Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:FellowChristian16

2009-05-13T23:39:04Z

FellowChristian16: retiring

#REDIRECT [[User:FellowChristian16]]

User:FellowChristian16

2009-05-13T23:38:21Z

FellowChristian16: I thought this might be more fair than wikipedia and on some things it is, but on others it's actually wrse than wikipedia, I am a conservative but I like to be able to express myself. Later.

Rules

2009-05-13T23:30:56Z

FellowChristian16: Undo revision 662745 by TK (Talk) rvt. again there should be an article here, if don't agree, do a vote

''This article is about rules in general, for the Rules of Conservapedia (Commandments), see [[Conservapedia:Commandments]].''

'''Rules''' are a set of [[Law|laws]] or [[Guideline|guidelines]] set forth to maintain fairness, order and safety at an event or in an area.

[[Category:Terms]]

User talk:RJJensen

2009-05-13T05:01:51Z

FellowChristian16: /* Upload */ re

[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:49, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for your fascinating addition to [[Barack Obama]] re: financing. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

== Welcome ==
Welcome indeed to CP! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:18, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::hey thanks! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

==China==
Chinese history would appear not to be your forte. How describing the fluctuating state of authority in the warlord period counts as 'red propaganda', I am at a loss to understand. Please don't cause damage to other Chinese history articles. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:03, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:: Ah but I am fairly familiar with 20c Chinese history. the article was full of Red propaganda (not that particular example)--which is bad for a conservative encyclopedia. for examples:
#the very title, and many of the pinyin terms, are the ones created in the 1950s by Communists in Beijing, and not used at the time or by the anti-communists in Taiwan.
#" However, Chiang was aided by the 'Guangxi Clique' of nationally-minded warlords; and the northern progress of the expedition was aided by carefully-timed popular uprisings planned by the CCP against local warlords."
#" Chiang again turned on the communists in the 'Shanghai Coup'. Aided by the police of the International Settlement and the French Concession in the city, and by gunmen of the influential 'Green Gang' criminal network, Chiang's troops and police rounded up and executed hundred of communists and trade unionists"
# "that to build a strong China it was necessary to defeat communism first, to an increasing number of Chinese his attitude appeared capitulationist and unpatriotic."
[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

All those are established facts, however unpalatable some of them may be. At Conservapedia we deal in truth, not propaganda. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:16, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

In addition, it is a very bad idea to build up Chiang as a conservative ideal type. He was - to put it mildly - an unsavoury and unscrupulous thug, who was portrayed as a democratic leader in the west for the sake of wartime unity, and wwas later loyal to the US as he had no choice but to be so. He was the very opposite of loyal at other stages of his career: vide his flirtation with [[Nazism]], and his cavalier treatment of General Stilwell. In terms of opersonal morality, well.... suffice to say that his avowal of Christianity was purely opportunistic; he presided over a regime of brutality and corruption that alienated all potential allies; he was the sort of man who actually made Communism look like a desirable alternative. How bad do you have to be to do that? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:22, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::- ::No, you have to read some of the history. I actually worked through the books in the bibliography. For example, who cliams " to an increasing number of Chinese his attitude appeared capitulationist and unpatriotic." (answer: the far left). The story of the Nanchang uprising ("carefully-timed popular uprisings planned" is from Communist folklore as told to Edgar Snow in "Red Star over China", a notorous far-left book. As for Chiang's character, it is NOT white washed here. He was a rough character and I do not call him democratic. As for Stillwell, I think Chiang and Chennault were mostly right and Stillwell mostly wrong. (My articles on Stillwell and Chennault are coming soon--they are now both at Citizensium--take a look also atmy CBI article there. I have read the major studies for China in the 1940s.). Corruption--alas that is the history of China for the last 150 years, continuously (for example, don't feed your baby on Chinese formula--or feed your cat with their stuff. That is 2008 corrpution.
:::I too know a bit about that period - the Americans backed a loser in Chiang; and the real blame for the fall of China to communism lies with him - not with Service or Lattimore or any of the other John Birch Society bugaboos. Chiang was a late era warlord who used the KMT as a personal vehicle, and whose corruption and nepotism ruined the infant republic. There were better warlords for the west to have dealt with - Yan Xishan at least would have kept his hands out of the till - or Li Zongren. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:42, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::::well everyone to his own warlord. Fact is Chiang came to power in 1920s and remained so to 1940 with zero American help. I think we agree the US policy to support China in order to defeat Japan was a fiasco (this was Stillwell's idea.) --More on this in my WW2 articles to come. I did not drop the conspiracy interpretation of the late 1940s which was in the article for a months or years.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:46, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::''well everyone to his own warlord'' hehe - I once attended a lecture by Jack Gray who was an ardent fan of Wu Peifu. I think his argument was that because he had no fixed territorial power base, this showed not that he had drawn the short straw geographically, but that it meant he was a truly 'national' leader rather than all those regionalist cliques, Zhang Zuolin in Manchuria, Feng in the north-west, etc. I thought it a dubious argument then and still do. But anyway... Chiang held power from the 20s to the 40s, but he certainly relied on Communist help both in 1925-27 (and he was plotted against as much as plotting, I have no doubt), and at the Xian incident. If the Young Marshal had had him put up against a wall, and seized power for himself, rather than bottling it.... [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::the happy fact (not yet in the article) is that he created a regime on Taiwan with far less corruption and it historically led to a pro-US nation with capitalism and democracy. As for Christianity, the issue was active persecution of the missionaries. Chiang's highly public conversion helped change the status of Christians and reduced the persecution they sufferedin 1930s. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:54, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

== Latino ==

Could we please talk about it before reverting? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:32, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
::Yes indeed--I have explained my edits. I fixed a several little grammar issues, enlarged the map to make it legible, expanded the caption. We don't want to illustrate a U.S. article with a Mexican coach in Spain. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:35, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

::: The image shows a latino, beening in the US or not he is a latino; it is illustrating the very first part of the article. It also shows that not all latinos are illegals or land workers. This is enough to have a place there. The map is much better where it was before according to the subject. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:43, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::get a better image. This person is a Mexican living in Spain. The map was to small to figure out. The article makes it very clear that only a minority of latinos are illegal[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:45, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

We use to lock the articles while in the Main Page. If you need to edit it, please let me know. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:00, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
::OK, no problem. I won't be working on it for a while. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:06, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Warning ==

Please be more accurate in your edit summaries of "minor" edits. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 02:18, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
::sorry about that. I tried to change categories (Bryan was never a jurist) and the result was a bizarre edit I did not intend. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:40, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== Newton ==

Hi, your calculus section in the [[Isaac Newton]] article had some conceptual errors in it -- I've rewritten the mathematics of this section appropriately. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 04:17, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::very nice job--thanks! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:25, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==National Socialist German Workers Party==

Just to let you know, I'm not interested in getting into an edit war here, but the listing of the Allies led by the US, Russia and Britain is inaccurate. The term Allies (for WWII) applies to all the countries that opposed the Axis powers, and that list included 21 countries or blocs before the US joined in 1941. Obviously the effort of the Allies had to be co-ordinated in the years between 1939-41 so the question of who led the Allies during WWII is, at best, not something that can be easily dispensed with a single sentence. Furthermore, saying that Russia was an member of the Allies is inaccurate, it was the USSR which was a member of the Allies, of which Russia was a part (an equivalent example would be if the sentence had read that .....by the Allies, led by Texas, Russia and Britain).

As a compromise I suggest: ......and was finally destroyed in [[World War II]] by the Allies, the major powers of which were the United States who led the Allied forces in Europe from 1941, the USSR (more commonly known as the Soviet Union) and Britain. [[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 22:03, 3/Nov/08 (GMT)
::the US joined the fighting in 1941 but had already been financing the war for both Britain and USSR, and was providing much of the munitions. Leadership also consists in setting strategy and policy which the US did--maybe 95% in the case of the war against Japan, 75% against Italy and say 40% in the case of Europe. As for the Soviets, they were Hitler's allies until June of 1941. You are right that USSR/Soviet is a better term than Russia. The debate should be on the article talk page, not here. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:42, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Copied the debate over to the talk page.

== ''Germania'' ==

I loved to read your article on the German Americans. Thanks for posting it! --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:49, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::hey thanks! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:53, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Roosevelt ==

Why are you deleting sourced material from this article? Remember that the removal of relevant, sourced material from Conservapedia is considered vandalism. Please do not try to insert your own [[opinion]] into articles by censoring [[facts]]. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]] 14:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)
::the article is supposed to be about FDR and introducing red herrings hurts students. CZ rules clearly state: "Please note that all contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here." [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:18, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==[[Holocaust]] article==
The additions you placed in there now make that article repetative; things are said twice. It needs to be fixed so it runs smoothly. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:57, 10 November 2008 (EST)
::you're right and I will try to smooth it out. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:59, 10 November 2008 (EST)

== Category Military history ==

Thank you for your work on the project. When we create categories we use capitalization so the category should be Military History. I would also recommend that if you do feel that category is important, that it covers a specifically defined area. Perhaps it should probably deal with overlying changes in tactics or doctrine that has guided military functioning that has had a profound impact. I would not use it for things like Wars or Battles which already have their own categories.

Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:32, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::thanks for the tip. I think the demand for article on military history is enormous--look at the very heavy emphasis at Borders and Barnes and Noble, for example. My college courses on military history attracted far more students than other history topics. Of course a specific topic may well overlap several categories. People will want to use our category pages as an index to what is available here. Discussions of tactics, strategy, technology and doctrine, for example, are often included in articles on specific wars. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:41, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== First Black President ==

Hello, please do not censor correct information in the [[First Black president]] article. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 10:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::what information was correct? it did not check out. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:04, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I notice you are a controversial editor who has never geneflected before Mr. Schlafly, and neither have you praised his wisdom and judgement in his fascinating revelation that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim. Are you a Muslim sir? [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 22:57, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::well actually more of a Catholic (a graduate of Notre Dame University class of 1962).[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:01, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Are you more like Barack Obama, a [[Liberal]] who lies about his religion, and then subverts the office of the United States, and then deceives the American people and then institutes an Islamic Caliphate, giving control of our nuclear arsenal to Iran and Bin Laden? If this is what you are, then we are better off without you. [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 23:05, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::well no--but I was hoping Biden would be president--as a Catholic he will bring the Pope over to straighten us all aout. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:12, 20 November 2008 (EST)

I would rather the pope as my slavemaster than Bin Laden! Obama will, any day now I'm sure, give the nuclear launch codes to all of our enemies - Bin Laden, Iran, Satan, Green Goblin, France - and introduce an Islamic Caliphate to our great and glorious nation! Heel before the almighty Schlafly, only his logic and truth can save the world from the dark precipice it has gotten itself under! Only the bright and free can be saved! [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 23:16, 20 November 2008 (EST)

==English and UK categories==

Question for you at [[Talk:William the Conqueror]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:26, 21 November 2008 (EST)

*Thanks for meeting me there, and now a question on ...

==World War II fatalities==

Thank for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Japan&curid=11154&diff=564889&oldid=555832&rcid=615850 this addition]. I had simply assumed that every Japanes soldier who died in WWII was directly killed by the US and its allies. Except maybe an insignificant number of accidents - oh, and the suicidal heroics of the [[Kamikaze]].

If a soldier dies from starvation, I'd lay that death at the feet of the man who sent him out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:01, 21 November 2008 (EST)
::I was also surprised at the numbers. I knew about the starvation on the isolated Pacific islands but was surprised at China numbers. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:10, 21 November 2008 (EST)

== Shays' Rebellion ==

I wander why the ''Block quote'' was deleted? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:19, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::it was too vague and did not add information to what was already covered regarding the impact of Shays' on the government. It took a left-wing approach that did not help any. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== The so-called Progressive Era? ==

*Sorry for removing a category you only created today, but CP likes to not make stand-alone narrow cats. Somehow we need an over-arching category to easily facilitate searches, and not just one per person. It might be easier to discuss adding categories somewhere, rather than just doing it.....or at least leaving a trail of bread crumbs for the less historically blessed to follow! :-D --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:57, 30 November 2008 (EST)
::I agree. We need a page on CP where technical issues can be discussed and conventions established. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:14, 1 December 2008 (EST)

== Additional privileges ==

Congratulations, you've earned the additional privileges of 24-hour editing, uploading images, and blocking others. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::hey thanks--I appreciate that! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:55, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::Congrats. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:01, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::::Congratulations from me too. Well deserved! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:41, 2 December 2008 (EST)

==Oz pic==
Just uploaded it for the article: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Woz_movie.jpg] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:12, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::thanks--the visuals are great. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:21, 5 December 2008 (EST)

== [[Barry Goldwater]] ==

I see some recent stretching to include people like Goldwater as libertarians. You are too good a historian to muddle the waters with throw-away lines such as "many of his later views were libertarian". Yes? So? Many of his views would, today, be considered near leftist as well. ''Historians need to resist revisionism''. In his time, by his own definition, Goldwater rejected libertarianism, and self-branded himself a conservative. Goldwater did not believe in abortion as a substitute for abstaining or birth control, nor did he support "abortion on demand". Many views held by even Ted Kennedy could be considered "conservative", but that hardly gives license to brand him one, or make the statement "some of his views are conservative", that would be misleading, IMO. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 16:55, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:well I knew Goldater personally since 1958 and followed his career very closely. After 1980 or so he was libertarian on most social issues, while remaining conservative on defense and spending issues. In his heyday as a conservative leader (1960-64) he rarely mentioned social issues and they were seldom on the agenda. Here is what Bill Buckley said of Goldwater:
<blockquote>
''Conspicuous here was his defense of Supreme Court decisions involving abortion, gay rights, and the separation of church and state. Most followers of the senator were surprised, and abashed, especially at his defense of abortion.''[http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200412101327.asp from National RreviewDec10, 2004]</blockquote>
[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)

::*Ditto for me. My family were neighbors at the Balboa Bay Club in Newport Beach, CA, for several decades. But this is straw snatching, trying to paint the man as a libertarian, by a few high-profile pronouncements later in life, to somehow add cred to the libertarian cause. Find your own hero's, but kindly do not snatch our conservative ones! I do not disagree with showing, with cites, his later libertarian views (many of which I agreed with), but putting him, and others, with the help of another libertarian editor, into the libertarian category, and implying some "conversion" isn't being honest. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:19, 5 December 2008 (EST)
::Conversion? well, I think Barry was always a libertarian but only became outspoken about it in the 1980s when social issues got high on the political agenda. When he was a leader of the conservative movement (1958-64) he rarely mentioned social issues of any kind--he never mentioned abortion, for example. (he did mention gays in 1964 in the Walter Jenkins scandal--a top LBJ aide was arrested during the election campaign-- but did not condemn it.) His libertarianism after 1980 was not a "few" statements it was his high profile fight to get O'Connor on the Supreme Court. He was at that time a very powerful Senator and his views are quite important. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:42, 5 December 2008 (EST)

::*We mostly agree. Just please don't go adding him to the libertarian category, or make it seem he was not a conservative. We are obviously near-contemporary, and no doubt share the acquaintanceship/friendship of many, it seems. However to use your friendship and personal assumptions as to what he was, absent of his repudiating being a conservative, is wrong and purely anecdotal. That is my only objection. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:48, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:::I'm glad we agree. I was not the one who added the libertarian category. But he publicly announced his positions and angered a lot of Arizona conservatives by so doing. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:52, 5 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I well remember! We should have a libation one day and swap old stories. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:58, 5 December 2008 (EST)
::::::I'll drink to that. I left Arizona this summer and we moved to Montana, but there's a bar and a casino on every corner here. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)

== [[French Revolution]] ==
Hey, I noticed you're doing a bit of work around this area, and as you seem to be the resident historian, I thought I'd volunteer my services here, so you're free to do other area's that need some touching up or expanding. If there's any articles or stubs in the French Revolution section that need to be fixed, just let me know. Thanks [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 21:54, 8 December 2008 (EST)
::GREAT! we can use short articles on the major players and events. Suggestion use the facts from the online Columbia Encyclopedia at [http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch?FILTER=col65&query=French+Revolution&x=0&y=0 Columbia Enyc srticles on French Rev.] -- it's very good. Be sure to summarize & rewrite the facts, not quote exactly. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:02, 8 December 2008 (EST)

:::OK I'll get right onto it. Thanks for the suggestion! [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:05, 8 December 2008 (EST)

==Medieval Cats==
As the person who has probably edited more articles on medieval history in the last few months than all other editors put together (including six pages in the last hour or two, if I had been told that there was a new category for "Medieval history" I could have saved you a heckova lotta work.:) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:56, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::you're doing a great job and I've been trying to clean up all sorts of categories. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:58, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::But are there any others I should know about? You see, on the 22nd I changed the cats of about 2 dozen English/British history entries. This new one could have been done at the same time. (And - just to let ''you'' know: I am thinking of starting a cat (sub-cat, whatever) for the "Wars of the Roses"....)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:16, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::what I did was go though all the articles in Category:European History and change the specific ones to specific countries, or eras. That cleans up European History and makes the other sub categories more useful. yes' War of Roses" car would be good idea [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:44, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Invitation to join Wikiproject:News ==

RJJensen, since you have contributed a wanted page in the past, you are invited to [[Wikiproject:News#Members|sign up]] as a member of [[Wikiproject:News]]. <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Guidelines|Review]]</nowiki> the Guidelines. Make your news suggestions <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|here]]</nowiki>. Add wanted pages [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted_page#Wanted_Pages_for_.22In_the_news.22_section_-_To_be_created|here]]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:04, 28 December 2008 (EST)
::thanks for the invite; i just signed up. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:07, 28 December 2008 (EST)

==Dutch History==
RJ (if I may call you that), I see that you have replaced the material on Dutch fascism in the 1930s. I'm pleased that this was done under a separate heading, but I am still concerned that this gives a misleading impression of Dutch politics at the time (an analogy might be an assessment of American politics in the 1930s which only mentioned Charles Coughlin and the German 'Bund'). Would it be possible for you to give an overview of mainstream Dutch politics at this time, as even the NSB was a fringe organisation. As it stands, the article presents the Netherlands as a quasi-fascist nation. As the grandson of a Dutch patriot active in the resistance in the war years, this is extremely hurtful. I also altered the reference to liberation by Canadian troops to one recognising the role of all the allied forces - including my father, in the British Army. Thank you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:50, 31 December 2008 (EST)
::Thanks for the note. My intention all along is to emphasize the fascists were a fringe group. I'll rework it again to make that clear and give more emphasis to what the main parties were up to (following the Kossman book).[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:48, 31 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thank you very much. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:37, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Happy New Year! ==

{{cquote|'''Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right!'''--Oprah Winfrey}}
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 23:24, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Congratulations! ==

Congratulations on your promotion to Sysop (Admin) status! This gives you many new privileges. Well deserved!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:42, 31 December 2008 (EST)

:Indeed! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 00:12, 1 January 2009 (EST)
Congrats RJJensen. I look forward to working with you this year. Now you can protect all the great images you upload. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:31, 1 January 2009 (EST)
::hey THANKS EVERYBODY--I promise that 2009 will be better than 2008. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 04:10, 1 January 2009 (EST)
:::Well done RJJensen, you have been a prodigious contributor here and the promotion is deserved. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:47, 1 January 2009 (EST)
::::and many congratulations (and happy new year!) from me too. I look forward to working even closer with you this year. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 06:23, 1 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Congratulations! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:05, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Congrats and Happy New year! [[User:AddisonDM]]

::::: Happy New Year!

:::::: Congratulations on your promotion! --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:13, 4 January 2009 (EST)

==Tuskegee==
They were real. Can I suggest an undelete minus the parody?--Jpatt 20:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::they were indeed real. They did not fight the Japanese. Booker T Washington died many years before. The article has to be redone from start, since all the "facts" in this version are now suspect. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:57, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::: Following Jpatt's suggestion, I wrote a new article. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:49, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::::Looks fantastic--Jpatt 23:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)
:::::thanks :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:53, 5 January 2009 (EST)

==US Civil War==

Thanks for your massive additions (like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=American_Civil_War_homefront&curid=84224&diff=603647&oldid=603640 this one]). How do you find the time to do so much writing? --
::hey THANKS. It's retirement --I used to spend all that good time in committees. Now I just write. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:55, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Protecting images ==

I protected a number of images you uploaded (Image:Sherman2.jpg, Image:Weyrich.jpg, Image:1900HA.jpg, Image:~HANNA96.jpg). Please remember our policy of protecting all images. Thanks for your contributions to Conservpedia. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:42, 9 January 2009 (EST)
::thanks--I'll keep protecting them. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:19, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::: Thanks much for your insights. I've learned tremendously from them. However, as Dean says, it would be great if you could click "protect" at the bottom after you upload a new image, and then click on "Administrators Only" to give them the greatest protection. I just did that for your two most recent uploads. Thanks again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== Third Party v Third Party System ==

Your opinion is sought! [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Third_Party_System#Merge.3F] --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:01, 13 January 2009 (EST)

== Democratic Governors category ==
There is already a [[:Category:Democrat Governors]]. If you are planning a move from that category to the new one, then please disregard this message. Otherwise, I wanted to catch you before you got halfway through. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 20:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
::OK --it was my mistake (I have been trying to repair lost edits from the last week). [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:56, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::Yeah, me too. I lost about 300 edits, including the lists of governors you were kind enough to add bibliologs to. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 11:36, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Blago ==

I understand what your thinking is, RJ, but in this case you are too idealogical, and giving the liberals far too much credit. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:52, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::when we make serious allegations they have to be based on serious evidence or we are guilty of bearing false witness. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:50, 30 January 2009 (EST)

:::No,we are using plain old conservative common sense, RJ. The legislature didn't have evidence of anything, and until the United States Attorney presents his case in a Federal Court, and a jury convicts him, the will of the people should never be overturned by some legislature, based solely upon some contrived "disability" of being unpopular, having low poll numbers. If you don't want to cooperate, and accept the ruling of a senior administrator, so be it. But Mr. Schlafly has made his position crystal clear on this. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:14, 30 January 2009 (EST)
::::The rule throughout American history is that the legislature can impeach the executive for any reason. Conviction for crime is not necessary. What is the "will of the people"? The Founding Fathers were pretty clear that the will of the people resided in the legislature. My discussion with Schlafly was on an different issue; it had to do with the powers of the state supreme court to intervene (that is a moot question since it did not intervene).

== Economic Recovery Advisory Board ==

Is this an article you want to tackle, or perhaps have research or ancillary information on? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 03:51, 7 February 2009 (EST)

:good idea. I just wrote [[Economic Recovery Advisory Board]]. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:50, 13 February 2009 (EST)

::Super! And I was just being nice making sure you could log in, never thinking once about this article I knew was needed....;-) Glad it worked out. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:27, 13 February 2009 (EST)

==Velikovsky==
Richard, I left a question for you on the [[Talk:Immanuel_Velikovsky|Velikovsky talk page]], regarding category tags. --[[User:Eric2009|Eric2009]] 08:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:I left another comment regarding yours, on the [[Talk:Immanuel_Velikovsky|Velikovsky talk page]], --[[User:Eric2009|Eric2009]] 12:25, 14 February 2009 (EST)

== Your edits to [[Scopes trial]] ==

Dr. Jensen, your recent edits to the [[Scopes trial]] delete important information and introduce unjustified statements, like calling the [[atheist]] and stridently anti-Christian [[H.L. Mencken]] a "cultural conservative." We can discuss further on [[Talk:Scopes trial]] if you like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:40, 14 February 2009 (EST)
::Mencken is one of the most famous names in the history of American conservatism. He ignored the religious questions and ridiculed the backwoods types. That's true and important to know. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:42, 14 February 2009 (EST)

::: Mencken was one of worst anti-Christian bigots ever. It's indisputable and completely distorted his reporting on the Scopes trial. And it wasn't just Christians whom Mencken was bigoted against.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:01, 14 February 2009 (EST)
:::: all true enough but he was a cultural conservative and strongly influenced libertarian thinking against government--and many people's ridicule of the South. Bryan of course was the leading big government liberal of the 1890-1930 era, which made him Mencken's target.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:28, 14 February 2009 (EST)

This really should be discussed on the article's talk page, where I've just added my comments. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:15, 15 February 2009 (EST)

== Category: Naval Battles ==

I don't think that Horatio Nelson belongs in that category. He is an admiral, not a battle. [[User:DuncanB|Duncan]][[User talk:DuncanB|Channel 16]] 15:34, 16 February 2009 (EST)
::the article is what gets categorized, and the article talks about naval battles in an important way.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:35, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I am trying to figure out why Trafalgar didn't make it into [[:Category:Naval Battles]], at least not when I click on it.. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:36, 16 February 2009 (EST)
::well it certainly belongs! please add it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:37, 16 February 2009 (EST)
:::What I was getting at was that although you had changed the cat to "Naval Battles", for some reason it wasn't showing up on the Cat. page. I deleted it on the Article then added it and it has now come up. A mystery. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:49, 16 February 2009 (EST)
:;::good job! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:12, 16 February 2009 (EST)

==Vandalism patrol==

RJ, thanks for your recent efforts to block vandals and undo their damage. I don't know why some people enjoy messing up other people's work. Maybe they are intellectually lazy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:16, 17 February 2009 (EST)
::well at least we attact a better class of vandals than Wikipedia! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:28, 17 February 2009 (EST)

:::LOL, I think. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:09, 18 February 2009 (EST)

==Criminals and folk heroes==

What about that [[Che Guevera]] guy? Why is it that people who say they care about the poor and the oppressed lionize (idolize, idealize) murderers like Che? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:14, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Cartoon ==

That pork factory thingy is a nice cartoon, but I'm not sure about the "fair use". Wouldn't "fair use" be if we put the image in an article ''about the cartoon itself'', or in an article about a controversy caused by the image?

From the copyright office's website:

<blockquote>
“quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
</blockquote>

I'm worried this might get the site into hot water.

Sincerely,
[[User:EMaurice|EMaurice]] 11:24, 19 February 2009 (EST)
::no educational use has ever gotten into any legal hot water by using items like this that have been posted on the internet for free. CP uses the cartoon to comment upon a current news event, which is a legally protected form of fair use according to Congress. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:::I'm not sure that the fact that no-one has been prosecuted for it means it's legal. If we go down that road, we'll be just like the bums who get into debt and then ask the taxpayer to help them, claiming they didn't know what they were doing. And as for using the cartoon to comment, how is that under fair use? Fair use would be for commenting about the cartoon itself. Every big newspaper has a free online section. Would the Washington Post accept the Washington Times copying one of their cartoonists? Do you see what I mean? Thanks, [[User:EMaurice|EMaurice]] 11:46, 19 February 2009 (EST)
::::Congress says that fair use applies to nonprofit educational use, and the courts have always agreed. The Washington Times is a commercial operation and different rules apply to them. (The worst case scenario is that the copyright owner asks us to remove the cartoon, and we do so.) Conservatives need to uphold their legal and constutional rights or they lose them. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:37, 19 February 2009 (EST)

== Parodists ==
It would seem we have two users in need of a lengthy block, and you appear to be the only one present with block rights. See Ed Poor's talk page please! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:15, 21 February 2009 (EST)
::thanks for the heads-up. I'll be watching but so far I have not seen anthing more serious than a debate on chemistry. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:31, 21 February 2009 (EST)
:::The manganese edit was 100% wrong, so he's (KrisTree) a parodist. But everything which he's said about the other guy is actually pretty correct, and GFasten did indeed put up a stupid Bollywood video which was later reverted. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:34, 21 February 2009 (EST)
::::No the manganese edit was not 100% wrong (it is used in steel), and there is such a book as "Salters Chemistry". There may be errors but that is not the same as parody. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:37, 21 February 2009 (EST)

== The View From 1776...Tom Brewton ==

Presented for your inspection and consideration.....

* [http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/the_limitations_of_econometric_computer_models/ The Limitations of Econometric Computer Models]

* [http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/tooth_fairy_economics/ TOOTH FAIRY ECONOMICS]
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:42, 22 February 2009 (EST)
::Thanks-- I enjoyed reading that! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:51, 22 February 2009 (EST)

== Gibbs ==

Thank you, good Doctor! Whenever I read something where the basic, minimum essentials are missing, and people are already arguing over rather common political tricks, I see red. Thanks for jumping in, but let's not save the protagonists from having to do some due diligence as well, okay? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:39, 3 March 2009 (EST)
::right! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:13, 3 March 2009 (EST)

== CENTRISTS CONCERNED ==

[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/centrists_concerned/] It’s noteworthy that political moderates who supported President Obama in the election are worried that they may have been misled, that traditionalists’ forebodings may have been on the mark. Amazing! ;-) --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:31, 6 March 2009 (EST)
::thanks for the tip. I don't see a connection between Obama and the Social Gospel Movement myself, and the Socialists of 1910 (who included just ONE Social Gospeller, an obscure professor at Vassar) wanted to destroy the banks, not subsidize them. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:35, 6 March 2009 (EST)
:::Email Tom...he's a nice chap. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:43, 6 March 2009 (EST)

==Pearl Harbor edit==
Had to revert your edit to Pearl Harbor. The Air Force did not exist until 1947; prior to that it was the U.S. Army Air Corps. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:02, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
::the name was changed in 1941 -- before Pearl Harbor--to US Army Air Forces. There was no longer an "Air Corps". [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:48, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

== Can you add Obama's ignorant, disgusting joke to the front page news? ==

Joke here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXcgpZwsBPY]. Obama apologist Olbermann's desperate plea to comedian Craig Furgeson(sp?) to find an excuse - any excuse - to allow Obama to get away with the joke here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD0EcujFSn8]. Note that Craig immediately recognizes the joke for what it is and doesn't give the kind of answer Olbermann was hoping for. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:15, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

:On the [[Jay Leno]] show, Obama quipped that his bowling score of 129 was "like the [[Special Olympics]] or something". My question was whether he was putting himself down (i.e., being humble) in an innocent, lighthearted way - or whether (as his detractors are eager to say) he was making a derogatory reference to handicapped people. [[Craig Ferguson]] grimaced and called the reference "a misstep". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:43, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
:*I read later that he called up the Special Olympics and apologized - even before the show aired. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:22, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
:::That's called "damage control." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:38, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::::Beating him up for a slip like that is called A "[[personal attack]]". I would rather we contributors focus on principles and facts than on personalities. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:55, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

==Stimulus bill==

Thank you for continuing to work with me. My text moves are not to be taken as Editorial Prerogative. Feel free to reverse my edits when they don't make sense. What I want to do is collaborate, to work together to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:53, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
::Ed--thanks for your stimulus to my thinking! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:54, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

:::LOL, there's a [[Volvo]] radio ad I've heard dozens of times which talks about "stimulating your stimulus". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:58, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

==Featured article==
Congrats on getting a weekly featured article! The financial crisis.
[[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 11:22, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
::hey thanks! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:13, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

==A Glitch?==
This edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_Gresham_Machen&diff=644407&oldid=644405] looks like a glitch. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 12:07, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
::yes my "oops" (I was trying to move the reflist). Thanks for the good work--Machen has never looked so good in the last 70 years. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:22, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== World History Lectures ==

I really enjoy your contributions. In fact, reading them drove me to Conservapedia. Couldn't you do some fact-checking on the '''World History Lectures''' of Aschlafly? [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 15:56, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
::thanks for the nice words. I'll keep my eyes open. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:03, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Could you shed some light on [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:World_History_Lecture_Nine#Prussia_vs._Germany this discussion?] Thanks! [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 12:13, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
:::I suggest the best approach is to propose an improved sentence for the text. think positive. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:21, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

==Thanks==
I see you've been doing some really good work this past week, and thanks! We need more editing like that. Great job. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 23:03, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
::HEY--thanks! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:04, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

==Attribution==
Please endeavor to give proper attribution for the articles you are taking from Citizendium. A copy of our license is available on the front page of the site. Thank you. [[User:Citizendium|Citizendium]] 15:47, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

*'''He does, and was the original author of the items he has placed here.''' I was unaware, "Citizendium", you are a German encyclopedia, being that is where your ISP is located. Another fraud/troll bites the dust. Bye. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:57, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

==Historian?==

Are you really Richard Jensen? I read your midwest book when I was younger (If indeed you are) [[User:JamesFerguson|JamesFerguson]] 16:32, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
::yes. I wrote it when I was 24 years old. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:33, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

==Democrats and casual sex==

Jensen, I noticed that you deleted [[Democrats and casual sex|this article]], citing "inappropriate content". While I certainly find the actions of the Democrats to be inappropriate, I don't find the content of the article to be inappropriate. It was written without going into the lewd details of the online solicitations, but with enough evidence to incriminate the Democrats. Hard data doesn't lie: the Democratic convention had that spike in postings, while the RNC, which happened ''after'' and thus was under more scrutiny, did not have the spike in postings. It's a black and white testament to who actually lives family values, and therefore who has the family values in mind. Democrats may talk all they want about upholding morals, but their actions, ''especially'' those done in secret, tell a completely different story, one replete with [[duplicity]].

Furthermore, I'd argue precedent: this content has been listed in the articles on the [[2008 Democratic National Convention]] for some time. When I created the standalone article, I was pleasantly surprised to find the content had already been dutifully reported on CP. If you would, could you please restore the article? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 16:00, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::tens of thousands of people attend major conventions, so they all generate huge amounts of business. Not encyclopedic. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:19, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I agree with Jensen. Pot/Kettle? Given the sex scandals that have and continue to hit both parties, singling out one of them is not the best road to go down..... --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:31, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
:::tk is ok. We have lots of middle school kids and tehy shouldn't be wasting their time on this stuff when they can read about Henry VIII. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:11, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

== Kingdom of the Netherlands ==

Could you move [[Kingdom of the Netherlands]] to the [[Netherlands]]? (See [[Talk:The_Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands#The_Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands_is_not_the_Netherlands.21|here]]) Thanks, [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 13:24, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
::ok--good idea. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 14:04, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
:::Thanks again! [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:30, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

== Arguing only.... ==

This: [http://www.conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_Nine] is exactly what I was talking about. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:42, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

== Pilgrim's Progress ==

Hi - sorry to bother. When you edited [[Pilgrim's Progress]] earlier, did the images load ok? For some reason I am only seeing an empty frame, yet the code looks correct and I am about to pull my hair out figuring out what is wrong! --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 09:03, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
::the images did not load --probably because they are too big. I can resize them now if you want. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:12, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
:::I would really appreciate that! Thank you so much. (I know it is a physical impossibility, but it seems I too have blonde moments *grin*) --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 09:17, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
::::yes it works! (I made the map smaller) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:37, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
:::::Thank you again! That is one I owe you. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 09:49, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

== Fake Quotes ==
I will no longer use BrainyQuote.com, publishers of fake quotes. Thanks for the correction.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 11:05, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
::good idea. it's weird how so many quotes get faked these days. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:30, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

== Internet Vandals ==

Some of these anti-intellectual vandals and trolls were having some fun at your expense, Richard. If you've gotten wind of it, or hear of it at some point, pay it no mind. Mainly just a group of malcontented trolls who frequent several sites, and of course the usual gang of young teen vandals all too common to the Internet. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:28, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
::thanks--yes they do get under my skin :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:30, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Oh, BTW:
<blockquote>
Lending at the biggest U.S. banks has fallen more sharply than realized, despite government efforts to pump billions of dollars into the financial sector.

According to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Treasury Department data, the biggest recipients of taxpayer aid made or refinanced 23% less in new loans in February, the latest available data, than in October, the month the Treasury kicked off the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The total dollar amount of new loans declined in three of the four months the government has reported this data." [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124019360346233883.html#mod=rss_whats_news_us]
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:33, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
::thanks for the tip. I'll keep updating the article. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:42, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

== Great effort ==

Great effort cleaning up the vandalism this morning! You might observe that vandalism is almost perfectly correlated with products of the political left.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
::thanks. they are nettlesome gnats. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:54, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

== Redneck ==

Perhaps it would be more accurate to state it was historically a derogatory term, but that since the late 1950's it has been co-opted by the targets of the term, and in modern usage it isn't necessarily viewed as a negative? Think Jeff Foxworthy, etc. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:03, 30 April 2009 (EDT)
::good point! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:18, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Thanks, Richard! I remember that cartoon, too! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:45, 30 April 2009 (EDT)
::::It's one of my favorites. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:51, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

== [[Socialism]] ==

RJ, when you get a moment, could you look at [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Socialism#Grammatical_Edit_and_Rebuttal this?] The editor wants to add what he feels is a needed rebuttal to what he feels is something too pro-socialist...I don't see what he's getting at, but do want to accommodate him if possible. Since most of the work there is now yours, I am deferring to your judgment. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:12, 1 May 2009 (EDT)
::OK I worked on it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:09, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

== Lenin ==

Hey RJJensen, so, you're ''much'' better at history than I am, but I do feel compelled to ask about your moving of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin to Lenin (I put the full reasons on the talk page) - simply because I feel precedent would have us use his full name, but the reason I'm posting here is just to clarify that I in no way mean to question you and the request is in no way meant as an insult - I have a lot of respect for you and I just want to make sure there won't be a misunderstanding. Thanks!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:20, 2 May 2009 (EDT)
::thanks for the note--no offense taken and i'm glad you asked disguise his identity and so it should not be treated like ordinary names. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:42, 2 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Understood - thanks very much! --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:47, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

Lol, sorry about the misspelled name! I can't believe I did that ... in all seriousness though it really is awesome to work with you - so if you ever need a template or anything done, lemme know.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:25, 3 May 2009 (EDT)
::hey thanks--I'm a klutz at progamming and appreciate the help. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:31, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

== Quotes ==
Trying to determine if a quote is a fake. I tried Google, it comes up everywhere with blogs only. I tried Google books, about 5 come up. I would think credible historical sites would list if true. Can you confirm Thomas Jefferson "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:02, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
::I searched around and it appears to be a fake. All genuine Jefferson quotes are well represented in books.google.com [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:20, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

== "the best"? ==

What constitutes the best prose writer? I would imagine that it is impossible to say in a way that does not involve a whole lot of personal opinion, which as you know is not the kind of objective fact you would expect to find in an encyclopedia. From what I gather you yourself are not an Italian literature scholar, and even if you can read Italian extremely well and have read a good deal of Italian prose I really don't think you can say "he is the best", simply because, as I just said, its subjective. thanks --[[User:MrEmerson|MrEmerson]] 20:48, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
::objective fact---hmmm. what sort of facts are those? [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:13, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

:::I suspect liberal "facts", RJ. What is indisputeable is he wasn't a very good sockmaster! Brendanw, EmersonW, MrEmerson and several accounts that look like IP's were all his. Sorry to ruin your fun with this guy...I didn't see you had engaged him until after I had begun shutting him down. Next time I will let you have fun with them! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:23, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
::::yeah--my goal is to drive them away redfaced and yours is to catch them red-handed (red moused?) :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:30, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

ROFL! Whatever happened to the apparently archaic practice of playing outside? Worries me these little kids no longer play outside.... --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:33, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
::on Wikipedia I once was so annoyed by vandals that I complained to the school's principal in New Jersey. since they weren't harrassing HIM, he ignored my complaint. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:46, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Sherry Lansing, once in the motion picture business, has lived her business life by one rule: she never leaves the office without returning, or attempting to return ALL calls. No matter that she doesn't know the person, or they end up being someone complaining about a movie they saw. Once, at a charity deal, I asked her why. She winked and said several of those calls had made her millions in good ideas or a writer looking for someone to buy their script. She just hated the thought of being rude and not responding, saying her mother raised her better than that. Sounds like that principal is reaping what he sows. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:47, 8 May 2009 (EDT)

==Revert==
Please revert User:ForTheWin's edits (I would myself, but I can't revert past one edit :(

==Thanks==
Thanks for the nice comments on my page! I am very excited for Princeton in the fall. I'll also definitely look up Liz Jensen - aerospace engineering, wow, that's great! I am considering engineering also, with mechanical/aerospace engineering near the top of my list. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:56, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
::you might have Liz as your TA -- she loves to teach. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:04, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

== Upload ==

Can you give me upload picture rights?--  † [[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian]][[Special:Contributions/FellowChristian16|16]]  00:42, 13 May 2009 (EDT)
::I don't have the power; ask [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]].--[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:47, 13 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Just out of curiosity, would you give it to me if you could?--  † [[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian]][[Special:Contributions/FellowChristian16|16]]  01:01, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

User talk:RJJensen

2009-05-13T04:42:07Z

FellowChristian16: /* Upload */ new section

2009-02-08T02:17:12Z

FellowChristian16: add one

In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'', [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated that Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> The following is a growing list of examples of '''[[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], frivolous [[gossip]], and blatant errors on [[Wikipedia]]'''.
#The Wikipedia page for Republican Mark Kirk<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263357766</ref> made no mention of the widely-reported and significant fact that, as a Navy reservist, he is the first U.S. Representative since WWII to make an overseas deployment to an imminent danger area (Afghanistan).<ref>http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il10_kirk/Kirk_Completes_Reserve_Tour.html</ref> Instead, the Wikipedia page devotes an entire section titled "contributors" that attempts to smear Kirk with tenuous associations to controversial figures because of relatively small campaign donations. A grammatically-incorrect acknowledgment of Kirk's deployment eventually appeared.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263472629</ref> However, that entry attempts to make it sound like Kirk's deployment was only mentioned by his own web site. In reality, the deployment was covered by the national media. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/21733904/hill_hero.htm?pageid=67734</ref>
#Wikipedia smears [[conservative]] groups with prominent "Criticism and controversy" sections,<ref>See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Criticism_and_controversy</ref> usually featuring name-calling by obscure groups, but Wikipedia flatters [[liberal]] groups by downplaying what it euphemistically entitles as "Controversial stances."<ref>See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU#Controversial_stances</ref>
#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.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassie_Bernall</ref><ref>http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cassie.htm</ref> Wikipedia is dominated by atheistic [[public school]] students who would be particularly biased against this truth.
#Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] contains four unsupported smears in its very first sentence,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> and conceals from readers how Conservapedia offers free online courses for teenagers.<ref>See [[Conservapedia:Index]]</ref> The result of this bias by Wikipedia, which raises money as a charity, is the concealing and demonizing of a free learning resource that Wikipedia itself does not offer.
#Wikipedia's entry on the [[Scopes trial]] downplays the fact that Darrow cowardly reneged in his agreement to take the witness stand, and pled his client guilty in order to avoid it. Instead, Wikipedia deceptively claims that "Darrow asked the judge to bring in the jury '''only''' to have them come to a guilty verdict."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial (emphasis added)</ref><ref>Thanks much to a student in our [[American_History_Lectures|American History course]] for pointing this out.</ref>
#[[California]]'s Proposition 8 states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)</ref> does not mention that only those marriages are recognized under federal law anyway, and editors have removed any mention of the federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:California_Proposition_8_(2008)#DOMA</ref>
#The articles on both [[Saul Alinsky]] and his book, ''Rules for Radicals'' make no mention of his dedication to "the original radical—Lucifer."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky</ref>
#[[Augusto Pinochet]], who overthrew [[communism]] in [[Chile]] and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a "dictator" by [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet</ref> but [[Fidel Castro]], the communist dictator of [[Cuba]] for four decades, is instead called a "leader" or even a "president".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&oldid=235182888</ref>
# The founder of the Weather Channel and 100's of other climatologists have been removed from the category "Global warming skeptics", which Wikipedia decided to delete.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Coleman_(news_weathercaster)&diff=232272809&oldid=227980118</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_7#Global_warming_and_ozone_hole_skeptics_categories</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[Gardasil]], an [[HPV Vaccine]] promoted by [[liberals]] and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil</ref> (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 '''cause''' about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.<ref>See [[HPV Vaccine]]</ref>
# Wikipedia tries to smear [[conservatives]] as "conspiracy theorists," even when they are not, and yet omits that epithet for [[liberals]] who insist there are vast conspiracies, such as [[Hillary Clinton]]'s claim of a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Compare Wikipedia's entry on [[Phyllis Schlafly]], which repeats a false assertion that she "veers off into conspiracy theories,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly</ref> with Wikipedia's entry on Hillary Clinton, which provides her quote of a "vast" conspiracy yet refuses to describe her as a conspiracy theorist.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[liberal]] [[Michael Moore]], the biggest conspiracy theorist of all, does not even include any reference to the word "conspiracy"!<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the [[conservative]] [[Oklahoma]] legislator Sally Kern is seething with bias, unjustified smears and outright distortions.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Kern</ref> Wikipedia understates that over 1500 supporters rallied in support of her criticisms of the [[homosexual agenda]],<ref>http://newsok.com/article/3224704/1207238655</ref> and instead Wikipedia highlights predictable [[Hollywood Values|Hollywood]] criticisms of her stance. Wikipedia then smears her with false accusations about her family and emphasizes charges that were never brought against her. If that isn't enough, the Wikipedia entry even misrepresents a bill that Kern introduced to protect "a student's voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint"; Wikipedia relies on an anti-[[Christian]] blog to distort Kern's bill.
# The Wikipedia entry on [[baraminology]] (a form of taxonomy) describes it as "pseudoscience" and "unrelated to science" simply because it was devised by a creationist.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/baraminology</ref>
# If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296</reF>
# Wikipedia editors tried strenuously to come up with reasons to censor embarrassing stories about the [[liberal]] John Edwards,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Edwards</ref> despite frequently including smears against [[conservatives]].<ref>For example, Wikipedia ''does'' mention the [[liberal]] New York Times' poorly-researched allegations that John McCain had an affair [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign%2C_2008#Alleged_inappropriate_involvement_with_lobbyists] in spite of the fact that the NYT's own ombudsman said there was "no proof" the story was true.[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hiZBfIDZs3P-I5ERtItxUcQ8JwGw]</ref> Several sites have stories about Wikipedia's obvious liberal bias on this issue. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/28/wikipedia-disallows-any-mention-alleged-john-edwards-scandal</ref><ref>http://gawker.com/5029921/john-edwards-wikipedia-page-strangely-love-child+free</ref><ref>http://conservativepulse.com/home/2008/07/edwards-sex-scandal-still-hasnt-surfaced-in-the-mainstream-press/</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[Cold fusion]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Fusion</ref> presents it as a continuing controversy. [[Liberals]] hope that Cold Fusion will rescue us from our oil dependency without the need to drill for oil off our coasts. Cold Fusion experiments are actually widely discredited. Wikipedia also presents the widely-discredited <ref>http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan09/7127</ref> Hydrino theory <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randell_Mills</ref> as a possible energy source so that politically incorrect sources of power such as coal and nuclear fission seem less necessary.
# [[Liberals]] loathe self-defense, and [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the national self-defense system of the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] is seething with bias and outright falsehoods.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative</ref> Long passages are devoted to irrational criticisms of the programs, with inexplicable prominence given to criticisms by Hans Bethe, a European-raised scientist who later endorsed [[John Kerry]] for president. The entry even claims that SDI brought "the nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union to its most critical point!"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] biographies for conservatives such as [[Rush Limbaugh]] and [[Michelle Malkin]] are usually saddled with large sections titled “controversies”. These “controversies” are often nothing but quotes or complaints by fringe [[liberal]] elements, and Wikipedia advises against such sections, but its liberal editors ensure the biased used of such sections.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criticism&oldid=225325117</reF> However, the Wikipedia page for “Hanoi” Jane Fonda describes her obviously controversial propagandizing for the North Vietnamese government during the Vietnam War as “political activism” rather than “controversy”. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] promoted to good status, or GA, its smear entry about Conservapedia, in which Wikipedia claims that Conservapedia "has received much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia#cite_ref-Clarke_6-0</ref> When Conservapedia pointed out the lack of support (which violates stated Wikipedia policy) for this false smear of Conservapedia, Wikipedia simply replaced its prior cite with a new one that also failed to support its smear. After this was pointed out, [[Wikipedia]] simply changed its sentence to try to smear Conservapedia in another way.
#[[Wikipedia]] will give often great prominence to [[liberal]] criticism of someone, while almost never giving such prominence to [[conservative]] criticism of a [[liberal]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry for [[conservative]] [[Texas]] legislator Debbie Riddle is devoted mostly to [[liberal]] criticism of an obscure quote of hers.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Riddle</ref> But Wikipedia's entry for [[liberal]] [[Chuck Schumer]] consists of glowing praise without including any [[conservative]] criticism of him.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Schumer</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Barack Obama]] claims that he "was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a writing competition,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama</ref> when in fact the Harvard Law Review has long used racial quotas for admission.<ref>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=513672 (partially explaining the race-based selection system)</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[censorship]] omits any reference to [[liberal]] censorship of [[classroom prayer]], [[pro-life]] advertisements, [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses, or mentioning [[intelligent design]] in school.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship</ref> Instead, Wikipedia falsely claims that "especially [[Evangelical]]s" engage in censorship!
#[[Wikipedia]] falsely smears Conservapedia by claiming that it has "come under significant criticism for factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> In fact, such criticisms are rare or non-existent, and Wikipedia's former cite to a ''[[New York Times]]'' article for support actually criticizes [[Wikipedia]] because it "does dwell on the ''idea'' that 'others' have 'criticized and mocked the Conservapedia website for factual inaccuracy.'"<ref>http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/conservapedia-the-word-says-it-all/ (emphasis added)</ref> Wikipedia persists in asserting that falsehood about Conservapedia.
#[[Wikipedia]] gives favored treatment to anyone who promotes the [[homosexual agenda]], and smears those who oppose it. For example, [[Robert Mapplethorpe]] glorified [[homosexuality]] in photographs before himself dying of [[AIDS]]. His own biographer identified him as a racist, providing quotes to prove it.<ref>http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/mapplethorpe_a_biography_patricia_morrisroe/</ref> Yet the [[Wikipedia]] entry about him conceals any reference to his racism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapplethorpe</ref> Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] smears the [[American Family Association]] and claims it is racist for reasons not supported by its citation.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Anti-Semitism (March 2005 issue reference)</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] fails to mention that [[United States|American]] [[atheist]]s [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per capita basis]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention [[Atheism and deception|how key proponents of atheism have been deceptive]]. Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] also fails to mention that [[Christianity and Science|Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science]]. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism is a causal factor for suicide]].
#Given that one of Wikipedia's co-founders, [[Jimbo Wales]], is an [[atheism|atheist]], it is not particularly surprising that [[Wikipedia]] is particularly biased against prayer in school, as illustrated by its description of Coach [[Marcus Borden]]'s attempts merely to bow his head while his football players pray. [[Wikipedia]]'s biased description disparages community support of Borden by saying it is "regardless of federal law"; the entry says he returned to coaching as urged by the community "ostensibly" to assert a right to bow his head during prayer.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Brunswick_Public_Schools#Controversy</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has an entry on "Gun Politics in the United States" that falsely claims that "Gun politics as a political issue dates to the earliest days of the United States."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States</ref> It shows a statue of a Revolutionary Minuteman carrying a rifle as "proof" of its claim! Wikipedia's entry is astoundingly biased, concealing how guns deter crime and refusing to cite [[John Lott]], the leading expert whose studies support guns.
#''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' is listed under the category "American propaganda films", alongside other [[conservative]] documentary films.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_propaganda_films</ref> However, the lying, deceitful films of [[Michael Moore]] and other [[liberals]] are never described as "propaganda".
#Here's another example of why [[Wikipedia]] is declining: it locked its entry about [[Richard Dawkins]] to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862</ref> Perhaps the [[atheists]] on [[Wikipedia]] don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
# The body of the [[Islamic terrorism]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#.22Islamic.22_terrorism</ref> page opens with ''"Islamic terrorism" is itself a controversial phrase'' while the body of the Christian terrorism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Racism.2C_Sexism.2C_.26_Terrorism</ref> page opened with ''Juergensmeyer wrote, "It is good to remember, however, that despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity - like most traditions - has always had a violent side."'' <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Theological_justification_of_Christian_violence</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has an extensive entry on "[[Creation]] myth".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth</ref> Describing [[Creationism]] as a "myth" is yet another attempt to disparage [[Christian]]s, and although the [[Evolution|theory of evolution]] satisfies Wikipedia's definition of "myth", Wikipedia never describes it as a "myth".
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Peter Singer]] downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were ''removed'' as being "POV",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933</ref> despite appearing in the like-minded ''[[New York Times]]''.<ref>Paul Zielbauer, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260 Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia]. ''The New York Times'': Oct. 13, 1999</ref> A week after this criticism,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152</ref> an editor restored the former quote.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718</reF>
# Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed</ref> In characteristic fashion, [[Wikipedia]] misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to [[demonize]] them. Also in [[Wikipedia]]-style, it quotes [[liberal]] newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by [[National Review]]).
# [[Wikipedia]] changes the meaning of a key quote from an [[abortion]]-breast cancer article in the Lancet medical journal (Beral, ''et al.''), falsely stating that it "concluded that [[abortion]] does 'not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref> The Lancet article said no such thing about a woman's decision to have an abortion, which does increase the woman's risk of breast cancer. Rather, the Lancet article limited its assertion to a claim about the overall effect of a ''pregnancy'' that terminates early.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] described the [[People for the American Way]], which is a [[liberal]] advocacy group,<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507060931.asp</ref> as a "progressive advocacy organization"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_For_the_American_Way</ref> and did not mention the term [[liberal]] in its lengthy description of it until well after this deficiency was first mentioned here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_For_the_American_Way&diff=198768678&oldid=195716955</ref>
# On Feb. 19, 2008, an editor removed bias in the form of incorrect and misleading information<ref>The article incorrectly refers to the sticker as "creationist", and claims that "Claiming that evolution is "only a theory" ... is a common creationist tactic.", ignoring that the largest creationists groups specifically reject this tactic.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/#just_theory]</ref> from the [[Wikipedia]] entry about evolution stickers in Cobb County, Georgia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=192393310&oldid=190591826</ref> The editor then predicted on [[Conservapedia]] that the [[liberal bias]] would inevitably be reinserted at Wikipedia, and it was: within 8 hours the liberal falsehoods and bias were reinserted by a Wikipedian.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=next&oldid=192393310</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh Such as the entry on D'oh]</ref> But within hours [[liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about [[Hollywood Values]], in order to censor examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1</ref> After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] often smears [[conservatives]] with falsehoods, using references that do not support its claim. For example, [[Wikipedia]] falsely claims that "children" wrote most of the initial entries on [[Conservapedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> but [[Wikipedia]]'s references for that claim do not even mention "children". The average age of contributors on [[Conservapedia]] is likely older than on [[Wikipedia]], so its smear is particularly hypocritical.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[conservative]] [[Ron Paul]] smears him with unsubstantiated statements (newsletter "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Paul&oldid=183792833</ref>), misleading attributions of statements (Paul renounced the statements in 2001), and an overall political hatchet job ... and then locks the page to prevent correction!<ref>The page was locked from January 8 to August 6, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=&page=Ron+Paul&year=&month=-1]</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Benazir Bhutto]] has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she was [[pro-life]] and led the movement against the [[United Nations]]' creating a new international right to [[abortion]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto</ref>
# Type in "[[conservative]]" on [[Wikipedia]] and you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion without any mention of [[marriage]], gun rights or personal accountability. [[Wikipedia]] even claims that [[conservatives]] opposed to [[abortion]] are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". [[Wikipedia]] removed this bias only after it was identified here.<ref>That statement remained on the article from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=173316636&oldid=173314241 November 23] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=next&oldid=179870132 December 26, 2007]</ref>
# The [[Wikipedia]] entry on [[conservative]] [[Rick Scarborough]] falsely claimed that he said that [[HPV]], a sexually transmitted disease, is [[God]]'s punishment for sexually active young women. [[Wikipedia]] admits it has no support for this claim, yet has allowed the statement to remain in his entry for most of 2007.
# [[Wikipedia]] entries contain [[liberal]] claims followed by citations that do not actually support the claims. For example, [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Michael Farris]] states that it "was speculated that Farris' close connection to [[conservative]] leaders ... alienated some voters" in his campaign for lieutenant governor,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Farris</ref> but its citation for that [[liberal]] claim actually attributes his loss to his opponent's [[television]] ads that (falsely) claimed Farris wanted "to ban children's books such as 'The Wizard of Oz', 'Rumpelstiltskin,' and 'Cinderella'."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_n1_v15/ai_14891141</ref>
# In a typical example of [[placement bias]] on [[Wikipedia]], it claims in its first sentence that [[Matthew Shepard]] was murdered "because of his [[homosexuality]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard</ref> Only near the end of the entry does [[Wikipedia]] quote a 20/20 report and knowledgeable sources which provide persuasive evidence that the crime was caused by drugs, not hatred towards [[homosexuality]].
# [[Wikipedia]]'s pervasive anonymous editing vandalizes numerous [[conservative]] entries, such as that of [[pro-life]] scholar [[Mary Ann Glendon]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Glendon</ref> For nearly two weeks her entry on [[Wikipedia]] has featured the disrespectful and unsupported statement that "She is a notable pro-life feminist, and ''a fan of the Dropkick Murphys," which is a punk rock group''. [[Liberal]] editors monitor anonymous editing, but often allow attempts to embarrass [[conservatives]] to remain for a long time.
# [[Wikipedia]] allows countless entries flattering obscure [[liberals]], but lacks many entries about leading [[conservatives]]. For example, the [[Wikipedia]] entry on pro-life leader [[Judie Brown]] was previously nothing but a redirect<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judie_Brown&redirect=no</ref> to an entry about an organization which barely mentions her.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Life_League</ref> A proper page for her has since been added<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judie_Brown</ref>.
# [[Wikipedia]] lies to exaggerate the credentials of [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]], falsely claiming that Dawkins "was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins</ref> In fact, [[Oxford]] recently confirmed that the "Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Richard_Dawkins</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Richard Sternberg]] has falsely stated that a journal "withdrew" a peer-reviewed [[intelligent design]] paper that he reviewed.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg</ref> In fact, the journal never withdrew the paper.
# [[Wikipedia]] has a strong bias against the [[Discovery Institute]], a prominent proponent of [[intelligent design]]. Wikipedia articles about the Institute's campaigns (Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_and_Surgeons_who_Dissent_from_Darwinism</ref> and A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism</ref>) devote most space to the criticism of the campaigns, instead of describing the campaigns themselves.
# [[Wikipedia]] displays a similar bias against the [[Institute for Creation Research]] and its affiliated graduate school--or else displays an appalling lack of critical thinking for a publication that calls itself an encyclopedia. Their reportage on the controversies surrounding the accreditation of the [[ICR Graduate School]], first in [[California]] and now in [[Texas]], relies almost totally on the rants and raves by the group calling itself Texas Citizens for Science and fails utterly to consider or even to mention several key facts about those controversies.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research Institute for Creation Research] by [[Wikipedia]]</ref><ref name="tes>Schafersman," Steven. "[http://www.texscience.org/reviews/icr-thecb-certification.htm The Institute for Creation Research and It's (''sic'') Quest for Official Texas Certification to Award Masters Degrees in Science Education]." ''Texas Citizens for Science'', December 17, 2007; updated January 6 and January 28, 2008. Accessed March 19, 2008.</ref><ref name="rae>Bergman," Jerry. "[http://www.rae.org/ICRcase.html The Religion of Vague: An Unsuccessful Attempt by the State of California to Close a College]." ''Revolution Against Evolution'', May 22, 2003. Accessed March 19, 2008.</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s [[gossip]] and policy in favor of edits by anonymous IP addresses struck again: for over two weeks the entry on former [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[Byron White]] stated he was the father of former Cowboy great Danny White.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byron_White&diff=159734800&oldid=154431838</ref> The statement was utterly false, but misled everyone who read that.<ref>http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Are-They-Related-213708.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] displays pervasive bias in making [[liberal]] statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about [[Conservapedia]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> [[Wikipedia]] states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on [[Wikipedia]].
# A user named [[Richard Dawkins]] apparently edited his own article on [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RichardDawkins</ref> and even linked to a DVD being sold from his personal website. Illustrating [[Wikipedia]]'s favoritism towards [[liberals]], it took a long time (well over a year after he first edited his own article)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins</ref> for anybody to confront this well-known [[atheist]] for this conflict of interest, despite being against [[Wikipedia]]'s own rules.
# Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has once again deleted all content on the [[North American Union]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_american_union&redirect=no]. The old pages are inaccessible, and re-creation is blocked.
# For a long time [[Wikipedia]] led with a falsehood in describing [[Conservapedia]]: "Conservapedia is a wiki based web encyclopedia project with '''the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially and economically conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity and '''Young Earth creationism'''."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=160604712 (emphasis added).</ref> That was defamatory in attempting to smear [[Conservapedia]] in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[evolutionist]] audience. [[Wikipedia]] also welcomes edits by anonymous IP addresses to the [[Conservapedia]] and other entries, resulting in frequent defamation.
# [[Wikipedia]] has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. [[Wikipedia]] calls the term "often humorous," "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] often inserts bias by downplaying a [[liberal]] outrage or fallacy amid thousands of words of nearly irrelevant information. For example, no one credibly disputes that [[liberals]] forced [[Larry Summers]] to resign as president of [[Harvard]] because he dared to suggest that the under-representation of women in math, science and engineering may be due to innate differences between women and men.<ref>http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/09/14/news/114new1.txt</ref><ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19181-2005Jan18.html</ref> But the verbose entry for Larry Summers on [[Wikipedia]] implies that his obscure other positions were more important in causing his ouster.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Summers</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, [[Wikipedia]] classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Special Interests."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has two million entries, but not one for [[liberal]]. Users who go to that term are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); there has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide, citing an unpublished PhD thesis at an obscure university.
# [[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:
#* pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>
#* anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>
#* the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>
#* conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>
# In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Additionally, as of August 5, 2008, the Dravecky article no longer mentions anything about JBS.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=225907517</ref> Wikipedia left intact the smear against the AAPS. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then reinserted before being removed again.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&diff=156607328&oldid=156100194</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s last sentence on [[Human Life International]] claimed that a killer "confessed that pamphets (sic) from the group led" him to kill. This is a complete lie designed to smear a [[conservative]] group. But this was approved by [[Wikipedia]] and remained for over a month.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Life_International&oldid=138698827] Only in response to Conservapedia's criticism was the smear removed.</ref>
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# The Wikipedia entry for [[homosexuality]] is adorned with the a rainbow graphic but fails to mention the following: the many [[disease]]s associated with homosexuality, the high promiscuity rates of the male homosexual community, the higher incidences of [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|domestic violence]] among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples, and the substantially higher mental illness and drug usage rates of the homosexuality community. In addition, the Wikipedia article on homosexuality fails to mention that the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet in May of 2000 stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality."<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf</ref>
# Wikpedia's entry on [[liberal]] former Vice President [[Al Gore]] contains no mention of the drug charges against his son.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore</ref> But Wikipedia's entry on [[conservative]] Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] prominently mentions his adult daughter's sexuality.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for seven weeks about [[Thad Cochran]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thad_Cochran&oldid=135420256 (revised only after being exposed on Conservapedia, but then the smear was reinserted again before being removed again)</ref> a conservative Republican member of the [[U.S. Senate]], smeared him with an offensive, unsupported quotation not of Cochran, but of a Democratic Mississippi governor for whom Cochran's mother campaigned when Cochran was age 14. The unsupported quote was never spoken or endorsed by Cochran, but Wikipedia featured it near the top of Cochran's entry to mislead the reader into thinking Cochran is somehow a racist.
# Wikipedia smears prominent [[Conservative Christianity|Christian conservatives]], including [[James Dobson]] and [[D. James Kennedy]], with an allegation that they are part of a grand scheme Wikipedia calls "Dominionism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</ref> The term was made up by [[liberals]] and this conspiracy theory has no factual basis, but Wikipedia smears these [[conservatives]] with elaborate templates in their own entries depicting them as part of this fictional scheme.<ref>See, e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy D. James Kennedy]</ref> This edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eagle_Forum&curid=3647552&diff=165330150&oldid=165044484] calls Eagle Forum dominionist, even though there is not even any source that says so. The Eagle Forum article now has a "criticism" section that alleges various associations with theocracy and dominionism citing various left-wing opinion web sites, but none of those sites even says that Eagle Forum supports theocracy or dominionism. One editor was blocked just for trying to fix it.
# Wikipedia's entry about the anti-[[Christian]] and anti-[[Semitic]] [[H.L. Mencken]] praises him profusely because he, Wikipedia's words, "notably assaulted America's preoccupation with [[Christian fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] [[Christianity]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencken</ref> After 3,500 words of adulation, Wikipedia then buries a concession that Mencken "has been referred to as anti-Semitic and misogynistic."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref> Wikipedians like Mencken's hostility to religion too much to admit that his biographer (Terry Teachout) and his close Jewish friend (Charles Angoff) described him as racist and anti-Semitic.<ref>http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2003/1/mencken-payne.asp</ref>
# Wikipedia's entries about the 2007 Masters<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Masters_Tournament</ref> and its champion [[Zach Johnson]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zach_Johnson&oldid=154500732</ref> who won an upset come-from-behind victory against Tiger Woods, omitted any reference to Johnson's public statements crediting his [[faith]] in [[Jesus Christ]] for strengthening him as he overcame enormous odds to prevail. Months later, after criticism here, Johnson's attibution to [[Jesus Christ]] was included, but with the [[Wikipedia]] trick of placing it late in a wordy entry so that few are likely to see it, and even then with a silly "citation needed" to suggest that the quote may not be true.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson</ref>
# Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution</ref> This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other [[liberals]] in reliance on Wikipedia.<ref>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070519145312AACvfJA&show=7</ref> The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that a large majority of other scientists must support evolution.<ref>"By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987-06-29), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek CIX(26): 23-24, ISSN 0028-9604</ref> Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President [[George W. Bush]], then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that.
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was critized here</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia recently moved further away from Judaeo-Christian beliefs by complaining that "[t]he average Wikipedian ... is from a predominantly Christian country" and that Wikipedia was built on Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias (later "predominantly Christian" was changed to "nominally Christian")</ref> At the same time, Wikipedia complains about the "enormous significance" given by entries to "Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S., UK and Spain, killing slightly over 3,000 people."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the Wikia project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba</ref> Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing "to attend a golf tournament" rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: "Cuba has been ruled by a communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959."<ref>[[Cuba]]</ref>
# Often Wikipedia's biased assertions are unsupported by its citations. For example, the Wikipedia entry about Conservapedia states that it "has come under significant criticism for alleged factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> But check out Wikipedia's cited source for that statement: its citation does not identify a single factual inaccuracy on Conservapedia.<ref>http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=1910</ref> Thus Wikipedia relies on a factual inaccuracy to accuse someone else of factual inaccuracies! After this criticism was posted here, Wikipedia removed the said citation but replaced it with a few other biased citations.
# [[Liberal]] icon [[Bertrand Russell]] receives glowing adoration on Wikipedia, which calls him "a prophet of the creative and rational life," "one of the world's best-known intellectuals" whose "voice carried great moral authority, even into his mid 90s."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell</ref> After 7,700 words about [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Wikipedia]] finally mentions Russell's support of the communist revolution, but pretends that Russell quickly opposed it. Instead, Russell wrote that "I believe that [[Communism]] is necessary to the world, and I believe ... Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind."<ref>[[Bertrand Russell]]</ref>
# [[Conservapedia]] allows greater and easier copying of its materials than [[Wikipedia]] does, but Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] claims that its policy "has led to some concerns."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> And who supposedly had these concerns? In Wikipedia's citation, it was only the founder of Wikipedia in trying to find a way to criticize Conservapedia!<ref>http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501</ref>
# April 24th was the anniversary of [[Operation Eagle Claw]], which was President [[Jimmy Carter]]'s failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran. The Conservapedia [[Operation Eagle Claw|entry]] explains Carter's political motivation for this. But the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry] omits Carter's political motivation and instead implies that this bad luck cost Carter the election.<ref>Wikipedia states, "The operation was a failure, and had a severe impact on U.S. President Jimmy Carter's re-election prospects ...."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry]</ref> In fact, Newsweek did not even mention this after July 14th, and Reagan beat Carter for reasons other than bad luck.
# Wikipedia's entry on James Monroe<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe</ref> omits any mention of how he was a conservative and omits Monroe's veto of a key appropriation on the Cumberland Road Bill, when Monroe stated that "congress does not possess the power under the constitution to pass such a law."<ref>[[James Monroe]]</ref> After this criticism was posted here, an editor at Wikipedia added Monroe's Cumberland Road Bill opposition to the article,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Monroe&oldid=226448821#Presidency_1817.E2.80.931825:_The_Era_of_Good_Feelings</ref> but the article still has yet to mention that Monroe was politically conservative.
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with those in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]. Both categories were [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories deleted] on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox]" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=User%3AUBX%2Fliberal&namespace= liberal]" userbox than the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" userbox.</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more [[liberal]] than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of [[liberals]] to conservatives in a group, such that no [[liberals]] would equate to zero [[liberal bias]]. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for [[liberals]] to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# Wikipedia awarded "good article" status<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles</ref> to a biased description of [[liberal]] Balboa High School, saying it has "a progressively nurturing environment" undergoing "a steady renaissance marked by academic innovation."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balboa_High_School_(San_Francisco)</ref> Nowhere in Wikipedia's 4,468-word description does it admit that half the 9th graders lacked proficiency on a statewide English test.<ref>Jill Tucker, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/16/MNGE2KJB5K1.DTL Student Successes Defy Urban Trends]" San Francisco Chronicle (Aug. 16, 2006).</ref> Instead, Wikipedia editors apparently like how this public school converted its metal shop into a sex-based "health" clinic.
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref> Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization</ref>
# Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics</ref>
# In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.<ref>http://www.bede.org.uk/books,jmyth.htm</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[Jesus]] has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus</ref> But no credible historian makes such a claim.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Renaissance]] denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.<ref>Wikipedia has since updated its entry with a backhanded reference to Christianity, but even then not for inspiring the Renaissance but rather for providing subject matter for the works.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance&oldid=138439803]</ref>
# About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the [[Bible]].<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955-2061r.htm</ref> But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood</ref> Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark</ref>
# Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as [[atheist]]ic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, [[atheist]], agnostic, humanist, secular, other."<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[abortion]] reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref> Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf</ref> Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"!<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref>
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Voting Rights Act]] contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act</ref> This is a longtime [[liberal]] cause prohibited by the [[U.S. Constitution]]. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.
# Initially, in December 2006, a Wikipedia administrator named "Nearly Headless Nick" (the signature nickname for Wikipedia user "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington</ref>) deleted an entry about Conservapedia, following a discussion on the "Articles for deletion" section in which a horde of Wikipedia editors demanded and obtained deletion, claiming that the site failed a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web) notability guideline for websites]".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Conservapedia</ref> Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist [[Edward Teller]] promotes the [[liberal]] attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller</ref> In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the [[Manhattan Project]] and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another [[liberal]] journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Wikipedia's entry on the intelligent design court decision in ''Dover''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District</ref> distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the [[ACLU]]'s side (not $1 million), (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the [[ACLU]]'s briefs,<ref>''Id.''</ref> and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>''Id.''</ref>
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
# Edits to include facts against [[Evolution|the theory of evolution]] are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple [[The Conservapedia Commandments|rules]] are respected to the maximum extent possible.
# Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view</ref> Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on [[Young Earth Creationism]]? It currently offers an article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience".<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia]</ref> What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&action=history</ref>
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 1.8 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution Talk:Evolution - Wikipedia]</ref> Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias, as in mobs, where there are no restraints. [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action. As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.
#: The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this: "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory. CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective ... because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."
# Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]] until this omission was pointed out here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_proof</ref> Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Piltdown Man]] omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.
# Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of [[Jesus]], so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the [[CE]] deception.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on the longest-serving and most powerful Maryland official in its history, [[William Donald Schaefer]], contains about 1900 words, but over two-thirds of those words (1400/1900) are devoted to silly gossip, outright vulgarity and National Enquirer-type material.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Schaefer</ref> 406 words, which is over 20% of the entire entry, is devoted to a silly dispute Schaefer had one day with the local newspaper!
# Wikipedia's article about the late Senator John Tower includes a mean-spirited story whose only point seems to be to indicate the degree of his ex-wife's bitterness toward him. The article previously spelled his wife's name incorrectly. The article was in that state since it was first inserted in May 2006<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&oldid=101859325 John Tower], revision as of Jan 25</ref> and until it was corrected on January 26, 2007 <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&offset=20070208110937&limit=20&action=history</ref>. No real encyclopedia would print such silly gossip.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act</ref> Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,<ref>http://www.909shot.com/</ref> and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:
#: Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
#: "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
# What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia's entry for [[Johnny Appleseed]], a Christian folk hero, omits a discussion of his strong faith and instead features baseless speculation about his health, a year of death different from that of his obituary, and a silly story designed to make a Christian preacher look foolish.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Appleseed</ref>
# In a brief-lived example of pro-homosexuality bias, the category allowing users to self identify as Heterosexual was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007# Category:Heterosexual_Wikipedians deleted] because it served no useful purpose, yet the exact same category for Homosexuals was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007# Category:Gay_Wikipedians kept]. The latter was deleted after a month along with all other categories focused on the sexuality of Wikipedians. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] has revived itself after a delete but is still fighting to not be deleted.
# Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref> <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign makes no mention of her endorsement by the leadership of the terrorist group Hamas,<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58699</ref> but lists endorsements of Republican presidential candidates by the Ku Klux Klan.
#Wikipedia's entry for "Right to bear arms" mentions the discrepancies many have with the interpretation of the phrase. They begin by labeling the first section "Military service ''definition''" and go on to explain how the words "bear arms" had a different meaning a couple hundred years ago in European countries. After the 7 paragraph section that has little relation with the Second Amendment of the ''United States'', Wikipedia offers 2 paragraphs that talks about the "Insurrectionary ''Theory''". First thing, they call people that adhere to this concept "extremists" and attempt to prove why this viewpoint is false. The criticism was strangely missing from the military service section. So, in short, Wikipedia believes that the faultless, [[liberal]] "definition" is true and the sketchy, extremist, conservative "theory" is false.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Military_service_definition</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Insurrectionary_theory</ref>
#Wikipedia is sexist? Definitions of antonym words don't match up:
## '''Matriarchy''' is a term, which is applied to gynocentric form of society, in which the leading role is with the female and especially with the mothers of a community.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy</ref>
## '''Patriarchy''' describes a social structure where the actions and ideas of men and boys are dominant over those of women and girls.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on [[Jeremiah Wright]] repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
# Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref>
# For a period of time (January 4, 2008<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&oldid=182111544</ref> - April 5, 2008<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&diff=203433685&oldid=202851436</ref>), Wikipedia's page on Tobacco and health had a disclaimer in the pipe smoking section that stated three references (The American Cancer Society, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the National Cancer Institute) might not be reliable resources and should be reviewed.
# Wikipedia's main article on Communism does not mention any act of genocide in Communist countries, and any attempts to edit the page to include this information are deleted. The Nazism page, however, includes multiple mentions of the Holocaust. The only mention of communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.
# The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki]. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puerile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.<ref><http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)</ref>
# Wikipedia's most controversial pages are guarded by liberal elite. Thereby, accuracy is replaced with ideology. <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml Wikipropaganda On Global Warming] National Review, July 8, 2008</ref> The first one-hundred and sixty-eight words on Wikipedia's [[Global Warming]] page contains multiple conjectures, major errors and bias. ''"increase in the average measured [[temperature]] ... since the mid-twentieth century"'' that same paragraph "''solar variation combined with volcanoes ... and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward."'' Which is it, warmer or cooler from 1950? "''very likely due''" "''probably had''" or "''the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the [[IPCC]]'s main conclusions''"- unsubstantiated bias.
# Wikipedia trivializes the book ''Inventing the AIDS Virus'' by making it a redirect and never discussing it directly in the article. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventing_the_AIDS_Virus</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Theological_Seminary Westminster Theological Seminary] demonstrates its anti-Christian bias when it states "with the vision of continuing the theological tradition of Princeton Theological Seminary '''in a militant and explicitly polemical manner''', from which the Westminster founders felt Princeton was departing."
# It's apparently okay to cast doubt on well-known evangelical Christian's claims of being former atheists, as was recently done repeatedly to Kirk Cameron's Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=262633707&oldid=262591086</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263109644&oldid=263063442</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263670595&oldid=263666117</ref>, but similar edits regarding claims made by famous atheists of being former Christians would never be tolerated (e.g. PZ Myers' Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pz_myers</ref>).
# The unofficial evolutionist cabal continues to control any and all pages covering or related to evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism, and they freely engage in edit-warring without fear of being blocked due to several editors helping each other subvert the "3 revert rule" and the help of admins who are biased to their side. Non-evolutionists are described with the non-referenced, non-neutral term "dogmatically"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=267885268</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=next&oldid=268115244</ref> and ID advocates are called "intelligent design creationists" despite the fact that neither they nor Creationists consider themselves alike.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=267130640</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=267873798</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=268116166</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267130755&oldid=267129633</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267875875&oldid=267874801</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267881496&oldid=267877410</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=268117670&oldid=268115954</ref>
# Wikipedia clearly adds a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_George_W._Bush#Controversies</ref> but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama</ref>

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

'''Guidelines for inclusion''':
* Each entry must include a <code>diff</code> which shows the content being posted, and the user that posted it.
* Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.
[[Category:Wikis]]

Template:Retired

2008-11-24T22:24:05Z

FellowChristian16: New page: <center>RETIRED! '''This user has left Conservapedia. God...

User:FellowChristian16

2008-11-24T22:23:57Z

FellowChristian16: Replacing page with '{{Retired}}'

User talk:FellowChristian16

2008-11-24T22:23:28Z

FellowChristian16: Redirecting to User:FellowChristian16

#REDIRECT [[User:FellowChristian16]]

User:FellowChristian16

2008-11-24T22:21:37Z

FellowChristian16:

User:FellowChristian16

2008-11-24T22:21:16Z

FellowChristian16:

<center>RETIRED! '''This user has left Conservapedia. God Bless.'''</center>

User:FellowChristian16

2008-11-24T22:20:40Z

FellowChristian16:

<center>RETIRED!</center> '''This user has left Conservapedia. God Bless.'''

User:FellowChristian16

2008-04-06T20:07:14Z

FellowChristian16: Undo revision 409754 by Special:Contributions/Crocoite (User talk:Crocoite) That wasn't an advertisement, it's a link, you should look up the definition for "Advertisement"

{{/background}}

For some examples of how I was done wrong by Wikipedia go [[/I Was Done Wrong By Wikipedia|here]].

{{userboxtop
| backgroundcolor = navy
| bordercolor = #9BDDFF
| textcolor = #9BDDFF
| toptext = FellowChristian16's Userboxes
----
}}
{{userboxbreak
| toptext = Wikipedia
----
}}
{{User Wikipedian-Banned}}
{{userboxbreak
| toptext = [http://localnews.wikia.com Local News Stations Wiki]
----
}}
{{User sysopother}}
{{userboxbottom}}

User:FellowChristian16/background

2008-04-06T20:00:44Z

FellowChristian16: Daylight Savings Time

{| cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" align="center" width="100%" style="background: navy; border: 4px outset #9BDDFF; color: #9BDDFF; font-family: Book Antiqua;"
| 
 
<center>FellowChristian16 "Tough On Vandals!!"</center>
 
{{User:FellowChristian16/header}}
{{User:FellowChristian16/Clock|-4 hours|bg=navy|font=#9BDDFF|border=#9BDDFF}}
<center>Hi! My name is Aaron. I live in [[Florida|Florida]]. I am a [[Patriotic|proud]] [[United States of America|American]], [[Florida|Floridian]] & [[Christianity|Christian]]. My sister died on June 25, 2001 when I was 10 years old. I am now 17 years old. I guess you would call me a High School drop-out. But I'm not done with school. I'm going for my [[GED|GED]]. There are two external places you can reach me at:

*[http://www.myspace.com/wwecenafan16 MySpace]
&
*[http://www.youtube.com/1990hornet YouTube]</center>

{{-}}
__TOC__
<div align="right" style="color: #9BDDFF;">This page looks best in [[Mozilla Firefox|Mozilla Firefox]].</div>
{{-}}
{| cellpadding="10" cellspacing="8" style="width: 100%; background-color:#ffffff; border: 4px outset #9BDDFF; vertical-align: top;"
|-
| <div style="font-family: Book Antiqua; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">
{{-}}

User talk:FellowChristian16/background

2008-04-06T20:00:18Z

FellowChristian16: fix and Daylight Savings Time

2008-03-21T20:01:02Z

FellowChristian16: i thought it was this way

In the United States, the '''Pledge of Allegiance''' is recited on many formal occasions, including at the beginning of the [[school]] day, and the opening of certain kinds of meetings. When the Pledge is recited, civilians face the [[American flag|Flag]] and place their right hands over their hearts. Men remove any non-religious headdress and hold it in the right hand. Military personnel in uniform remain silent and salute the flag. Under many public circumstances, in a display of patriotism, the Pledge will be followed with the singing of "[[America the Beautiful]]" and the [[National Anthem]], "[[The Stars and Stripes Forever]]".

The phrase "under God" was added in 1954, by a bill signed into law by President Eisenhower on June 14, 1954 ([[Flag Day]]), largely due to a push for its addition by the [[Knights of Columbus]]. The phrase has been the source of some controversy, as self-professed atheist Michael Newdow has argued the matter in a case involving his daughter before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case was dismissed because Newdow, a noncustodial parent, lacked standing in the matter.

==Text==
[[image:Kljghlkjkh.png|thumb|150 px|Ol' Glory]]

<blockquote>
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag 
Of the United States of America, 
And to the Republic for which it stands: 
One Nation under God, indivisible, 
with Liberty and Justice for all"
</blockquote>

==References==
*[http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/04C1.txt 4 USC Chapter 1 -- The Flag]

[[category:United States]]

User talk:FellowChristian16/background

2008-03-21T00:09:12Z

FellowChristian16: New page: {| cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" align="center" width="100%" style="background: navy; border: 4px outset #9BDDFF; color: #9BDDFF; font-family: Book Antiqua;" | <center><b style...

User talk:FellowChristian16

2008-03-21T00:03:17Z

FellowChristian16:

{{/background}}

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:32, 21 July 2007 (EDT)}}

Please don't copy from Wikipedia or Answers.com (a Wikipedia mirror). [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:56, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

== Your templates ==

{{TemplateDocRqd|Pwcompany|deleted=yes}}
{{tl|Pwcompanybox}} also.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:03, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== Wikipedia ==

Please do not copy articles from Wikipedia such as with [[WWE Championship]]. It is against Conservapedia policy. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:23, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== FYI ==

We don't wikilink dates. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:33, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

2008-03-20T23:34:04Z

FellowChristian16: New page: *The blocking of users for stating they're a Christian. (EXAMPLE:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hornetman16 Part 1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hornetman16&diff...

*The blocking of users for stating they're a [[Christian]]. (EXAMPLE:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hornetman16 Part 1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hornetman16&diff=153056429&oldid=152877127 Part 2]) (Posted by [[User:FellowChristian16|FellowChristian16]])
*On March 18, 2008 they blocked a supposed sockpuppet of mine when it wasn't. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hornetchild16]) This is the third of these they have done that with.<ref>Hornetwoman17, Florida16 and Hornetchild16</ref> Their CheckUser program even proved one wasn't and they left it on my list. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Hornetman16]<ref>Hornetwoman17</ref>) When my Mom went to address them she posted a message[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&diff=199534884&oldid=199493051] and they reverted in two minutes and blocked her saying she is me. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&diff=199535136&oldid=199534884][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:96.243.237.104]) And when she request her rightful unblock[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:96.243.237.104&oldid=199539985] according to their policy they denied it saying they're not stupid and know it's me. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:96.243.237.104&diff=199540479&oldid=199539985]) (Posted by [[User:FellowChristian16|FellowChristian16]])
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

== Notes ==
{{reflist}}

Talk:No Mercy (2007)

2008-03-20T19:40:26Z

FellowChristian16: /* Question */

Talk:No Mercy (2007)

2008-03-20T02:50:16Z

FellowChristian16: /* Question */

Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia

2008-03-19T23:01:22Z

FellowChristian16: Monitor blogs

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

== Additions ==

Great additions, Ed! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:46, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

==British English==

'''NO LONGER BANNED'''

We non US English speakers now have freedom to speak

==General questions==
I think you meant authoritative support, but I won't correct it, it's your doc. So are you still going to say your site is neutral?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. Thanks. I corrected it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Authoritative Source==
I would really like to know more about this "authoritative" source. What counts as "journalist opinion" vs. "reporting of facts" this is particularly important in regards to issues being raised at on this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References talk page]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: A big flaw in Wikipedia's system is that it treats journalist's opinions as authorities. They aren't. In a court of law, such attempts would be laughable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Does this mean that Creationwiki is not considered authoritative? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So if an article written by a journalist is quoted and its merely reporting events "such and such happened" "this was said by this person" then the source is fine? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, that's fine. But Wikipedia improperly converts a journalist's biased opinion into a factual assertion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Its not so much that "''Wikipedia''" ''improperly converts a journalist's biased opinion into a factual assertion'' but that a particular ''editor'' did. That could happen here too. Such edits remain until another ''editor'' changes them. The more popular the article the quicker questionable edits are likely to be changed.
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 04:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Original research==
Point 5 should be clarified so that it doesn't clash with "always cite sources" and "must be true and verifiable". Original Research can get out of hand very quickly, I think. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Correct, in the hands of a responsible editor original research can add synthesis of ideas that would otherwise be impossible to include, and can be valuable. The reason it is shunned on Wikipedia though is that you wind up getting every crank out there with a new "unified theory of everything" or a high school algebraic solution to Fermat's Last Theorm that is being repressed by the establishment claiming a right to publish it here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::My issue exactly. I'm not THAT much of a fan of the OR rule myself, but I can understand why it's there and thus support it in general. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Original work can be labeled as such. There is no reason for Wikipedia to censor it, except to enforce its liberal view of the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So if I come up with my own theory of how the universe was created, I could post it here as OR without the need to cite any sources? And the admins won't be allowed to delete it, although it shows a complete lack of backing by anybody? ...thank you. :D --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know Mr. Schlafly, as I said I can see the value of original works to a certain extent, but as more and more of the [[George Hammond]]'s of the world find this site you may be innudated with original research that is nothing but a detractor and a nuisance. There are many, many individuals on the internet with all kinds of crazy ideas and all of them would love a place to post them where they will get views. The questions becomes do you want your site to be a repository for all the crazy theories of the internet? If not there needs to be some sort of qualification, restriction or clarification. However, that being said we are not at the moment being innudated with such entries. This policy may work for now, its just something to keep in mind. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: If properly labeled, then I don't see a problem. We'll see. Wikipedia allows hundreds of thousands of entries of pure junk, such as terms invented for rap songs. Wikipedia's complete ban on original work seems a bit contrived and limiting to me. We shouldn't be stuck in the past and act like nothing new is good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

While I agree that some original work should be allowed, letting any and all OR into Conservapedia articles would create a terrible mess. Somebody could come and claim "Moses and Jesus fought a boxing match in heaven", and nobody would be able to argue. Perhaps we should merely allow inflections and commentary, based off of what can be gathered in a source? Wikipedia doesn't allow this. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: The presentation of new ideas is perfectly acceptable, but a freely editable encyclopedia is not the correct venue for this. Protecting your ownership of these original ideas is very difficult when both the statement of the idea and developer of it can be changed by anyone with a free account. Additionally, users shouldn't be given the perception that new ideas are widely accepted, when in most cases they are not accepted until they are no longer considered 'new'. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:Such commentary might border on opinions and unencyclopedic language, though. (Funny thing is that Conservapedia doesn't even ''have'' a rule about encyclopedic tone...) Or will we allow "49.9% of the population" to be changed to "less than half the population" and "50.1%" to "the majority"? It's certainly not wrong, but it's also not what an encyclopedic article would write (Disclaimer: I'm not 100% familiar with Wiki rules, but I think I recall a rule about using exact terms and numbers if possible.). I think Conservapedia has enough issues with being taken seriously already. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::The very existence of Conservapedia is a joke. People who disband from a freely editable encyclopedia because they believe it is biased simply don't wish to have their statements checked by people with opposing viewpoints. You're right that people aren't taking it seriously, but I doubt minor changes to the rules will make people overlook that constant, unfounded criticism of Wikipedia that runs rampant in so many articles here. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 18:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)
:::(chuckles) I agree with you, but I still think that it may have a chance of becoming a bit... more accepted (as more than a source of endless entertainment at least =P). Thus, I support "minor" changes to the rules when they have the potential of making a difference in the way people apply them.
:::Broadly allowing all forms of OR can lead to chaos, and a change of the rules later on is tied to much clean-up work. If the rule stays, then there should at least be some clarification, for example in the form Hojimachong suggested. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip==

Point 1 is baseless criticism of Wikipedia. The statement "We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it" implies that Wikipedia allows gossip, which it does not. I propose that this difference be removed from the list. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)

: You can't be serious. Are you? Numerous entries in Wikipedia have gossip that would never appear in a real encyclopedia. We have several examples in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] but that is only the tip of the iceberg.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not here to dispute the fact that gossip exists on Wikipedia. The differences page implies that it is allowed or encouraged, which it is not. A careful reading of the rules for editing on Wikipedia clearly excludes gossip from the set of valid information sources. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:12, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::: Which Wikipedia rule forbids gossip??? Show me and let's enforce it against what, about 100,000 entries there?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wikipedia refers to it as NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The full explanation of where and when opinions (including gossip/second-hand opinions) may be used is located here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial] --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:24, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::::: OK, I went to your link and searched on the word "gossip". It doesn't appear. '''Wikipedia has no rule against gossip'''. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::You have to dig a little bit further into the policies to see it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources stated] - "Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: A simple text search for the word gossip returns no hits, however gossip fits into the larger category of opinion. The citation of opinions on Wikipedia is permitted, but under specific guidelines. Show just one of these 100,000 entries that use gossip and cite it as fact, and I'll find five pages that enforced this regulation. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:::: Gossip is different from "opinion". Come on, let's not pretend that we don't know what gossip is. The "fact" that John Tower's ex-wife refused to accept flowers from him as she was dying in the hospital is gossip. Wikipedia allows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: That statement doesn't appear on Wikipedia. Not all opinions are gossip, but gossip is wholly contained in the realm of opinion. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:40, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:::: Really, has Wikipedia deleted it? If so, then it was only after criticism here. Check out the entry on Bertrand Russell on Wikipedia and more gossip greets the reader. It's pervasive. By the way, facts often qualify as gossip, so your definition is not correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: Don't you think you're giving yourself a little bit too much credit there? You make it sound as if all of Wikipedia scans your massively important list for things to correct. The probability of somebody reading your list and then editing it is quite small, compared to people getting to the page through other ways and editing it in the normal Wiki process. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Criticizing a 1.5 million-page wiki based on a few of its worst pages isn't fair, especially when they clearly go against the wiki's policy. (much like Wikipedia's article on Conservapedia isn't really fair for picking out a few of the worst articles here, articles that are likely to be improved up within a few weeks or months) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, you've given examples of gossip, but if we could come up with an actual definition to follow, that would be helpful. Gossip is in the eye of the beholder.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 18:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

My suggestion is this: '''Personal websites may not be used as an article's reference.''' If we put that into force we will save ourselves enormous amounts of difficulty. Gossip is always personal opinion. Personal websites abound in gossip. And, it is often presented as part of a larger page that has some attention getting element. An example is in the [[Scientology]] article where Andreas Heldal-Lund's personal site, xenu.net is cited [http://www.xenu.net/archive/audit/latey.html] for his hand typed representation of a court document. But also appearing on the page are his evaluations and criticisms and bias about the court document and surrounding issues. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 18:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:For further exposition on "personal websites" interested editors should review this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References discussion]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly, your definition of gossip seems to be information that sheds negative light on a person or idea that you support. Please correct me with an explicit definition? --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:50, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::Isn't saying that wikipedia deleted something because of your criticism a form of gossip? What proof do you have that it was your criticism that caused the edit? Wikipedia is under constant ''internal'' scrutiny from a large population of editors. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think the only instance when a Wiki edit was actually (quasi-)proven to originate here was the issue of "elementary proof" or whatever the name was. And that was a case of "...well, you could've created the entry yourself in the time you spent writing the criticism". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Not to mention Wikipedia actively discourages anything like [[debate topics]], let alone links to it from the sidebar. Gossip indeed. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Folks, I'm not going to debate the pervasive gossip in Wikipedia with you further. At the rate you're going, you might also claim the National Enquirer doesn't have gossip! Actually, I suppose its employees might claim that. If you think Wikipedia is free of gossip, then so be it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Gossip is a very vague word, what is one (wo)man's gossip is another's hard facts! So before the term "gossip" gets thrown about too much we ought to have a concrete definition of it. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] 01:09, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I asked above for a definition of gossip so that the rules can be followed clearly. I have no interest in debating Wikipedia...it's irrelevant. But, I would like a definition of gossip if it is going to stay a commandment. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:30, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bias==

''7. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts...'' - Do you allow conservative censorship of liberal facts? This isn't clear. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, we don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, I think that should be explicitly stated then. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 18:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservative facts? What is that supposed to mean? Sounds like some kind of hippy, commie relativism to me! Facts are facts. --[[User:Zerba|Zerba]] 12:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes JamesK. Conservative censorship is allowed, as evidenced by this page: [[Alger Hiss]]. The fact that the accuracy of the released Soviet documents is disputed, and that a key FBI witness committed perjury while testifying that a typewriter cannot be used for forgery is completely ignored in this account. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:09, 21 March 2007 (CST)
:: this is all sour grapes from a disgruntled former editor of wikipedia. it is not to be taken seriously. Ashlafly is simply a member of the radical right disguising himself, albeit poorly, as a conservative. Do not take him seriously. He is baised against anythnig that doesn't support his ideosyncratic agenda. 20:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

"Conservative facts? What is that supposed to mean?" I agree, what does it mean? How can a fact be of different political alignments? You can check it the [[Wiktionary:fact|definition]]. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
: They're ''special'' facts. Y'know, the ones that are so obviously true, they don't even need citations. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

== Neutral? Censorship? ==

''"3. We do not allow obscenity, while Wikipedia has many entries unsuitable for children. "''

This point conflicts with point one... A real encyclopedia doesn't avoid issues that may be considered "unsuitable". One example is [[Intercourse|Sex]]. One of the oldest and most respected encyclopaedias out there, Encyclopædia Britannica, has a page on [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9067000/sexual-intercourse|Sexual Intercourse]. What's wrong with a scientific article on something completely natural, something which is very much involved with Christianity? I really cannot understand.

I shall return. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That is a very good point. The fact that the sex article has been censored on this site is a bit odd. There is no need to get into the depth that Wikipedia goes into about human sexualit, sex positions, etc. But some acknowledgment or treatment of the way that nearly all multi-cellular organisms come to be seems to be something that shoudl be included in anything claiming to be "encyclopedic".--[[User:Zerba|Zerba]] 12:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== items 1,4 and 7 seem to be mutally exclusive ==

and are not applied to actual pages. if we're going to state these rules they should ve consistent and supportable. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 20:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
* I assume 7 is referring to Andrew's lectures ([[Economics Lectures]], [[World History Lectures]])? If so, perhaps Conservapedia may eventually have something like Wikinews' [http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Original_reporting original reporting] policy, which allows original work, as long as it's labeled as being authored by an identifiable person. (and Wikinews' policy would make point 7 invalid as well) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: it would lend much needed credibility to this project if editorials and opinion were labeled as such. As it is it smacks of intellectual dishonesty. not that it seems to matter here, as intellectual seems to be a bad word. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Name Change==
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it "Differences from wikipedia" or "How Conservapedia is different from Wikipedia"? "Differences with wikipedia" sounds awkward. If you want to take a good idea from wikipedia, you might make a "What conservapedia is not" page.[[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neutral to the facts? ==

What facts are these that justify a daily bible comment on the front page?

Honestly, I have no problem with the Bible quote. It has nothing to do with any controversy about facts. It is simply a quotation that the founders of this site wish to share.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 18:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Surely what or what isn't a ''[[Terrorism|terrorist group]]'' group depends on the definintion used and the perspective of the definer.
::''If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia.''
:What definition is being used here - and wouldn't that be an opinion likely to controvene no. 2?
:Admittedly that only states that the ''opinions of journalists'' are unacceptable. Are other opinions acceptable? Though I can only assume they are also subject to ''authoritative support''. Who is the authority on what or what isn't a ''terrorist group''? It there also an authority on [[fact]]s?
:A real encyclopedia would [[Conservapedia:Attribution|attribute]] claims that a particular group is terrorist to those doing the claiming?
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:51, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Restrictions ==

5. We have less restrictions on the reuse of our material than Wikipedia does.

In what way? how? This means nothing on it's own. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 11:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Users here have been unable to grasp wikipedia's copyright, so they've determined it is 'cumbersome' whereas conservapedia's apparent founder has said something like "anybody can copy our stuff until we object" . . . it's pretty clear, given the dishonest and unacademic tone of the rest of this site, how that should be parsed. More evidence that this site is a platform for radicals and zealots, dishonest ones at that, rather than actual conservatives or, heaven help us, Christians. I more than half suspect this site is some sort of joke intended to make average good hearted Christian-Americans look like fascists and nut-cases. But perhaps thats just because it is apparently run by misguided high school students.[[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:01, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Copyright differences ==

The page currently reads "By entering information on Wikipedia you are actually losing rights to your own material, and cannot copy your own material elsewhere without complying with Wikipedia's burdensome copyright restrictions." That's incorrect... Wikipedia contributors are required to license their contributions under the GFDL, but under the law, the contributor still owns the copyright to the work* and may license the contribution under other additional licenses. Wikipedia even encourages this sometimes. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain#Advice_for_users_of_our_content]

GFDL is just a normal license that is used outside of Wikipedia, and it has no clauses akin to "transfer the copyright ownership to the site I post it on". I can write a poem by myself, license it under the GFDL, and post it on Geocities, but I'm still the copyright holder. Same goes with Wikipedia --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 12:49, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: I've clarified point one, and responded on [[Conservapedia talk:Copyright]]. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Thank you very much, the factual bits are correct now at least. And there are a number of people who criticize copyleft licenses for being [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Is_copyleft_.22viral.22.3F "viral"], so that sentiment isn't too far out of the mainstream (though I think personally think there are good reasons for some of the restrictions... it ensures that the community, rather than Jimbo or the Wikimedia Foundation, will forever own and control the content... there have been [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDDB#History unfortunate incidents] in the past where a community contributes under the belief that their work will always be freely available, but it's later closed off and used only for commercial gain). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 19:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== stubs ==

''12. We do not encourage the insertion of distracting "stubs" in entries. Wikipedia has numerous distracting stubs on entries.''

In Wikipedia, a "stub" is a short article, like a [[Conservapedia:Very Short Article]]. In fact Conservapedia has a template called <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> that puts a large box at the top of the article noting that it is a Very Short Article and placing it in [[:Category:Articles needing major improvement]]. This category is still manageable here with less than 1000 articles in it. As Wikipedia is so much larger, the stub categories are further divided so that editors can find stub articles they have the interest or knowledge to expand. Wikipedia stub tags are a line or two of italic text at the bottom of an article (often with a small image next to them), less visually intrusive than the large blue box at the top of articles here.

This point should be either deleted or clarified to explain what difference is actually highlighted. Perhaps "Short Wikipedia articles are called "stubs" and are marked at the bottom of the article, short Conservapedia articles are called "VSAs" and are marked by a blue box at the top. Both markings invite readers to extend the article." --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:39, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*As you might have been noticing, there is more of a push on here to discourage their placement, in favor of short, factual and concise entries, over verbose and lenghty ones. Templates are most certainly not encouraged here, and when found on questionable articles, removed. I actually see the ability to place templates on articles restricted here, to Sysop's and above soon. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia places stubs on almost anything that is short. But concise entries are ''better'' than the wordy, overly verbose entries that dominate Wikipedia. it seems that a high percentage of entries on Wikipedia have "stubs" placed on them. Who wants to be distracted by that? It's silly and, as TK says, we don't want them here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Stub articles can serve a legitimate purpose if there are very few of them, to alert us of the real problems (i.e. when Germany was one paragraph long). I suspect that was the original intent. Obviously, this isn't happening. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: I take the stub notices out whenever I see them now, unless truly deserved. Also, let's warn and, if necessary, block editors who are inserting lots of stub notices. Thanks and a good Easter to you, MountainDew!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::How about this? "12. Short Wikipedia articles are called "stubs" and are marked at the bottom of the article, very short Conservapedia articles are called "VSAs" and are marked by a blue box at the top, but these markings are discouraged. Both markings invite readers to extend the article, however a typical "complete" Conservapedia article is generally much shorter than a "complete" Wikipedia article." --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I'm not that long out of College to remember what a pain it was, those overly long, verbose entries, when trying to fact-check, and research! Scott, I agree, we could site the two examples, and play-up our penchant for ''concise'' over wordy articles, for the sake of wordiness. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

**Neither website (nor a paper encyclopaedia) is an appropriate source for tertiary-level research. Most of Wikipedia's Good and Featured articles have extensive reference lists which might be useful, but you're still relying on someone else's literature search with no idea if it's complete. Wikipedia tends to cite online and free (as in beer) articles rather than paper or paid sources as they are more accessible to the majority of editors. That is also a bias problem for serious research, and I haven't noticed a significant difference in that area at Conservapedia, which in general has a lot less references. World Book Encyclopaedia's short/concise articles give a quick and simple overview. Encyclopaedia Britannica has longer articles that give a fair amount of detail, like Wikipedia. True research means go and find your own sources. (Disclaimer: I graduated before the Internet existed). Should we have a guideline here that articles are aimed for the attention span and reading level of a 12-year old (i.e. like World Book)? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 02:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*That is kind of snobbish, no? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

**My last sentence? Possibly, but Aschlafly can move the number up or down, a guideline like that would help to clarify vague terms like "concise", "family-friendly" etc. The problem with Conservapedia is that it is trying to be too many things - an alternative to Wikipedia that presents items from a conservative POV instead of a Neutral POV should aim to carry informative and deep articles on the main items where conservatives differ from both liberals and moderates. However many of these articles are censored or hijacked due to the second goal of being a family-friendly and safe resource for home-schooled children. This goal is hard because family-friendly for an eight-year-old is different to family-friendly for a sixteen-year old. Articles on subjects like sex and families need to present different stuff, or at least one group will be looking elsewhere for information. The latest idea is that Conservapedia might be a [[think tank]]. Yet another goal, with yet another set of competing criteria to do it well. If these three or four goals were in separate websites or separate namespaces each linked from the front page, editors and readers could choose which they want to be involved in, and perhaps some of the complaints about sysop control would be addressed by people recognising different rules in different spaces. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 05:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think "distracting stubs" meant that placing the {{tl|stub}} template was presenting a distraction. Both Mr. Schafly and [[User:Conservative]] IIRC have criticized its application. No one is objecting to well-written articles that simply happen to be short.
*A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell. [William Strunk, Jr.] http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/02-TeachingResources/readingwriting/05c-essy.htm

Wikipedia suffers from stylistic strictures. It has a prejudice against concise writing and favors "blather" over cohesion. All articles must be created by a process of accretion, as if 100 monkeys at a typewriter could eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. (MUST I point out this use of [[hyperbole]]? That link being a red one, I guess I must. ;-)

At some future date, I may write an article on [[military communications]] which will expose the weaknesses of traditional [[command and control]] ideas, based on the insights of retired Marine Corps General [[Paul van Riper]]. Here's a taste:
*"We would not get caught up in any of these mechanistic processes. We would use the wisdom, the experience, and the good judgment of the people we had." (Page 118 of [[Malcolm Gladwell]]'s ''[[blink]]''.)

Van Riper's Red Team beat the Pentagon's best and brightest in a military exercise called the [[Millennium Challenge]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, I suspect you are right what is ''intended'' by point 12. It is not what it ''says''. I have made two attempts in this talk page section to propose rephrased sentences that I think say what is meant. I'm not allowed to edit the actual page, so can only discuss proposed changes here, leading to interesting tangents if no sysop actually picks up the changes quickly. The "wiki way" (not just Wikipedia) is that I would make a change, and others would improve it in the page itself and eventually we would reach an improved consensus. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 07:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::#I didn't write item #12.
::#You can ask the protecting sysop to unprotect the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Scott, I don't think the site owners care about the "wiki way" very much, neither do I, for a Conservapedia, that gives full credit to Conservative values, and Christian thinking. Consensus reached with those who don't think too highly of non-PC thoughts, and Conservative values isn't consensus, but watering down, IMO. How could it be otherwise? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is verging away from stubs and into a discussion of the relative merits of [[conservatism]] and [[liberalism]]. Continuing on this tangent, I will agree with Terry and run the ball a bit further.

::Conservatives want to preserve what is good, i.e., what we already have. This doesn't mean their minds are closed to new ideas which are also good. We're not sending letters by pony express here but using a [[wiki]] on the [[Internet]]. Just because Al Gore invented it, doesn't mean it's evil <wink>.

::I just think that C's are less close-minded than L's. Read ''[[Closing of the American Mind]]'' for a lengthy essay which argues that liberal "open-mindedness" actually leads to mental impoverishment and destruction. Do Liberals consciously desire poverty and chaos? Hardly. But the problem remains unsolved. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::[[User:Aschlafly|The protecting sysop]] has responded in this thread, but did not change the article, or unprotect it. This appears to be the usual Conservapedia attitude to "...preserve what is good, i.e., what we already have." At least I haven't been reverted for deleting information about Tanzania from [[Tonga]] or Laos from [[Fiji]]. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Tonga? Laos? *head is spinning --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 12:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
**A couple of editors a month ago appear to have had a ''very'' spotty understanding of world geography, and got several countries mixed up. I removed material from articles it was not about. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 18:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Scott, I'm not sure what you want me to respond to. We discourage defacing concise articles here with ugly "stub" banners. Here we encourage conciseness. At Wikipedia, the culture seems to think more words are better. Not so.

: Also, we favor concise rules. We're not going to have thousands and thousands of words about rules here. God covered all of life with Ten Commandments, and many of them were just a few words long. We're going to have fewer here. If you like bureaucracy, then you might prefer Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ed has now corrected the most obvious problem with the point - thanks. The issue appeared to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. The new version is close enough I wouldn't have commented. I have no problem with conciseness, but short-and-wrong is not as good as long-enough-and-right. I continue to contribute to Wikipedia as well, and do not come here with the chip on my shoulder that everything about Wikipedia is wrong, unlike some people here. If we are to criticise Wikipedia, the criticism should be fair and true. Both stubs and VSAs allow a project to extend its breadth quickly, and hopefully others will come behind to increase the depth of coverage. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 18:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== User names? ==

Yep, names like "Conservative", "CoulterMan", etc., aren't ''at all'' like those mentioned. Are you guys aware that "Nearly Headless Nick" is the name of a character from a book? --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 14:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'd shy away from bashing user names, if you want a lot of creative people coming in to edit you're bound to get creative user names. Also, the fact that we have a user who goes by the name of [[User:MountainDew| MountainDew]], (which, at best, is a euphemism of illicit neutral grain spirit and at worst a trademark violation) who is not an ordinary registered user but a sysop, would be like shooting a gun with a "U" shaped barrel. MOO [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 14:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
No offense, but your name is a racial slur. I don't think you have any room to complain about my name. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Ahem? Is it now too offensive to enjoy saltine crackers, or similary culinary treats? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, he's accusing my name of being a reference to moonshine, so that's just as logical. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:06, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Mountain Dew is right; this has been just one more of an army of provocateurs. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Hacker, please refrain, as you know I will do something about it, starting with those whose name is the very epitome of vandalism, eh? I am so glad we could all reason together. Aren't you? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Hacker, as I clearly stated, my objection to "Nearly Headless Nick" (and "The Ostrich") is that they are anti-intellectual. I notices how you omitted the fact that it is a character from a CHILDREN'S book.

Wikipedia is an anti-intellectual movement. The anti-intellectual names add to this fundamental defect. Wikipedia is the internet version of the Cultural Revolution, causing a generation of students to throw out real encyclopedias and look for quick, easy and heavily biased answers by anti-intellectual editors.

As TK points out, Hacker, your pen name is hardly commendable either for an online project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT) 

:I find it irrelevant that it's a children's book. However, I apologize for the PAs.

:Now, as to my username: please read the explanation I have placed on my userpage, in anticipation of such an issue. Then please proceed to read [[hacker]], Hacking for Christ[http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/][http://www.gerv.net/hacking/why-hacking-for-christ.html], the Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker hacker], [http://www.userfriendly.org/ User Friendly], the Jargon File entry on [http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker.html hacker], [http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html How To Become A Hacker], etc. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 18:20, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

TO:[[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] point taken...as this is only my sig name I will amend the signature to me real name, thusly: [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 16:40, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::Hacker, my point was, it was a pot calling the kettle black kind of comment. Yours. Since you surely don't expect all users should be required to read your user page, do you? I repeat, why the bother in making such comments, when most of your work is superior? Is everyone that bored? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Move ==

I'll be moving this to the Conservapedia: namespace, as it is not encyclopedic, and violates commandment 3. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

*Really? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==#11==
I have issues with this one. A user's talk page is a place for discussion and debate. This rule/difference makes it very easy for a sysop to decide he doesn't like being told he's wrong and block any offending users instead of confronting the argument. The user page is what should be controlled as that is their personal space. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:54, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: You can tell the Sysop once, and you can tell other Sysops. You cannot pester or attempt to bully someone on his own talk page. Conservatives respect a man's home as his castle. Ditto for one's own talk page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::PF Fox, don't post any more to my User talk page. See #11 in Differences with Wikipedia. Thank you.--Aschlafly 16:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::LOL! --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==#16 - "anti-intellectual"?==

What makes names like "The Ostrich" anti-intellectual, exactly? I know it's sooper-dooper fun to sit around being preoccupied with stuff like this, because it provides Christians/conservatives with some "cause" to partake in that doesn't involve "inconveniences" like sending money to Africa or helping out at soup kitchens, but honestly---God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being beyond all impeachment. Do you honestly think he cares whether rinky-dink little humans are squabbling about the biography of William Donald Schaefer? That's doubtful. I mean, seriously. The universe that he has created for us is a lot more interesting than bickering about axioms and abstract concepts like 'Conservative' and 'Liberal', right? I can't imagine anything more 'conservative' than conserving all the energy, time, manpower, and effort we've wasted on this endless debate. As for the "Liberals"? Let God sort them out on the other side of the curtain, eh? {{unsigned|Refugee621}}

: I couldn't follow your entire message, other than to observe that an ostrich hides his head in the sand. That has anti-intellectual connotations. Try applying for a graduate program by saying how much you'd like to be like an ostrich, and then let us know much that impresses the professors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Should it be clearly expressed in the Commandments, Guidelines or Manual of Style? Or is there already a requirement? [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 07:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:: Um, usernames are just that- usernames. They aren't generally meant to have deep symbolism or referrences to cliches of what some animals represent. Claiming that Wikipedians' usernames are somehow anti-intellectual frankly makes Conservapedia look silly. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:56, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::: JoshuaZ, if you agree that comments can be anti-intellectual, then surely usernames can be anti-intellectual also. Usernames can convey a message or POV, and if anti-intellectualism exists, then a username can convey that POV. As Wikipedia so perfectly describes in one of its finest entries, "duh"! :-) --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:04, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: It might be possible for some extreme examples of usernames to be anti-intellectual (such as maybe [[User:BooksRfun2Burn]]) but the notion that having a username of a certain animal is anti-intellectual simply because there exists a certain cliche about that animal is laughable. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:19, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Wikipedia editor "The Ostrich" has made a total of ten edits since the end of July 2004.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_Ostrich] Not really an example of a typical Wikipedia editor these days. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n]] and [[User:Wikinterpreter]] for example at Conservapedia have far more edits than that, with just as silly user names. There are three people with the surname "Ostric" in the White Pages in New South Wales - "The Ostrich" would meet the Conservapedia requirement for being derived from a person's name for these people. The silly names comparison should go. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 08:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Bad English ==

Surely the title of the article should be '''Differences from Wikipedia'''. [[User:Catherine|Catherine]] 08:22, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for your contribution. But I think differences "with" is correct when comparing characteristics or views of members in of the same group. For example, "President Bush has had some differences with (not from) Vice President Cheney recently."

: But I'm open-minded about this. Can you explain your position more fully? Welcome, and Lord bless you for your efforts here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't think "differences from" is correct either, but neither do I think "differences with" is any better. I think I'd go for "differences to", but I'm not certain that's correct either, plus there might be a difference between what's "correct" in Australian English vs. American English. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:33, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

: "Differences with" retrieves 1.59 million Google links, suggesting that it is common usage, Philip. But I'm open to improvements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:41, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::I probably have my Google settings differently (e.g. only English pages returned). I get 1.25 million hits for "differences with", 1.24 million hits for "differences from", and 1.21 million hits for "differences to". At this level, this indicates that all are roughly equally used. The next step would be to try and determine if they are being used in the same context. For example, I think "differences with" might tend to be used for something that has changed, so you are talking about "difference with" the product compared to the older version, for example. But I'm not sure on this. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:59, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think that counting the number of Google hits is a valid way of determining correct usage. It just shows that there are a lot of ill-educated people publishing on the internet. However, I appreciate the distinction between ''differences with'' (as applied to arguments) and ''differences from'' (comparison). ''Different to'' is always wrong (according to my old English grammar teacher). In the context of the article I would have thought that the comparison term was the correct application. [[User:Catherine|Catherine]] 13:13, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

: Catherine, you may be right and I greatly appreciate the feedback. However, I find it very awkward to say, "I have differences from Jim." It just sounds wrong to me. It sounds much better to me to say, "I have differences with Jim." Ditto for Conservapedia and Wikipedia, each of which is really a collection of editors and a respective approach. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:00, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::Catherine may well be right about "to", but thinking more about this, I wonder if "differences with Wikipedia" is really saying how ''Wikipedia'' is different from something else (earlier version of Wikipedia, normal encyclopedias, Conservapedia, or whatever), whereas what this article is trying to say is how ''Conservapedia'' is different from Wikipedia.
::Maybe the solution is to change the title to, for example, "Differences between Conservapadia and Wikipedia".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:24, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:::That sounds better, or maybe "How Conservapedia differs from Wikipedia". [[User:Catherine|Catherine]] 05:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Differences between Conservapadia and Wikipedia sounds good, or Catherine's suggestion. I have called this thread to Andy's attention as it's his baby. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:::"Difference to" is everyday language form, "difference from" or "difference between" are commonly used good English. Talking about personal difference should have different preposition but this not that kind of case. (Let's google also "different xxx" - not only "difference xxx") --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 11:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks much, Catherine!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:41, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== #4? ==

"4. We encourage conciseness here, like a true encyclopedia. Wikipedia implicitly encourages (through its use of stubs) long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential facts."

If this is, in fact, the case, then why is there an '<nowiki>{{expand}}</nowiki>' keyword not only available, but used by editors here? Does this not implicitly encourage long-winded, verbose entries? To avoid slipping into hypocrisy, I would advise that Conservapedia either stops making such an allegation against Wikipedia or cease all used of this practice be it called <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> or "cleverly" disguised as <nowiki>{{expand}}</nowiki>. --[[User:TokenModerate|TokenModerate]] 14:10, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== Journalistic sources? ==

Difference #6 states:
<blockquote>We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.</blockquote>

I am not doubting the research done in [[Homosexual Public Indecency Tolerated in San Francisco]] and [[Hamilton Square Baptist Church riot]] (I believe there is a strong bias only showing one side of the story - but that is another matter and a battle I know is a losing one) but I am curious as to how an articles that are purely drawn from journalist accounts meshes with this difference.

Personally, I believe that journalistic sources are good and necessary to have as they are often primary sources of information rather than an abstraction later. This keeps Conservapedia a secondary source of information rather than a third or fourth level source. But if difference #6 is to be maintained, then a critical look at those two articles and future articles that depend upon journalistic sources needs to be made. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:44, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== "Anti-intellectual names"? ==

What the heck? [[User:The Ostrich|The Ostrich]] 19:51, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*Indeed. Do you attend school or go to your place of employment and insist on being called "The Ostrich"? No, because you would never be taken seriously.....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:09, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

**Online, pseudonymity is key for many people. What can they do otherwise for a unique identifier? Are you suggesting that a substantial privacy risk should be taken? I don't mind using my name, people think I'm joking, but what should people seeking a unique, memorable, and private identity name themselves online? your two-letter combination can't serve the Internet's millions - we'd run out after 262. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 00:06, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::: Would you give someone your resume if it was printed in unreadable non-standard font that also substituted letters from non-english alphabets for the the standard ones? How is that different, .....--? Oh, you think it's cute so IT IS different. [[User:Mandrew|Mandrew]] 07:58, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::: Do you think no one takes R.USirius (our however it is spelled) seriously? [[User:Mandrew|Mandrew]] 08:01, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Drive to improve this page - your help is desired ==

I am reviewing this section both for edits, clarification, and for possible new entries to the list. Improvements, suggestions, or constructive criticism are welcome. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:37, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

== numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, ==

#Number 1 is either obviously wrong or critically misleading: the GDFL is specifically designed to allow users to retain ownership of their contributions while allowing free redistribution. You do not lose any rights whatsoever to what you contribute when you contribute under a GDFL license, since you still own the original version. Your only restriction is once another person edits an article - then, ''the article'' is no longer yours, but your original content still belongs to you. Further, it allows you to prevent mirrors from claiming that they are the creators of your content - you can file a DMCA takedown notice based on your copyright, whereas public domain content is, well, public domain.
#While I remain puzzled as to what is meant by "entries and discussions which are anti-intellectual in nature" (I see no "nerds, you suck" pages on Wikipedia, and the assertion itself seems unfounded (examples, please?)), Wikipedia has merely chosen to separate its lectures, guides, et cetera into separate projects (Wikiversity, Wikisource, Wikibooks) to concentrate on a core goal of creating an encyclopedia. Number 2 thus seems grossly misleading - it is not that Wikipedia is lacking, it is that Conservapedia's content is jumbled together (which may or may not be a good thing :) ).
#While Jimbo Wales did co-found Wikia, it is noted repeatedly as being otherwise unaffiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. Further, what search engine is associated with Wikipedia?!? Number 3 seems almost ridiculously unhinged.
#
#Gossip isn't exactly allowed on Wikipedia either. I hear they have a really strict [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biography_of_living_persons policy about unreferenced material on living people]. Perhaps number 5 could use a fact-checking tune-up?
#
#
#Neutral to the facts? Conservapedia freely admits being highly pro-Christian, pro-Conservative, and pro-US. The last time I heard that called neutral... there wasn't a last time. Further, what's wrong with using the word "militant"? They mean virtually the same thing, and "militant" isn't politically charged, as "terrorist" is. Number 8 seems to be missing the point: what's wrong with trying to be neutral? Besides, organizations widely recognized as being terrorist in nature are usually labelled as such regardless.
#It's a wiki: anyone can change anything. If your content is supported by consensus, backed up by references, and bolstered by not presenting a lopsided view of the situation in question, it's unlikely that any user, even a sysop, could get away with censoring content. just as I assume is the case on Conservapedia. Got a case in point? I'd like to hear about it. Number 9. Turn me on, dead man.
#Excluding original research makes any reference more reliable. While Conservapedia may think that this "promotes a more intellectual atmosphere", any trained scientist will know that a single experiment, original research, is in and of itself unreliable. Until results are confirmed by multiple parties, which is unlikely to happen, the information obtained should not be trusted. Number 10 marks double digits of shame.
#Do you have a case in point? I recall seeing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines Wikipedia's talk page guidelines], and it seems to me that users have a pretty wide latitude on their own user pages, as long as they aren't disrupting everyone else (in which case, as a misbehaving child might, it is obvious for them to lose some privileges).
#
#Perhaps Wikipedia has exacting rules, but it has been my experience that users are blocked because they make an edit which annoys a sysop on Conservapedia, for example [[User:NeutralParty]] who was blocked for asking about a series of indefinite IP range blocks. Wikipedia's rules would seem preferable to the apparant mob here. I was once blocked for an inappropriate username, with the summary "choose a different username" while having my IP blocked from creating accounts. If I am blocked for posting this, you merely prove my point - Conservapedia needs better blocking rules. Oh well.
#But you have no system for recognizing which people are experts, so your policy is just as bad - you simply treat all new users as... new users - which doesn't seem to be any different from Wikipedia. Unless, again, you can think of a case in point?
#Case in point? Someone being blocked for blog posts obviously was causing a real problem to be blocked. Your statement lacks both context and clarity for the instance.
#And what is your alternative to pseudonymity? Users who have inappropriate usernames are immediately and indefinitely blocked with invitation to choose a better name immediately. Further, I fail to see how usernames are inherently "anti-intellectual" - it's the contributions that matter, not the name.

::I have a bit of a problem with these "differences", and I have outlined my problems with them above. I don't mean to be an annoyance, but were someone to point out the holes in these differences, it might look like you were arbitrarily smearing Wikipedia. Which you aren't, right? I'd like to see some improvement here. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 23:53, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::: I read as far as your implication that Wikipedia does not have gossip. Surely you're joking. Wikipedia is the National Enquirer of the internet. Or perhaps you don't think the National Enquirer has gossip either????--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm not joking. My problem is that I don't see the evidence to support that claim which you make. While anonymous users add stuff all the time, the metaphorical chaff is quickly separated from the similarly metaphorical wheat, with most unproductive or nonsensical edits being reverted. Further, while Wikipedia may contain some gossip (I certainly imagine that it is quite difficult to police nearly 2m pages simultaneously with only volunteers), it isn't exactly ''allowed'', as the statement implied. Either point me to something on Wikipedia saying that gossip is allowed, or if there is gossip, point it out and some loyal Wikipedian will notice and remove the offending text within a few hours. Simply saying "Wikipedia is the National Enquirer of the internet" is a meaningless smear if one cannot provide a valid justification for the comparison. It's not so much what is right - it is the respectability of being able to back up an otherwise questionable claim. I assume Conservapedia wishes to be respectable. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 08:02, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Please remove #3 immediately, it is just plain ridiculous. Who ever wrote that was probably reading news articles with headlines such as "Wikipedia to launch search engine", many of those news articles were so inaccurate that they were not even revised, but taken off the web. I understand that you are referring to Wikia Search when you say search engine, but as one of three Wikia Search sysops I know that the biggest myth about it is that it is in some way connected with Wikipedia. We are constantly fighting this myth. Please make your site more credible by removing this factual inaccuracy off of it. Thanks! [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 10:07, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: INTregued, your comments are an example of how a [[liberal]] can make an absurd argument with a straight face. Countless articles on Wikipedia are filled with gossip and it's obvious that the gossip attracts visitors, just as the National Enquirer does. This is not vandalism. Do you think the National Enquirer is vandalized before publication??? To take just one example, check out Bertrand Russell's entry on Wikipedia. I'll let you find the gossip. There are thousands of examples like that, and it is not vandalism. Conservapedia has a rule against gossip. Wikipedia does not. More examples are at [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: Mschel, learn how to spell "ridiculous" for starters. Then figure out how Wikipedia leaders were able to raise millions for their search engine project. It was due to the actual and expected preferences in directing Wikipedia traffic to the search engine. It's remarkable how many Wikipedia volunteers are fooled by this. Perhaps you're one of them. How about volunteering to work for Microsoft next?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::You are still making the same mistake as these guys from the press who have no idea what they are talking about. As one of the three admins on Wikia Search, if something like that was going on I think I would know about it. As for working for Microsoft, I object, I do not have one single piece of Microsoft software on my computer, and I have been using Linux for years. :D [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 10:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I'm glad you fixed your spelling of "ridiculous". Now perhaps you can tell us how many millions the for-profit Wikia search engine has raised from investors, which Wikipedia admins control and benefit from that for-profit endeavor, and how Wikipedia is and will be being manipulated to give it an advantage. You tell us the details if you know so much. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:10, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::O my! Someone has been reading too much CNN. [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 11:18, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:Aschafly, Wikipedia ''does'' have rules against gossip. Perhaps one of the sentences from one of the core policies (Verifiability) will make this clear: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Further, you attempt to discount my argument as absurd by calling me a liberal. This would only be an effective retort were I a liberal. I'm afraid that I only skimmed through the article on Bertrand Russell, but I don't see the gossip right away. Could you point me to a specific section or sections? Or has any gossip been appropriately removed? Further, I'm afraid it is not obvious that Wikipedia's "gossip" is the primary attraction to visitors. Also, would you mind reading some of the other complaints? Specifically, number 1 is, IMHO, the worst problem of the lot.
:And regarding Wikipedia admins, they aren't paid. The only connections that Wikia has to Wikipedia are Jimbo Wales and the occasional donation from Wikia, which help keep Wikipedia running - if Wikipedia itself were for-profit, it might have better servers rather than the lag-prone arrays currently responding to the flood of traffic. Further, I'm pretty sure that the great majority of Wikipedia end-users are not even aware of the Wikia Search page, or of any but the most popular Wikia-based sites. Even further than that, I mean no offense, but your last comment sounds somewhat like something from your Enquirer. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 12:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

: INTregued, you're clueless. Look up gossip in the dictionary and read a copy of the National Enquirer so that you can learn what "gossip" is. Then reread Bertrand Russell's entry on Wikipedia and see the gossip. Read [[Bias in Wikipedia]] for other examples. Wikipedia is filled with gossip, perhaps even more than the National Enquirer is. I'm not going to spend my afternoon teaching you what everyone else knows: the meaning of the term "gossip". I'm not going to respond to you further about this until you admit the obvious, and admit that Wikipedia does not prohibit or even discourage gossip. It welcomes it.

: Your second point also misses the obvious, and I'm not going to dwell on that with you either. Wikipedia generates traffic on the backs of volunteers, and a privileged few have raised millions in a for-profit venture to exploit that traffic. In the terminology of another silly Wikipedia entry, duh.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:59, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:: In the various talk pages about atheism there is a question about who the burden of proof is upon for making a claim. In this case, I believe the burden is upon you. You have stated that there is gossip in the Bertrand Russell page on Wikipedia and yet you leave the evidence as left up to the reader who doesn't necessarily agree with you? Could you please point to specific items to show to others where that gossip is to prove your point? Making vague claims and then leaving it up to the other side to prove or disprove your claims will not win any points in a debate team. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:39, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Is the point of this site to be a better alternative to Wikipedia, or to bash it? When I joined I I was under the former impression, I am now leaning towards the latter. For example, if you go to the article about Wikipedia, you don't learn that it is a wiki, all you see is that it's an online encyclopedia, and section after section of mud-slinging. Would someone please explain this to me? [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 13:17, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

*Mschel, you are yet another common troll. You cannot even post here with openly and with integrity without using proxies to disguise yourself. More Liberal [[deceit]]. Bye. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:59, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, Rutm's comment was what I planned to say - have you any good argument besides "it's obvious" that Wikipedia contains and, more ridiculously, encourages gossip? I don't plan on continually pushing against an ''ad hoc'' "it's obvious" argument, or vague references to long articles which might contain only a small percentage of "gossip" left over because the article is not policed strongly enough. Further, Wikimedia routinely publishes third-party audits publicly [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf], which doesn't quite seem in line with the dark for-profit agenda you allege they follow. I'm not counting on you responding, and less on acting (fixing the mistakes quoted), but you might do well if you can recognize that smears without context, references, and/or proof merely damage your credibility. How is this "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" if it cannot write about ideas, for example, Wikipedia's use of the GDFL, without misdirection? I'd like to see this fixed. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 23:08, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Monitor blogs ==

I know that, I wrote a blog about 3 days after they banned me about getting people together to get Wikipedia Shut Down and within 2 hours it was cross posted on Wikipedia and now every one on Wikipedia except a few editors have a negative view on me.--'''''[[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian16]]''''' 19:01, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:No Mercy (2007)

2008-03-19T22:43:41Z

FellowChristian16: