.

I study sociology and psychology at a high school level in college, cos i left school, joined the army and am now a civilian again. the full circle. :P

User:Euaaan

2009-10-03T03:02:00Z

Euaaan: Created page with 'Hello, I'm Euan, im agnostic and i'm considered a libertarian liberal, i'm quite possibly not very welcome here but please judge me on what i say and do rather than on my faith a...'

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2009-10-03T02:56:28Z

Euaaan: