Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Terrorism

2007-05-09T23:07:59Z

Flippin: /* Link for edit */

==A definition==
Here's the definition as of March 13, 2007: "Terrorism is a term used to refer to violence (usually against civilians) instigated to further a certain political or ideological goal."

That's obviously not a good definition, unless you want to include ''all'' armed action. By saying ''usually'' against civilians, violent action against armies is not ruled out as a form of terrorism. For example, by that definition George Washington's fight at Valley Forge would be considered terrorism (because it was violent and it sought to further a political goal). I assume that's not what the person who wrote that definition intended.

It's also not a good definition because it seems some terrorist violence is not intended to further political or ideological goals. For instance, were the Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo subway a form of terrorism, and if so, what political or ideological goal did they support? --[[User:Rotifer|Rotifer]] 05:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I OBJECT to the inclusion of the IRA as a terrorist group. Some splinter groups of the IRA have committed terrorist attacks, but for most of its history the IRA was a group of freedom fighters. The British government occupied Ireland against the Irish people's will, and Irish people (regular folks and leaders) banded together to fight (yes, with weapons, violence, etc.) against the occupying troops and police forces of the British. Attacking civilians is a different issue. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 04:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's simply untrue. An argument could be made that the IRA of 1916-1921 weren't terrorists. But at least since 1956 they have been. Indiscriminate killing of civilians who were in the wrong store or the wrong bar or restaurant at the wrong time certainly fits the definition. Yes they targeted soldiers and policemen, but most of those they killed were civilians. La Mon, Bloody Friday, Enniskillen, Baltic St, Canary Wharf.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Like Rotifer said, could someone please try to come up with a correct definition of terrorist? The definition so far seems to include freedom fighters as if they are terrorists. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 04:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Freedom Fighters are Terrorists our government likes. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 04:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I removed the sentence about freedom fighters since it is misleading - terrorism and freedom-fighting are not mutually exclusive. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 05:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Wait a minute!!! You seem to be implying that conservatives are sometimes in favor of terrorism!!! That's not what you meant to imply, is it? I'm putting the statement about the difference between terrorism and freedom-fighting back in. You are very, very, welcome to clarify it... I think the whole page needs clarification... But we can't allow confusion between terrorism and freedom fighting in this page. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Terrorism and freedom fighting are not "opposites", Terrorism is a tactic, or method. So "Terrorists" might be freedom fighters, or might not be, and "Freedom fighters" might employ terrorism, or might not. You can say that the IRA were freedom fighters, but you can't deny that they committed terrorist acts. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 06:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The "freedom fighter" definition needs work. I've commented on its talk page, but it's also relevant to this discussion.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 04:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

New to this site so not sure as to the talk protocol but I'd like to point out the truism that one man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter" and that a objective analysis based on political affiliation is incredibly biased. And, as a UK resident, I'd object to anyone wishing to remove the IRA from the list of terrorist organisations. From personal experiance, the Manchester bombing carried out by the IRA purely targeted civillians which would label them firmly as terrorists.--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 17:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:To agree with what has been said above on the '''Terrorist/Freedom Fighter''' debate, these are subjective labels depending on your opinion of the groups under discussion, whereas "terrorism" is a defined military/paramilitary tactic, regardless of '''who''' uses it, whether for freedom, national self-determination, religious hatred or anything. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 23:50, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Terrorist vs. Freedom Fighters==

I think what needs to be pointed out is what somebody did say before: terrorism is a tactic; freedom fighters are people. Freedom fighter can be a terrorist, but a terrorist does not have to be a freedom fighter. There is an enthymeme there, but I don't have time to go into it just now. I will come back to discuss this later on. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== IRA ==

I have added Continuity IRA and Real IRA as they are both considered to be terrorist organizations by the British and American governments.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Government==
'' A government can support a terrorist, or the terrorist's goals, but cannot itself be terroristic. ''

The Nazi regime was not terroristic? Saddam putting people in woodchippers is not terrorism? The Soviet, Chinese, Korean & Cuban gulag systems are not employing terrorism to intimidate the populace and keep them in check? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yknow, I didn't like the way that was originally written, but I disagree more with the re-edit. Governments can engage in terroristic activities. Thats why we have the term "State Sponsored Terrorism."--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The term is not accurate. "State sponsored terrorism" is an [[oxymoron]]. States, by definition, cannot be terroristic (including the Nazis, or whomever else you want to name) because their forces are ALWAYS military. Calling state actions terrorism is the equivalent of saying the US Navy Seals are state sponsored terrorists-- does that make it more clear? The term SST entered the lexicon probably in the same way "irregardless" did, as a useless modifier. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

It is possible for states to harbour, fund or support terrorists due to the fact that, although not being part of the state, they are considered to have the same aims as the controlling party of said state. Hence whilst not strictly "state sponsored terrorism" this could be construed as "state sanctioned terrorism".--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 17:54, 10 April 2007 (EDT) offtopic, I need to remember to sign my contribs ; )

::Please sign your posts with four tildes "[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)" I understand that states can harbor terrorists, but they cannot be terroristic. Terrorism, by definition (which is admittedly difficult) is not a state act. Look at a country like Somalia, they essentially have no government, but are they a nation of terrorists? They can't be a '''nation''' is the problem. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Flippin, So is it just my imagination this document exists ([http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65462.pdf pgs. 171 - 178 pdf]), or are denying the legitimcay of US State Dept. authority to publish it?

:An excerpt:

Chapter 6

STATE SPONSORS OF TERROR OVERVIEW

Iran and Syria routinely provide unique safe haven, substantial resources and
guidance to terrorist organizations.

State sponsors of terrorism provide critical support to non-state terrorist groups. Without state sponsors, terrorist groups would have much more difficulty obtaining the funds, weapons,
materials, and secure areas they require to plan and conduct operations. Most worrisome is
that some of these countries also have the capability to manufacture WMD and other
destabilizing technologies that can get into the hands of terrorists. The United States will
continue to insist that these countries end the support they give to terrorist groups. --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::I am saying the distinction is rhetorical, not ideological. In 2008, the terms will probably change. Look at the recent episode with the "global war on terror" language. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

This is still an issue of semantics. Whether a state is complicit in acts that would be viewed as terrorism (therefore rendering it not an act of terrorism) or whether it "merely" supports their aims and provides a haven, it makes little difference in the end. --[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 18:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::It makes a great deal of difference. The problem is this: when a state acts it is not terrorism. Simply put, that is like saying putting one foot in front of the other and moving your body is walking. So, every time I put one foot in front of the other I am walking. So, cross country skiing becomes a form of walking. OR every time I move forward, I am walking. If I am in a car, moving forward, we don't call that walking. Semantics are important in this case. When a state acts, the resulting action is from their military force-always. If a state is complicit in acts of terrorism, they are declaring war because that is a military action. This distinction is key to why our country is divided on what to do about Iraq right now. Terrorists act outside the state--they may have the same goals, but if they act within the state they are not terrorists, they are troops. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So Saddam gassing the Kurds (including infants) was not an act of terrorism? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:38, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::::No, neither was Hitler gassing the Jews. They were acts of genocide, they were atrocious and vulgar, but definitely not terrorism. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:41, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Citations needed==

We need citations for each one of these:
* [[Al-Qaeda]]
* [[Contra]]
* [[Mujahadeen el-Khalq]]
* [[SAVAK]] (Iranian Organization for Intelligence and National Security)
* [[FRAPH]] (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti)

[[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I tried to give the following references, but someone else was working on the article (someone who actually knows how to use the 'reference' tags!) and there was an edit conflict, so ill put them here for now:

* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1670089.stm Al-Qaeda]
* [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/irancontra/irancon.html Contra]
* [http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/index.html Mujahadeen el-Khalq ]
* [http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/savak.htm SAVAK (Iranian Organization for Intelligence and National Security)]
* [http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,449923,00.html KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) ]
* [http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1163909,00.html FRAPH (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti)]

[[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 01:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Now added to the article [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 02:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Orgone, Thank you, and good job. Now two problems exist; (1) the al Qeade reference is unacceptable in the regard, the source state unequivocally "Al-Qaeda....was created in 1989 ....
The organisation grew out of the network of Arab volunteers who had gone to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight under the banner of Islam against Soviet Communism". It was [[Mujahideen]] that recieved support, not al Qeade. (2) Subhead reads, "Groups Considered to be Terrorist Organizations Funded by the United States"; '''''considered by whom?''''' we need a source for this claim.

Finally, as a word of caution, whatever the cause of the error of represnting al Qeade with this
claim false claim, I highly recommend having the proper research in place before posting such a controversial inclusion. There is nothing wrong with bringing valid, highly controversial material to light like this; however, when something is as easily disprovable as a claim like this one, it does reflect upon the credibility of the editor who placed it. So as to avoid being accused of wreckless partisanship or other things that can undermine true scholarship and research, please have the material properly orgainized and cited, and faulty inclusion of this nature then can be regarded as good faith errors as opposed to naked propagandizing. Thank you for your attention to this. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
===al Qaede===
''reverted material:''
* [[Al-Qaeda]]<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1670089.stm ''Al-Qaeda's origins and links''], BBC News, July 20, 2004.</ref>

===Contras===
Here's another one; the Reagan State Dept. did not have ''Contra's'' on the terrorist watch list. This is now example two of bad use of sources and sloppy research methodology. I think we have to revert the subhead now due to its controversial and unsourced claim.

* [[Contra]]<ref>National Security Archive, [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/irancontra/irancon.html ''The Iran-Contra Affair: The Making of a Scandal, 1983-1988''] 1990.</ref>

===SAVAK===
The claim SAVAK "received US funding" is highly questionable, being that (a) it was a bureau of the Iranian government. (b) Iran's oil wealth hardly necessitates US subsidies to run an internal bureau. ''Prima facia'' this claim appears bogus, but it will be researched. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

==img==
Good img. Why don't we move it up to the top? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
::Good idea. Done. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:36, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, bad image. I really think this ought to be deleted. Terrorism is not just a political strategy, but a rhetorical one. This image '''is''' the reason many Americans died, but the image itself was what the terrorists wanted us to see. THIS image is their achievement and by putting it on this page, font and center, you endorse their message (which is: we can do this to even the most powerful nation on earth.) Ask yourself this one question: Had you, or your neighbors ever heard of Al Qaeda before 9/11? Most likely not. THIS image made them a household name. It really must be removed. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So if the 9/11 picture 'endorses' the terrorists' message, do pictures of starving Jewish prisoners from the Holocaust endorse Hitler's message? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, the message with Hitler was military and political. With 9/11 the point was for everyone to see the terrorists strength--their ability to bring us to our knees, and all that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:54, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I disagree... but what sort of image would you recommend if this one is not good enough? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:58, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

A picture of something that does not connote the terrorists' values. So, no images of them with Nick Berg, that sort of thing. Honestly, the best approach might be something like the picture of the guy on the balcony in Munich, 1972. Gives the image, without the current debate. That would be a good example. The other is simply too much, too soon. I appreciate your consideration on this. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[Image:Terrormunich.jpg]] This the image you're referring to? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 14:16, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, I think it gives the impression of the what the page will discuss without the rhetorical issue I mentioned before. Thanks. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:20, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==IMG X2==
Wow, looks great. Thanks! [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:26, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==source for edit==
http://www.amazon.com/Terrorist-Myths-Illusion-Rhetoric-Reality/dp/0139068015/ref=sr_1_1/104-9898859-8430311?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178134302&sr=1-1 Peter Sederberg's book is the first I found to directly address the issue of defining terrorism. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:33, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Link for edit ==

At "See also"

[[Yasser Arafat]]

::Only problem is, he wasn't a terrorist. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 19:07, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Bible history

2007-05-09T22:49:20Z

Flippin: New page: Ok, this article needs work, but I am not the person to do it. This "chunk" of text is an eyesore--can anyone clean this up? ~~~~

Ok, this article needs work, but I am not the person to do it. This "chunk" of text is an eyesore--can anyone clean this up? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 18:49, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Homophobia

2007-05-09T22:19:21Z

Flippin: /* Unclear Sentence */

{{unprotected|1 May|RobS}}
Archive(s): [[/1]]
==Science again==
This article I think is complete and it's been nominated for feature status. Let me add a personal observation: many who disputed the science in the Evolution related articles were curiously silent when it came to discussing the science in this article, or dismissed the science outright. There is something to be learned from this. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:01, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's not really any science in this article to speak of. The sentence about the therapeutic community being divided is, in my view of that community, a mischaracterization because it suggests a relatively even split, which I don't think is accurate. If there's a citation that supports that point fine, but as is it doesn't work. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 01:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: I think that the article still needs work. It says, "Christians and others who oppose homosexuality on Biblical grounds". But the word homophobia is not just used against those who oppose homosexuality on Biblical grounds. In fact it is usually used against others. It is used against those who oppose same-sex marriage, even when the opposition to same-sex marriage has nothing to do with Christianity or the Bible.
: The etymology may not be correct. My Merriam-Webster dictionary gives 1958 for the earliest known usage. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::The etymology is sourced to Gregory M. Herek, ''Beyond 'Homophobia': Thinking About Sexual Prejudice and Stigma in the Twenty-First Century'', Sexuality Research & Social Policy, April, 2004, one more reason this psuedoscience is suspect. A cite dating back to 1958 supports Dr. Breiner's claim, "There is no doubt that homophobia exists" and "There is only one homophobia, which has been properly defined". The psuedoscience which has permeated the research community has produced volumes of research papers propounding "internal, institutional, or cultural homophobia", which the theraputic community as a whole has failed to adopt or recognize as having any sort of valid scientific basis, at least as far as diagnosis and treatment are concerned (it may have some value in the Sociological field, but that does not carry the weight among legislators for whom this psuedoscience is intended to influence). As far as Herek is concerned, the term did in fact enter mainstream and journalistic use about the time he claims, 1973 and after, and the assertion it reached mainstream use starting with pornographic publications (''Screw'' magazine likewise probably can be supported by the evidence). The claim Weinberg invented it is probably fauilty, but we can say "gay activist and psychologist Gerald Weinberg helped popularize the term".

::What may be most valueable here is demonstrating how the attacks on Creation science claim it lacks a "true" scientific basis, yet those making the attacks are absolutely powerless to give any scientific support to the idea of "homophobia", which was the original intent when the term was popularized. Having failed to hijack the psychologcial research and theraputic professions to futher the homosexual agenda, we see the next phase of an activist agenda taking shape with an attempt to redefine the same flawed theories in new language using legel terminology (hetero "sexism") instead of the psuedoscientific terminology. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Of course. The whole thing is tied in with [[Junk science]], i.e., the citing of unreproducible scientific studies to score political or ideological points. The first time I caught people doing this was over the phrase, "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer." (Maybe my interest stems from my last name, I dunno. ;-)

:::In the Western world, over the last few centuries, both the rich '''and''' the poor have become wealthier. Statistics prove this easily, thus disproving one of [[Marxism]]'s most central claims. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll never argue that homophobia is a phobia; just that it's a form of discrimination.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:35, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you have any objective support for that view? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::One thing that is clear is that at least most of the time when the term is used it is not referring to a literal phobia of gay people. Setting aside whatever the intentions of the guy who invented the term may have been, I also don't believe there's any evidence that there are a meaningful number of people who have a phobia of homosexuality. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:26, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The term clearly was invented to give currency to the idea (a) that homosexuaity was normal, and (b) the rejection of homosexuality was abnormal, (c) that science supported this view. It was psuedoscience that was politicized. And the ''intent'' of its promulgators was always to attack critics. It was bad psuedoscience to begin with, because it urged discriminition and reprisals against people who, by any scientific definition, would be handicapped. My appologies to the promulators and purveyors of lies -- the chickens have come home to roost. The fraud has been exposed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Reparative therapy==
Reparative therapy has no less than 3 ''primea facia'' serious flaws in its intial expansion, see [[Talk:Reparative therapy]]. We are not ready to split this off into a separate article yet. [[AFD Reparative therapy]] has been nominated for deletion because of the naked mirepresentation of scientific and technical sources and the editor warned. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG#Reparative_therapy] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Robledo's edit ==

User Robledo edited the page to a concise, clear, sensible [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homophobia&oldid=137791 version] on April 30 2007. it has been rapidly reverted to the rather bizarre paranoid rant that has developed, which is a shame since it satisfied well known sensible conservative user Ed Poor, and a loony leftie like me. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I would have liked to have seen Robledo's version be accepted as a fine working outline for the article... maybe even the opening part of the article... and then expanded with well-sourced backing for each of the points that it makes. It seemed to me to state the points that needed to be made correctly, neutrally, and accurately. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:24, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Way to run away ==

So you lock it without discussion? Doesn't a shorter, more succint article make more sense?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think you were given a fair warning regarding your editing. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:AmesG&diff=136813&oldid=134839][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Reparative_therapy#Example_1][http://www.conservapedia.com/AFD_Reparative_therapy] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:11, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Archive warning==

Are we all ready for an archive? Maybe someone who hasn't participated as much in the discussion as I have, should do the archive. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

*Done... although I've participated quite a bit too. If anyone has a problem with where I made the cut, just fix it, I won't object. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
**Thanks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== opposition to the homosexual agenda ==
I reverted an edit that claimed that the term was used for opposition to homosexuality, rather than the homosexual agenda. Does anyone have any comment? I see the term homophobia used for opposition to same-sex marriage and things like that, much more than homosexuality itself. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:It's a catch-all term. It's used to shut down debate. Like comparing someone to Hitler. It's emotionally manipulative. It reminds me of Orwell's [[Newspeak]] which was designed to prevent thought, rather to express it. It's part of the whole [[politically correct]] thing.

:I'm for freedom, and I think that [[homosexuality]] is the worst sort of slavery. Many young men are trapped in it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::Are you serious? Every gay person I know has known either from childhood that they were "different" or discovered it on their own. Is trapped really the precise word? I know it is if you believe it is a choice, but I have never, not once, in my experience with gay people, met someone whose chosen it. That is the weirdest thing to me that people believe that. Just a thought here, but should we also have a page dedicated to [[straight civil unions]] and the [[straight agenda]]?[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Your response seems a bit muddled, specifically regarding the relationship between ''trapped'' and ''choice''. As I understand these words, when one is trapped, one's choices are limited, curtailed, stymied, and even eliminated. A prisoner in a jail has no choice about his daily routine. He can't, for example, take a stroll outside the grounds.

:::Perhaps you have confused me with other Christians who regard homosexual behavior as entirely a matter of choice. Going to rock concerts instead of opera and ballet, is a choice. Majoring in economics or biology or civil engineering (or not going to college at all), is a choice. Voting Democratic or Republican is a choice.

:::Feeling revulsion or fear or indifference or attraction upon seeing a pretty girl, on the other hand, does not appear to be a matter of choice. Asking her out on a date, or shooting her with an automatic rifle, however, is most certainly a choice. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:26, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Robledo's version. ==

I reverted it, because he basicly rewrote the whole thing without bringing anything up on the talk page, after there was significant discussion to come up with the previous version. I am open to changing it, but i think that his version takes it a little too far. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:26, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: First sentence - how is homophobia a pseudoscientific term? What claims to the scientific method does it make? Is it any less scientific than arachnophobia? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::What is a phobia? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::: The m-w says it well - "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation" There are no claims to scientificness of the term. If you can find any material that claims a scientific backing of homophobia, that would be interesting to see. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:05, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Here's our Guide, the [http://anxiety.psy.ohio-state.edu/phobia-d.htm DSM IV]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:23, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm intrigued by the notion of having taken it "a little too far." The aims of my second revision were thus:

1. To make it clear that the term's common usage refers to a general opposition (not phobic or irrational), and is widely understood as such.

2. To acknowledge that even this "weak" formulation contains an implicit value judgement, akin to labelling someone racist or sexist, and that this angers principled opponents.

3. To acknowledge that violence and intimidation is a continuing issue and must be resisted by principled opponents ''as well as'' activists.

4. To do this in a clear, concise and fair manner.

The removal of the NARTH material is necessitated by aims 1 & 4, particularly with regards to fairness. This site has ample anti-homosexual entries already - it needs another like it needs a fire in its server room.

If anyone wishes to take specific issue with any of these stated aims, or identify how my [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homophobia&diff=144205&oldid=144021 second revision] failed to meet them, please do so below. Comments of support are also welcome.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 13:59, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes but the whole problem stems from the disinformation campaign mounterd by gay activists in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s; they nakedly abused a scientific term to further a political agenda. The idea was obvious then, once homosexuality was "normalized", gay activists sought to slander opposition to homosexuality as "abnormal". Today, 2007, they '''cannot''' walk away from the factual, historical, record, claim they were misunderstood or something, while at the same time slandering people who both oppose the homosexual ageneda, and dissent on the idea that homosexuality is "normal" behavior. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:29, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

OK, cards on the table. I personally hold homosexuality to be a trivial physical difference exhibited by a minority of the population, in much the same way that some people are left-handed or have blue eyes.

Your primary concern seems to be the history of the use of the term. I'm more concerned with how it's used now. Can we perhaps agree on two things:

1. That principled opponents explicitly reject violence and intimidation directed against homosexuals, and that the article needs to make this clear.

2. That the historical points you are trying to make might be better placed within articles which already serve that function, namely [[homosexual agenda]]?

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 15:19, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*''principled opponents explicitly reject violence and intimidation directed against homosexuals''
:Please stop momentarilly; this itself may be a bigotted statement against heterosexuals. It automatically assumes "violence and intimidation directed against homosexuals" primarily comes from heterosexuals. Homosexuals have the highest rates of domestic violence of any socio economic group. Consenting homosexual relationships are often are fraught with violence. So before we begin accusing or condemning a large group of people of things they may not be guilty of, we need to lay some other cards on the table. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:45, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Jesus wept, [[User:RobS|RobS]]. Let's try this again then:

1. That principled opponents explicitly reject ''that violence and intimidation which is directed against homosexuals purely because they're homosexual'', and that the article needs to make this clear.

People get beaten up for being gay (killed in some countries). This is a Bad Thing. However great your antipathy towards homosexuality in general, I struggle to believe you'd wish to come down on the side of petty thuggery and I'm frankly baffled as to why you're prevaricating.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 18:15, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:Valid point. And it needs to be made somewhere. But we're not making concession to the fact that gay rights activists have been extraordinarily deceptive and mean spirited with the use of this term since the day of its inception. And the recent Congressional action testifies to this [http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9069&department=CFI&categoryid=papers] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:24, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Glad to have you on board re. violence and intimidation. This is a Good Thing. Oddly enough, the Bill your above link frets about so much confines itself to those who cause, or attempt to cause, '''bodily injury''' to someone because of their (deep breath) actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation or disability. Why this can't be dealt with under existing laws, I don't know, but there's no mention of anti-gay speech at all. I suggest you [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~mdbswg2UuC:: read it].

I still think that the historical points you wish to make would be best developed in [[homosexual agenda]]. I'd be happy to link back to it within a short paragraph explaining the depth of feeling/anger involved.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 22:29, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:There is serious reservations about this legislation. See [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54535 Christian belief a 'hate crime' under plan], WorldNetDaily, March 3, 2007. See this qote from another citations,
::"So, if speech turns a three-year sentence into a 30-year sentence for a state "hate crime" violation, just what might H.R. 1592 do on the federal level? As Rep. (and former Judge) Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, pointed out on the House Judiciary Subcommittee, if passed, H.R. 1592 is going to put pastors in prison. Pointing to Title 18 of the US Criminal Code, Section 2 (a):
:::(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, '''counsels''', commands, '''induces''' or procures its commission, is '''punishable as a principal'''. –18 USC Sec. 2
:::Pastor? Have you ever counseled from a biblical perspective or read from Roman 1? I Corinthians 6? Genesis 19? Leviticus 18 or 20? Then, if H.R. 1592 becomes law and someone who has attended your church, read your materials or heard your broadcast commits a crime – such as pushing away a cross-dresser's unwelcome advances – you are "punishable as a principal," as someone who "counsels" and "induces" the now-illegal belief that homosexual behavior is a sin. [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55348]
::What is most appaling is, this blatant attack on the Constitutional rights of American citizens does not have a prayer of becoming law, because we know Bush will vetoe it. But Pelosi and company have now stated categorically what their priorities are -- this evidenctly is ''more important'' than getting troops out of Iraq, because they already have acted upon it. nevertheless, despite Pelosi & company ''knowing'' it will not become law in legislative session, we have another example of liberal [[Deceit]], only this time the [[Democratic Party]] leadership is deceiving gay rights activists, misleading them into beleiving their desire to violate the Constitutional rights of other American citizens has a chance to become law. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, Rob, the real victims are the people discriminating against gays, and constantly making them feel like second-class citizens. Thanks for reminding us who the real victims are.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:27, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:We're getting sidetracked here (though I'll check out this new Bill later). Can we return to the idea that I feel the historical points you wish to make would be best developed in [[homosexual agenda]]? Any specific criticisms you have of my second revision would be useful too.

:Good to see you back, AmesG ;)

:--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 13:36, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

'''UPDATE:''' H.R. 1592 still confines itself to those who cause, or attempt to cause, '''bodily injury'''. [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110j3ZUNT:: Read the blazing thing here!]

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 13:54, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yeah, I thought so. Good to be back Robledo!!!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:56, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::(a) it doesn't stand a chance (see [[Deceit]]), and (b) Evangelicals are up in arms about it. I got numerous cites over the past week. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:05, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== OMG ==

Sometimes I read articles here that make me wonder how people think. Sometimes I read articles that make me think, "these people are truly craxy!" This article is one of them. Wow. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::you are very intolerant.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

== Back on Topic... ==
I think this article fails because it addresses a usage of the term that almost no-one expresses: it's essentially an article against a straw-man. I've never heard of gay rights activists claiming that homophobia is a disease. I've always used the term to mean something analogous to "racism" or "sexism." The article should reflect common usage, not pointless venting against a straw man.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:12, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:Why didn't they use "homosexism" when they invented the pseudoscientific pejoritive back in the 60s? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:16, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't think linguistic dissection is a legitimate argument here, where the plain meaning in context is clearly the same.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

RobS,

Unless you care to provide some specific criticism of my second revision, I plan to revert within the next few hours. You've had ample opportunity to comment constructively.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 14:29, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Response,
:*'' is widely understood as such.''
:understood by who? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:32, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Mostly by everyone except you. I have never heard a single gay rights activist argue that homophobia is a mental disorder. Nor have I heard argued that racism is a mental disorder. They both may be distastes based on "Principled Objection," sure, but that doesn't save either from being wrong. But not to get off topic, all I'm saying is that no one argues that homophobia is a mental disorder.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:34, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: So please explain. Is homophobia a phobia? Is the term phobia commonly used to describe mental disorders? Is the term homophobia intended to be a derogatory term? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:57, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::It's intended to be a term as derogatory as "racism," and "homophobia" is just a term for discrimination that has arisen in a cultural context that wholly separates it from any independent definition of "phobia." -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

We risk getting lost in trivial point by point arguments here. Please read my [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homophobia&diff=144205&oldid=144021 second revision] and provide a comprehensive reply detailing any specific objections you may have.

I thank you for your forthcoming co-operation in this matter.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 15:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Robledo, I like it, but while I agree with the last paragraph, I don't think it'd survive a revert war. Maybe "couch" it a bit, and then revert, please, because your definition is actually sensible!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:13, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Cheers, fella :) I'm off for some dinner - we'll see if they've come up with anything substantive when I get back.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 15:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
*'' rarely employed in its full "strong" sense, i.e. an irrational phobic response ''
:Rarely used? That's not the way many have ''heard'' it used for several decades now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:37, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Rob, I think the problem is that the "strong" sense is your perception, based on homophobia-phobia, if you will. Your fear of the term's use as a mental illness is an irrational fear that has no actual grounding.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:Ok, so we agree a pseudoscientific term has been misused to impugn innocent people, although you do not wish to discuss ''why'' the promulgators did this. The debate now is, why should we continue to contribute to the victimization of alleged "homophobes" to further a politcal agenda of activists proven to be [[Deceit|deceitful]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:54, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
No, I don't think we agree that a pseudoscientific term has been misused. The term has never been understood or used - except by you - to class homophobia as a mental disease. It's just a buzzword, and a shortened & easier way to say "someone who discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation." Nothing more, nothing less.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:57, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:Why didn't Mr. Weinberg & Al Goldstein, way back when, use "homosexism" then, if it means discriminition? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Ask them! Probably because "homosexism" doesn't sound as good, and muddled the issue with women's rights, which as a movement was not doing so well at the time, and would no doubt do better on its own. Imputing an invidious reason is just paranoid.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:Ah ha! So we have it right there! An admission they used a medical term to promote a politcal agenda. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:10, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
You're imputing an invidious ''mens rea'' where there is none. The term has never been used, even implicitly, to suggest that homophobia is a mental disease. Please try not to be so paranoid. On the other end, aren't you just using a medical term - gender identity disorder - to further your own political agenda?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:13, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:When the American Psychiatric Association downgraded homosexuality from a [[mental illness]], the tables turned, and gay activists sought to characterize homosexuality as "normal" while impugning critics of the APA's decision as "abnormal", i.e. mentally deficient, or crazy. Gay activists sought to convince us only a crazy person would oppose homosexual activity, and the gay agenda. Today, as you and others have very well articulated, gay activists seek to criminalize what gay activists once considered a mental illness. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

AmesG, you say that "homophobia" is just a term for discrimination and not a phobia. Do you have any sources to support that? It is contrary to my experience. Eg, some states have laws against discrimination, but none have laws against homophobia. Why is that, do you think? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:54, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:This is true what he says. It is not illegal to think, only to do. In some countries one cannot say that they think homosexuality is wrong, but no one says what you can believe in your heart.[[User:MoshiachNow|MoshiachNow]] 16:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
If you can find a gay rights activist saying that homophobia is a mental disease, then throw down. Otherwise you're just imagining it. And RSchlafly, I think that your note about the way that the law works is just right on: it recognizes that the only thing that gay rights workers are after is criminalizing discrimination, not though.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:What is a phobia? other than a mental illness? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:24, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Is arachnophobia a mental illness?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:24, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:I don't know; I thought it was a movie, but I never saw it. And please, spare me the details on it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Movie?! Huh. Anyways, not all "phobias" are mental illnesses, first of all, and second, I have yet to see you show me someone saying (other than you!) that homophobia is a mental disease.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:28, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:Dr. Breiner in this article states discusses the problem with the term pretty good. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:29, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Right, Rob, he states the ''linguistic'' problem with it, but he doesn't prove that anyone has used the term to mean as much. It has never been used to mean mental illness, get a grip.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:31, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:What would you characterize "Christophobia" as? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:57, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Since I've never heard of it, I'd characterize it as ''another'' thing you made up.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Love the compromise. Great work Robledo!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:13, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:It's a pseudoscientific term with a hidden poltical meaning, and very offensive to those to whom it is applied. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:07, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Robledo version ==
Robledo, I reverted your edit because it appeared contrary to all the discussion here and contrary even to the cited sources. You define "Homophobia is most commonly used to indicate a general opposition to the idea that homosexuality is an acceptable state of being.", but the source does not say that and you give no example of the word even being used that way. Then you equate homophobia with murder! Now I think that the current version understates the extent to which homophobia is used as a smear term. You are trying to use it to smear as murderers anyone who objects to the gay agenda. I think that your edit is false and offensive, and it is certainly not a compromise. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Nonsense. My edit left the old article untouched in the Objections section. All the evidence suggests you have the ability to read - I suggest you employ it more fully next time.

You can not seriously deny that gay men and women suffer violence and intimidation, and yes, even murder, because of some people's deep antipathy towards homosexuality. The article '''must''' make that clear. Even RobS agreed that.

I stand by my definition of homophobia and by the fact that my [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fuel1.htm source] supports it:

What is homophobia?
The suffix "phobia" is derived from the Greek word "phobos". In English, it means either fear or loathing. "Homophobia" has a variety of meanings, including:

* "hatred of homosexuality"
* "hatred of homosexuals"
* "fear of gays and lesbians"
* '''"a desire to discriminate against homosexuals"'''
* '''"an attempt to discriminate against homosexuals"'''

'''The fourth and fifth options appear to be the dominant meanings among the general population. It places "homophobia" in the same class as "racism" and "sexism" where hatred, fear and discrimination are directed against persons of different races, and genders.'''

You have frankly made yourself appear somewhat foolish.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 20:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, you have cited one particular source that gives 5 definitions, and then says that those who oppose same-sex marriage are homophobes. That would include most Americans, and most Democrat leaders. Then you want to associate homophobes with cold-blooded murderers. Would you like to add a sentence saying, "There are radical groups that brand political leaders like Clinton, Kerry, and Obama as homophobes who are promoting the murders of minorities." That seems to be what you are justifying here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:37, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure if you're drunk, or wilfully trying to provoke me. The source gives 5 definitions and then fastens on the last two as "the dominant meanings among the general population." This is exactly what my definition claims.

As per my definition, the term is perfectly suited to "those who oppose same-sex marriage" as they're clearly demonstrating a "general opposition to the idea that homosexuality is an acceptable state of being." The fact that you don't like the term is frankly neither here nor there.

And as for my associating everyone who displays this general opposition with "cold-blooded murderers," that's nonsense and you know it. I clearly state that "principled objections to homosexuality are perfectly possible, particularly on religious grounds." A principled anti-gay stance pretty much excludes violent assault, wouldn't you say?

I intend to revert unless you can come up with something vaguely coherent.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 21:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:Robledo, we need a definition of "internalized homophobia", which my source, Dr. Breiner, denies exists. Secondly, can you produce recent FBI stats of the number of homosexual murder victims attributed to homophobia? Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:23, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

N.B. murders include non-negligent manslaughters

[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm 2005 - Table 4]

* Anti-Male Homosexual: 0 murders, 105 aggravated assaults, 203 assaults, 195 incidents of intimidation
* Anti-Female Homosexual: 0 murders, 29 aggravated assualts, 43 assaults, 52 incidents of intimidation
* Anti-Homosexual: 0 murders, 1 forcible rape, 34 aggravated assaults, 76 assaults, 47 incidents of intimidation

[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf 2004 - Table 4, p.19]

* Anti-Male Homosexual: 0 murders, 113 aggravated assaults, 253 assaults, 252 incidents of intimidation
* Anti-Female Homosexual: 0 murders, 34 aggravated assualts, 49 assaults, 61 incidents of intimidation
* Anti-Homosexual: 1 murder, 51 aggravated assaults, 58 assaults, 69 incidents of intimidation

[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03hc.pdf 2003 - Table 4, p.18]

* Anti-Male Homosexual: 6 murders, 100 aggravated assaults, 288 assaults, 270 incidents of intimidation
* Anti-Female Homosexual: 0 murders, 2 forcible rapes, 21 aggravated assualts, 66 assaults, 66 incidents of intimidation
* Anti-Homosexual: 0 murders, 1 forcible rape, 41 aggravated assaults, 85 assaults, 93 incidents of intimidation

[http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/05/robida/index.html This] is a 2006 report on an attack in a Massachusetts gay bar, and [http://web.amnesty.org/aidoc/ai.nsf/afec99eadc40eff880256e8f0060197c/dc31f264b72fabf280256a48003c810c/$FILE/ch5.pdf this] is a report from Amnesty on the scale of the international problem. Not pleasant reading :( --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 22:36, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:So there have zero "anti-homosexual" murders in the United States since 2003? And you think this warrants its own subhead, considering the FBI ''does not'' attribute them to homophobia, and that we should place ''this information'' ahead of an undefined term? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Don't you start going all RSchlafly on me here, RobS. I give you more credit that that. The very fact that some people are '''so''' anti-gay as sometimes to commit murder is noteworthy in itself, and is precisely the reason why you, as a principled opponent, should be seeking to distance your views as far from theirs as possible.

Let's look at the figures for aggravated assaults against male homosexuals for a minute. On a rough calculation, they entail that every 3-4 days someone has the living sh't kicked out of them simply for preferring men to women. That alone is a Bad Thing.

I repeat: homophobia is most commonly understood as a general opposition to the acceptance of homosexuality as an acceptable state of being. In the case of your principled objections, then it's just an annoying term you're going to have to learn to live with. Others, however, use this general opposition to legitimise their own violent and thuggish behaviour. As thoughtful human beings, we '''must''' challenge this.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 23:51, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:You want to do a subhead entitled "murder", yet haven't defined the term. Then the sources you cite here on talk doesn't use the term, either. Next the proposed text actually cites a few British incidents -- evidently gays are safer in the US than in the Great Britain ''despite'' the fact their chance of being killed with a handgun is 37 times greater than GB. Frankly, I don't know where we're going with all this. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:01, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: If it is true that some people are so anti-gay as to commit murder, then that might be relevant to an article on hate crimes, but not homophobia. You repeat your definition, but it is meaningless unless you can explain how it applies. Are Kerry, Clinton, and Obama homophobes? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:05, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

RSchlafly, I refer you back to my earlier reply beginning "I'm not sure if you're drunk, or wilfully trying to provoke me." RobS, I'm going to bed - we'll pick this up tomorrow.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 00:12, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==A reference that doesn't say what the article says they say==
The article says:
:The term was invented to impugn and slander opponents of homosexuality.
It supports that by a reference to [http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html Gay Psychologist Creates New Terms for Use in the Social Debate]. Well, there are two problems with that. The first is that the article ''does not say that.'' What the article says is
:Dr. Herek suggests that although the term "homophobia" was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture...

Either "Pushing forward the gay agenda" and "impugning and slandering oppontents of homosexuality" mean the same thing or they mean different things. If they mean the same thing, there's no reason to prefer the second wording. If they mean different things, the second wording should not be used when the reference uses the first wording.

A second problem is that the site is not directly quoting Herek, so what we have is not what Herek said, but NARTH's summary or paraphrase, and NARTH is sufficiently non-neutral that I don't trust it to have rendered Herek accurately.

Until someone finds Herek's article—has anyone been able to? NARTH's article has a link, but it's dead—let's stick to what the reference actually says, and let's note that it is not a direct source. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:23, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Smith is right, and I was wrong. We must use quotes correctly. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:31, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::This cite, Charles W. Socarides, M.D., [http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html How America Went Gay], ''America'', (November 18, 1995), says
::*They have created a kind of conventional wisdom: that we suffer from homophobia, a disease that has actually been invented by gays projecting their own fear on society. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:32, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Ah. Found the Herek article. A valid link is: [http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/SearchResults.cfm?SID=A4F6929E0E5A2287A5F47B481435896E&DSN=nsrc_dsn] Haven't read it yet. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:33, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Nope, that doesn't work as a permalink, either. Can't find anything better as a link than to tell people to "go to http://nsrc.sfsu.edu and search on "stigma in the twenty-first century." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:35, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

The Herek article says "Weinberg gave a name to the hostility and helped popularize the belief that it constituted a social problem worthy of scholarly analysis and intervention. His term became an important tool for gay and lesbian activists, advocates, and their allies." It does confirm what NARTH said about its first appearance in print, cites May 23, 1969 as the date of publication, and confirms that in that publication Nichols and Clarke used homophobia to refer to heterosexuals’ fears that others might think they are homosexual. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:42, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:The cite supports exactly as I've said,
:*''With that one word, Weinberg neatly challenged entrenched thinking about the “problem” of homosexuality.''
:The word was invented to make "antigay" attitides (as Herek describes) "abnormal", exactly at the time the mental disease of homosexuality was declared "normal". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Weinberg claims homophobia is a mental illness.
:*''Of course, any answer to the question of how an illness develops,( and homophobia is an illness, no doubt about that) has to be incomplete. What worse illness can there be than acute conventionality. You should pray every night that you don't wake up with it.'' [http://www.gaytoday.com/interview/110102in.asp] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::RobS, I was addressing a statement that said "The term was invented to impugn and slander opponents of homosexuality." I don't know whose statement that was. I provided a citation that supports some things that some people have said. But please look clearly at what it does and does not support.
::The statement has been made that the term "homophobia" is used as a tool by gay-rights advocates to further their cause. Well, I think Herek can be fairly described as a gay-rights advocate and indeed, here is a gay-rights advocate saying "His term became an important tool for gay and lesbian activists, advocates, and their allies." OK.
::It does ''not'' say that it was '''invented for that purpose.''' Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but the passage I quote from Herek does '''not''' say that.
::And it says that it was a tool "'''for''' gay and lesbian activists, advocates, and their allies." It does '''not''' say that was a tool for "impugning and slandering" opponents. Slander, in particular, is a pretty strong word with a reasonably specific meaning.
::Please be clear about the distinction between these statements. They are ''not the same.''
:::*A gay-rights activist has described it as an "important tool" in furthering that cause.
:::*"Gay-rights activists have described it as an 'important tool' in furthering their cause.
:::*"It has been used by gay-rights activists to impugn their opponents."
:::*"It has been used mostly by gay-rights activists to impugn their opponents."
:::*"It was invented to impugn opponents of homosexuality."
:::*"It was invented to impugn and slander opponents of homosexuality."
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==Proposed compromise==
Here's a proposal for a compromise solution. If we can first create a subhead, ==Internalized homophobia==, and discuss the controversial issue how much of the research over the past thirty years has discoverd most of the patients therapist have been treating are homosexuals with an aversion to themselves and/or their own conduct, complete with some statistics, this would end the fraudlent notion that homophobia is exclusively a heterosexual phenomenea. Then we could include a subhead entitled ==anti-homosexual violence== with the FBI stats, and noting the FBI does not use the term homophobia. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:18, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: Disagree. Stick to the topic. Define homophobia and discuss how the term is used. Reparative therapy and anti-homosexual violence aren't relevant. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::The term ''homophobia'' is used to assert an idea. The idea is that '''all''' opposition to homosexuality is evil. Obviously, Christians and others who regard homosexuality as evil are going to object to this.

::This is like calling scientists who disagree with the UN climate panel "global warming deniers" with ''deniers'' carrying the same connotation as [[holocaust denial]].

::Ironically, it is also like calling people who defend Israel, against Arab nationalism and terrorism, "Nazis".

::It is name-calling, in place of reasoned discussion. It confuses the issue. And my personal touchstone for evil is: whatever moves us away from clarity and towards confusion, is likely to be evil. Be wary of it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Ed, I don't agree with your edit that homophobia is used as "a neutral synonym for any opposition to homosexuality or gay rights". I've never heard anyone use it as a neutral term. It is only used as a derogatory epithet like nigger or faggot or fascist. If it were a neutral term, then there would be people who proudly call themselves homophobes. There aren't. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:01, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Like the new intro, Ed. :) I've tweaked it a bit to keep the peace with RSchlafly. I'm adding the Anti-homosexual violence bit shortly as per RobS.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 16:47, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:I second Roger's motion. We are not talking about how the term is used, we are talking about how it has been abused, both when it was coined, and now. This intro simply caters to that abuse. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:16, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

If we are going to any of this information about anti-gay violence, we need statistics from reseach by propoents of "internalized homophobia" theory. This is the propoposed compromise. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:07, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

My apologies. I hadn't realised that one was contingent on the other. I'll look into it, but I suspect it's something of a blind alley. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 18:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't see how the anti-gay stats are any more relevant than stats about how gays are spreading AIDS.
This article should be a lot shorter. I'd like to know whether we can agree on a few things, including:
*The term homophobia is a pejorative and offensive epithet.
*The word suggests that it is a phobia, but there is no such recognized disorder.
*Some apply the term to anyone who opposes same-sex marriage. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:33, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:"The word suggests that it is a phobia, but there is no such recognized disorder." Agree provisionally. Haven't looked at DSM-IV myself, not a psychologist, don't know the literature, but think you're right.

:"Some apply the term to anyone who opposes same-sex marriage." I'm sure you're right, but should be illustrated by concrete (sourced) examples.

:"The term homophobia is a pejorative and offensive epithet." Disagree. It all depends who's saying it, what they mean by it, what the context is, what the implied tone of voice is. Think of "paranoid" as a parallel. Depends whether the person saying it is friendly or hostile, whether it's meant loosely or literally, and, of course, whether the person of whom its said is clinically suffering from paranoia.

:I might buy that it's "often" or even "usually" used that way, but I'd like to see concrete support. Also, I find "pejorative" easier to buy than "offensive," particularly given that the dictionaries don't describe it as "offensive."

:One of the things I'm getting at is that I do not currently think Weinberg used it that way, although it's possible that other gay-rights advocates might have used it that way from the beginning. I think Weinberg really saw it as a phobia in the clinical sense. Of course he was talking about incidents like a woman literally trembling with fear and unable to speak to him because she thought he might be gay.

:(One of the things you didn't mention because it's not important, but I suspect we agree on this: as a coinage it affects me like a <s>fingernail scraping on a chalkboard,</s> dried-out marker squeaking on a whiteboard, because "homo" doesn't, or shouldn't, mean "homosexual." If we're mixing slang and Greek, it could just as well be "queerophobia."). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:13, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::Weinberg said homophobia was a mental illness that both gays & straights suffered from. Of course now we know, the theraputic community has largely rejected the entire idea that Weinberg proposed back then. Nonetheless, it has ''always'', since it was coined, but used as a political attack term against anyone who opposed the gay agenda. Hence, this is a clear cut case of paseudoscinece being used to create mass deception -- and this is what this articl e needs to arcticulate. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:24, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==Unclear Sentence==
''Neither do the statistics include senior citizens, homeless, military personnel, or battered pregnant women by boyfriends and husbands after becoming pregnent -- all known victim classes of hate crime attacks.'' I haven't waded through the whole talk page here, but I did notice on skimming the article that this sentence needs some work - I think I ''may'' understand what it is trying to say, but it is very unclear and the last part (''battered pregnant women by boyfriends and husbands after becoming pregnent'') definately needs to be cleaned up gramatically and spelling-wise. I'd do it myself but am reluctant to touch it since I'm not sure I understand what it's meant to say.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 17:54, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Pregnant women often are violently abused by husbands and boyfriends after becoming pregnant. This is a hate-motived crime. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:17, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
::<shakes head back and forth to make sure he just heard that reply> What? how is this... wha? I am so confused by your reply to this I don't know what to say. <composes self> How is beating a pregnant woman a hate crime? <exits, pursued by a bear> [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 18:19, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Patrick Henry

2007-05-09T20:53:58Z

Flippin: New page: I happen to be related to the subject of this page, and thus am famous by proxy. ;) Not a bad start, in all sincerity. ~~~~

I happen to be related to the subject of this page, and thus am famous by proxy. ;) Not a bad start, in all sincerity. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:53, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Cross-dressing

2007-05-09T20:43:12Z

Flippin: /* Trying to be positive here */

You could spin off a [[Temptation]] article from this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:32, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Indeed. I was surprised that the link was red. I was sure we'd have something on temptation by now. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 16:34, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== Trying to be positive here ==

But this is terrible. This article has zero-depth. And, frankly, do we need the paragraph at the bottom? I mean, honestly, why not just describe the act and the attraction to said act and move on? Why all this religious stuff about the wearing of clothes? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:35, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Well, it is in the [[Bible]]. I'm honestly appalled at the practice, but it seems to be gaining more prevalence as time goes on. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 16:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I suppose, but there are a lot of things in the bible, must we include them all every time? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:43, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Cross-dressing

2007-05-09T20:35:12Z

Flippin: Trying to be positive here

Talk:Haxan

2007-05-09T19:51:13Z

Flippin: New page: not sure yet how to make a re-direct ~~~~

not sure yet how to make a re-direct [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:51, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Animist

2007-05-09T18:41:44Z

Flippin: New page: Did this have another meaning at one time? I could swear I heard this used as a pejorative term for...something else. ~~~~

Did this have another meaning at one time? I could swear I heard this used as a pejorative term for...something else. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:41, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Terrorism

2007-05-09T18:34:02Z

Flippin: /* Groups Considered by the United States to be Terrorist Organizations */ KKK is not a terrorist group, sorry

[[Image:Terrormunich.jpg|thumb|right|300px|A member of [[Black September]], a terrorist group, during the [[1972 Munich Olympics]]]]'''[[Terrorism]]''' is defined by the US Department of Defense as "''the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.''" Many in the academic and law enforcement communities debate this definition and others.

== '''Terrorist''' ==
One who uses [[terroristic tactics]] to coerce behavior in another person or group is generally accepted as a definition of a terrorist. However, no convenient definition exists as the nature of terrorism makes the definition mutable. One who uses such terroristic tactics ([[suicide bombing]], [[sniper]], [[assassination]], [[random bombing]], etc.) can often be described as such, but again, the definition is a key subject of [[debate]] in intelligence, academic and diplomatic circles.

== '''Terrorism''' ==
Terrorism is the use of terror, violence, and intimidation to achieve an end. Terrorism also refers to any fear and subjugation produced by this. The term is also used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or ideological goals. Terrorism is the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

== Groups Considered by the United States to be Terrorist Organizations ==

* [[Al-Qaeda]]
* [[Hamas]]
* [[Abu Sayyaf]]
* [[Ansar Al-Islam]]
* [[Hizbollah]]
* [[Palestinian Islamic Jihad]]
* [[Tamil Tigers]]
* [[Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade]]
* [[Jemaa Islamiya]]
* [[ETA]]
* [[Real ETA]]

== Groups receiving CIA support ==
The American CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) has the stated objective of ''"Conducting covert action at the direction of the President to preempt threats or achieve US policy objectives."''[https://www.cia.gov/cia/information/mission.html]. Over the course of it's well-documented history, this has involved the establishment, funding and organization of various organizations some have regarded as terrorist, including:

* [[Mujahadeen el-Khalq]]<ref>Michael Ware,[http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/index.html ''U.S. protects Iranian opposition group in Iraq''], CNN, April 6, 2007.</ref>
* [[KLA]] (Kosovo Liberation Army)<ref>Jerry Seper, [http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/KLA-drugs.html ''KLA rebels train in terrorist camps''], The Washington Times, May 4, 1999.</ref><ref>Gary Wilson, [http://www.pogledi.co.yu/english/68b.php ''Who's the KLA? German document Reveals Secrtet CIA Role''].</ref><ref>Peter Beaumont, Ed Vulliamy and Paul Beaver,[http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,449923,00.html ''CIA's bastard army ran riot in Balkans' backed extremists''], The Observer, March 11, 2001</ref><ref> Andy Wilcoxson, [http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/kerry101804.htm ''Kerry Campaign Financed by Terrorists''], October 18, 2004.</ref>
* [[FRAPH]] (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti)<ref>Reed Lindsay,[http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1163909,00.html ''Cold War returns to US backyard''], The Observer, March 7, 2004</ref>.

== War on terror ==

===Fighting terrorism===
[http://lightonthings.blogspot.com#fight The Reality Show - The Watch the Fight] links to many sites that deal with the 'war on terror'.

==See also==
*[[September 11, 2001 attacks]]
*[[Osama Bin Laden]]
*[[Ku Klux Klan]]
*[[Iran-Contra Affair]]

==References==

<references/>
[[category:politics]]
[[Category: Terrorism]]
{{stub}}

Talk:Akira Kurosawa

2007-05-09T18:26:35Z

Flippin: New page: Anyone know a lot more about this genius? ~~~~

Anyone know a lot more about this genius? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Akira Kurosawa

2007-05-09T18:26:15Z

Flippin:

[[Image:Akira Kurosawa.jpg|right|thumb|On the set of '''Ran''' in 1985]]
'''Akira Kurosawa''' Akira Kurosawa (Kyūjitai: 黒澤明, Shinjitai: 黒沢明, Kurosawa Akira, 23 March 1910—6 September 1998) was a prominent Japanese film director, film producer, and screenwriter. His first credited film (Sugata Sanshiro) was released in 1943; his last (Madadayo) in 1993.

==Personal Life==

==Films==

==Achievements==

File:Akira Kurosawa.jpg

2007-05-09T18:23:11Z

Flippin: fair use

fair use

Akira Kurosawa

2007-05-09T18:22:49Z

Flippin: starting, back soon

'''Akira Kurosawa''' Akira Kurosawa (Kyūjitai: 黒澤明, Shinjitai: 黒沢明, Kurosawa Akira, 23 March 1910—6 September 1998) was a prominent Japanese film director, film producer, and screenwriter. His first credited film (Sugata Sanshiro) was released in 1943; his last (Madadayo) in 1993.

==Personal Life==

==Films==

==Achievements==

Talk:Liberal Bias in media

2007-05-09T18:07:15Z

Flippin:

This article has been sitting here for 2 months and nothing has been done about it. Someone with interest in this topic should write an article, or let's delete it. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 14:05, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::It might serve us to try and parse what constitutes liberal/conservative bias in the media. Further, we might have a page just called [[media bias]] for such an endeavor. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:07, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Hippies

2007-05-09T17:58:51Z

Flippin: Merge?

weird people i say. thats just my opinion. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 08:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Are you serious about this picture? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:30, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

The picture looks like a bunch of guys who thought it was funny to get dressed up as hippies long after the movement was over.

:Removed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:58, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
----
*People involved in the hippie movement were, as long ago as the 1960s, part of the environmental movement. It could be argued that the recent trend towards recycling and adopting lifestyle changes to reduce humanity’s impact on the natural world has sprung from that movement, however risible it seemed to many Americans at the time.

*its opposition to the [[Vietnam War]],

We need a better history of the environmental movement and opposition to the U.S. defense of [[South Vietnam]] than a casual mention like that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:58, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Merge? ==

==Yes==
As for me, I say they are about the same thing. get it over with. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:58, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
==No==

Talk:Titusville

2007-05-09T17:57:29Z

Flippin: /* Oil v. Ethanol */

I believe the first sentence is misinformed at best.

Titusville is where the first oil well was sunk for commercial reasons.
Oil had previously been know at other locations throughout the world as in some places the oil simply bubbled forth on the surface...there just wasn't any obvious '''use''' for it yet. Once the physical properties of [[petroleum]] were known and that with the art of "cracking", ([[distill| distillation]]) of the oil into "useful" products the next logical step was to find oil that had not bubbled to the surface but was "waiting" to be tapped into. The only "market" at the time was that of lighting, mostly home lighting through the use of oil lamps. (On a related note it was observed, sometimes dramatically, that the "air" forcing the oil out was also burnable for light, hence the early use of gaslighting in cities.) Also interesting, the fledgling petroleum industry would have been considered "Green" in its day as it sought to replace whale oil, a fast dwindling commodity as the whale population was on the decline at the time. [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 12:45, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah, add that stuff. [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 12:50, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
::I have no cites and don't wish to find them. Thanks though for the thought.[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

== Oil v. Ethanol ==

It might be pointed out that before Titusville, many other fuels were being considered. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:53, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:True. Then again the article is about Titusville so's maybe it ought to stay OT for a while before wandering away. Do we have an [[ethanol]] page? Ah yes, we do...however it doesn't seem to go into the debate over whether corn [[maize]] is the best way to go for producing ethanol, (it isn't) hemp would be better, sugar beets even better than that but the PTB in the agriculture industry seem to be pushing for corn as the "waste" products could still (NPI) be used as feed, albeit a lower grade feed. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 13:06, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
::Yeah, I'm watching algae and switchgrass myself--but the real winner there is biodiesel IMHO. Just a thought, but some of the work that lead to T'ville's disc. was because of ethanol. Just thought I poke my nose in. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:57, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

2007-05-09T16:56:58Z

Flippin: /* Segregation */ getting the link in there

==Search and Seizure==
*[[US v. Weeks]] (1914) Supreme Court held unanimously that illegal seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment (also set forth the [[exclusionary rule]] that prohibits admission of illegally obtained evidence in federal courts)

==[[Abortion]]==
* [[Roe v. Wade]] (1973) -- Laid down what states can and cannot control in regards to abortions

==[[Slavery]]==
*[[Dred Scott]] v. Sanford (1857) -- Slaves were classified as property

==[[Segregation]]==
*[[Plessy v. Ferguson]] (1896) -- Laid the groundwork for the "separate but equal doctrine" that limited the rights of minorities for decades
* [[Brown v. Board of Education]] (1954) -- A step in the direction of equal rights for all citizens

==Important Cases==
* [[Marbury v. Madison]] (1803) -- established Judicial Review
* [[McCulloch v. Maryland]] (1819) -- The state government was declared subordinate to the Federal government when laws conflict
* [[Gibbons v. Ogden]] (1824) -- Gave Congress a wide definition to "regulate commerce... among the several states."
* [[Schenck v. United States]] (1919) -- "Clear and Present Danger" established in this case as an acceptable reason for the limiting of free expression
* [[Gitlow v. New York]] (1925) -- The Supreme court began to identify rights protected by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
* [[Powell v. Alabama]] (1932) -- The right to counsel was required by law in death penalty trials
* [[NAACP v. Alabama]] (1958) -- Freedom of association (the right to assemble in groups)
* [[Mapp v. Ohio]] (1961) -- The exclusionary rule was applied to state and local criminal prosecutions
* [[Abington School District v. Schempp]] (1963) -- Prayer in classrooms was determined to be in violation of the First Amendment
* [[Gideon v. Wainwright]] (1963) -- Free legal counsel was established to be necessary when the defendent in any criminal case cannot afford it
* [[Wesberry v. Sanders]] (1964) -- The Supreme Court declared that each person's vote carries equal measure
* [[Griswold v. Connecticut]] (1965) -- Marital privacy (specifically, the use of contraceptives) was protected by this case.

* [[Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections]] (1966) -- Poll taxes were made illegal for state elections
* [[Miranda v. Arizona]] (1966) -- The rights of the accused were upheld by this ruling
* [[United States v. Nixon]] (1974) -- The President's "Executive Priviledge" was limited by this case
* [[Regents of the University of California at Davis v. Bakke]] (1978) -- Affirmative action was dealt a blow by this case

[[Category:United States law]]

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

2007-05-09T16:55:58Z

Flippin: /* Segregation */

==Search and Seizure==
*[[US v. Weeks]] (1914) Supreme Court held unanimously that illegal seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment (also set forth the [[exclusionary rule]] that prohibits admission of illegally obtained evidence in federal courts)

==[[Abortion]]==
* [[Roe v. Wade]] (1973) -- Laid down what states can and cannot control in regards to abortions

==[[Slavery]]==
*[[Dred Scott]] v. Sanford (1857) -- Slaves were classified as property

==[[Segregation]]==
*[[Plessy v. Ferguson]] (1896) -- Laid the groundwork for the "separate but equal doctrine" that limited the rights of minorities for decades
* [[Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka| Brown v. Board of Education]] (1954) -- A step in the direction of equal rights for all citizens

==Important Cases==
* [[Marbury v. Madison]] (1803) -- established Judicial Review
* [[McCulloch v. Maryland]] (1819) -- The state government was declared subordinate to the Federal government when laws conflict
* [[Gibbons v. Ogden]] (1824) -- Gave Congress a wide definition to "regulate commerce... among the several states."
* [[Schenck v. United States]] (1919) -- "Clear and Present Danger" established in this case as an acceptable reason for the limiting of free expression
* [[Gitlow v. New York]] (1925) -- The Supreme court began to identify rights protected by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
* [[Powell v. Alabama]] (1932) -- The right to counsel was required by law in death penalty trials
* [[NAACP v. Alabama]] (1958) -- Freedom of association (the right to assemble in groups)
* [[Mapp v. Ohio]] (1961) -- The exclusionary rule was applied to state and local criminal prosecutions
* [[Abington School District v. Schempp]] (1963) -- Prayer in classrooms was determined to be in violation of the First Amendment
* [[Gideon v. Wainwright]] (1963) -- Free legal counsel was established to be necessary when the defendent in any criminal case cannot afford it
* [[Wesberry v. Sanders]] (1964) -- The Supreme Court declared that each person's vote carries equal measure
* [[Griswold v. Connecticut]] (1965) -- Marital privacy (specifically, the use of contraceptives) was protected by this case.

* [[Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections]] (1966) -- Poll taxes were made illegal for state elections
* [[Miranda v. Arizona]] (1966) -- The rights of the accused were upheld by this ruling
* [[United States v. Nixon]] (1974) -- The President's "Executive Priviledge" was limited by this case
* [[Regents of the University of California at Davis v. Bakke]] (1978) -- Affirmative action was dealt a blow by this case

[[Category:United States law]]

Talk:Titusville

2007-05-09T16:53:18Z

Flippin: Oil v. Ethanol

Talk:Alexander Nevsky

2007-05-09T16:41:07Z

Flippin: New page: not sure how to add ref/links just yet ~~~~

not sure how to add ref/links just yet [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:41, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Alexander Nevsky

2007-05-09T16:40:43Z

Flippin:

'''Alexander Nevsky''' (also transliterated in other ways, such as ''Aleksandr Nevskij'') was a king of Medieval [[Russia]] who lived from May 30, 1220 to November 14, 1263. He defeated Swedish and German invaders and became a legendary figure.

Alexander Nevsky was the subject of a 1938 movie by the great Russian director, Sergei Eisenstein. Film historians consider it a classic. The film score was written by [[Sergei Prokofiev]], the composer of ''Peter and the Wolf,'' who reworked it into a cantata for chorus and orchestra. The cantata is exciting, powerful, emotional music, particularly the ''Battle on the Ice'' section.

For the film, [[Alexander Nevsky]] see [[Criterion Collection|Criterion]] page

Talk:Salò

2007-05-09T16:35:43Z

Flippin: New page: Feel free to help out. Thanks! ~~~~

Feel free to help out. Thanks! [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:35, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

The King of Kings

2007-05-09T16:28:49Z

Flippin:

[[Image:King of kings DVDcover.jpg|right|thumb|Criterion edition cover for "King of Kings"]]

'''The King of Kings''' is a silent film directed by [[Cecil B. DeMille]] in 1927. It is a religious film about the last days of Jesus' life before the crucifixion. Jesus was played by [[H.B. Warner]].

The last sequence of the film (the Resurrection) is one of the earliest uses of [[Technicolor]].

==References==
Essay on the creation of the film. [http://www.criterion.com/asp/release.asp?id=266&eid=390&section=essay]

Talk:The King of Kings

2007-05-09T16:26:00Z

Flippin: New page: Jump in, anyone who knows this film. ~~~~

Jump in, anyone who knows this film. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

The King of Kings

2007-05-09T16:25:42Z

Flippin: New page: Criterion edition cover for "King of Kings" '''The King of Kings''' is a silent film directed by Cecil B. DeMille in 1927. It is a rel...

File:King of kings DVDcover.jpg

2007-05-09T16:22:29Z

Flippin: fair use

fair use

Criterion Collection

2007-05-09T16:17:57Z

Flippin:

[[Image:Criterion logo.gif |right|thumb|180px|The Criterion logo]]
'''The Criterion Collection''' is a privately held company that distributes authoritative versions of "important classic and contemporary films" on DVD. It was established in 1984 as a joint venture between [[Janus Films]] and the [[Voyager Company]].

==Contributions to the Industry==
Criterion is credited with establishing the practice of [[letterboxing]] their films. Letterboxing, or [[widescreen]], is the presentation of films in their original aspect ratio from the large screen. Though some consumers dislike the "bars" that appear at the top and bottom of the typical letterboxed film, enthusiasts point out that the practice allows the director's entire shot to be seen.

Criterion is also notable for their [[special editions]] of particular films they release. Beginning with the releases of [[King Kong]] and [[Blade Runner]], Criterion included what many today know as [[bonus features]]. These include commentaries by actors, directors and others involved with the project, and original material not presented in the film.

Another critical feature of the Criterion Collection is their intent to restore older films using original prints. Examples of this restoration can be seen on several of the discs including [[The Passion of Joan of Arc]] and [[Gimme Shelter]].

==Notable Films Released==
Many films released in the Criterion Collection are available nowhere else and have been lost to history. Some of the more salient include:
* [[Häxan]] Christensen, Benjamin Sweden 1922
* [[The King of Kings]] [[DeMille, Cecil B.]] USA 1927
* [[Nanook of the North]]Flaherty, Robert UK 1922
* [[Alexander Nevsky]] Eisenstein, Sergei Soviet Union 1938
* [[Young Mr. Lincoln]] [[Ford, John]] USA 1939
* [[Ikiru]] [[Kurosawa, Akira]] Japan 1952
* [[Salò]] [[Pasolini, Pier Paolo]] Italy 1975

==Link==
The Criterion Collection [http://www.criterion.com/asp/]

Talk:Häxan

2007-05-09T16:16:09Z

Flippin: New page: Dark, but interesting topic. ~~~~

Dark, but interesting topic. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:16, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Criterion Collection

2007-05-09T15:59:54Z

Flippin:

[[Image:Criterion logo.gif |right| thumb|"The Criterion logo"]]
'''The Criterion Collection''' is a privately held company that distributes authoritative versions of "important classic and contemporary films" on DVD. It was established in 1984 as a joint venture between [[Janus Films]] and the [[Voyager Company]].

==Contributions to the Industry==
Criterion is credited with establishing the practice of [[letterboxing]] their films. Letterboxing, or [[widescreen]], is the presentation of films in their original aspect ratio from the large screen. Though some consumers dislike the "bars" that appear at the top and bottom of the typical letterboxed film, enthusiasts point out that the practice allows the director's entire shot to be seen.

Criterion is also notable for their [[special editions]] of particular films they release. Beginning with the releases of [[King Kong]] and [[Blade Runner]], Criterion included what many today know as [[bonus features]]. These include commentaries by actors, directors and others involved with the project, and original material not presented in the film.

Another critical feature of the Criterion Collection is their intent to restore older films using original prints. Examples of this restoration can be seen on several of the discs including [[The Passion of Joan of Arc]] and [[Gimme Shelter]].

==Notable Films Released==
Many films released in the Criterion Collection are available nowhere else and have been lost to history. Some of the more salient include:
* [[Häxan]] Christensen, Benjamin Sweden 1922
* [[The King of Kings]] [[DeMille, Cecil B.]] USA 1927
* [[Nanook of the North]]Flaherty, Robert UK 1922
* [[Alexander Nevsky]] Eisenstein, Sergei Soviet Union 1938
* [[Young Mr. Lincoln]] [[Ford, John]] USA 1939
* [[Ikiru]] [[Kurosawa, Akira]] Japan 1952
* [[Salò]] [[Pasolini, Pier Paolo]] Italy 1975

==Link==
The Criterion Collection [http://www.criterion.com/asp/]

Criterion Collection

2007-05-09T15:57:03Z

Flippin:

[[Image:Criterion logo.gif |right| thumb| "The Criterion logo"|]]
'''The Criterion Collection''' is a privately held company that distributes authoritative versions of "important classic and contemporary films" on DVD. It was established in 1984 as a joint venture between [[Janus Films]] and the [[Voyager Company]].

==Contributions to the Industry==
Criterion is credited with establishing the practice of [[letterboxing]] their films. Letterboxing, or [[widescreen]], is the presentation of films in their original aspect ratio from the large screen. Though some consumers dislike the "bars" that appear at the top and bottom of the typical letterboxed film, enthusiasts point out that the practice allows the director's entire shot to be seen.

Criterion is also notable for their [[special editions]] of particular films they release. Beginning with the releases of [[King Kong]] and [[Blade Runner]], Criterion included what many today know as [[bonus features]]. These include commentaries by actors, directors and others involved with the project, and original material not presented in the film.

Another critical feature of the Criterion Collection is their intent to restore older films using original prints. Examples of this restoration can be seen on several of the discs including [[The Passion of Joan of Arc]] and [[Gimme Shelter]].

==Notable Films Released==
Many films released in the Criterion Collection are available nowhere else and have been lost to history. Some of the more salient include:
* [[Häxan]] Christensen, Benjamin Sweden 1922
* [[The King of Kings]] [[DeMille, Cecil B.]] USA 1927
* [[Nanook of the North]]Flaherty, Robert UK 1922
* [[Alexander Nevsky]] Eisenstein, Sergei Soviet Union 1938
* [[Young Mr. Lincoln]] [[Ford, John]] USA 1939
* [[Ikiru]] [[Kurosawa, Akira]] Japan 1952
* [[Salò]] [[Pasolini, Pier Paolo]] Italy 1975

==Link==
The Criterion Collection [http://www.criterion.com/asp/]

File:Criterion logo.gif

2007-05-09T15:50:32Z

Flippin: fair use

fair use

Talk:Criterion Collection

2007-05-09T15:46:28Z

Flippin: New page: Anybody with some knowledge of this subject would be an asset. ~~~~

Anybody with some knowledge of this subject would be an asset. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:46, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Criterion Collection

2007-05-09T15:44:11Z

Flippin: New page: '''The Criterion Collection''' is a privately held company that distributes authoritative versions of "important classic and contemporary films" on DVD. It was established in 1984 as a joi...

'''The Criterion Collection''' is a privately held company that distributes authoritative versions of "important classic and contemporary films" on DVD. It was established in 1984 as a joint venture between [[Janus Films]] and the [[Voyager Company]].

==Contributions to the Industry==
Criterion is credited with establishing the practice of [[letterboxing]] their films. Letterboxing, or [[widescreen]], is the presentation of films in their original aspect ratio from the large screen. Though some consumers dislike the "bars" that appear at the top and bottom of the typical letterboxed film, enthusiasts point out that the practice allows the director's entire shot to be seen.

Criterion is also notable for their [[special editions]] of particular films they release. Beginning with the releases of [[King Kong]] and [[Blade Runner]], Criterion included what many today know as [[bonus features]]. These include commentaries by actors, directors and others involved with the project, and original material not presented in the film.

Another critical feature of the Criterion Collection is their intent to restore older films using original prints. Examples of this restoration can be seen on several of the discs including [[The Passion of Joan of Arc]] and [[Gimme Shelter]].

==Notable Films Released==
Many films released in the Criterion Collection are available nowhere else and have been lost to history. Some of the more salient include:
* [[Häxan]] Christensen, Benjamin Sweden 1922
* [[The King of Kings]] [[DeMille, Cecil B.]] USA 1927
* [[Nanook of the North]]Flaherty, Robert UK 1922
* [[Alexander Nevsky]] Eisenstein, Sergei Soviet Union 1938
* [[Young Mr. Lincoln]] [[Ford, John]] USA 1939
* [[Ikiru]] [[Kurosawa, Akira]] Japan 1952
* [[Salò]] [[Pasolini, Pier Paolo]] Italy 1975

==Link==
The Criterion Collection [http://www.criterion.com/asp/]

Talk:Rush Limbaugh

2007-05-08T21:50:32Z

Flippin: /* Nobel Peace Prize nomination? */

Rush _was_ caught illegally scoring painkillers. Should we leave that out just because it 'looks bad'? Truth is truth, even when it's ugly. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: It's gossip. It's not educational. We're not Wikipedia where nearly every entry has some gossip in it. Feel free to see what other editors think, but that's my view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've got to wonder where the line is drawn for this. This site still needs so many fundamental topics covered, but since January there's been an article on Chappaquiddick. Still, CP doesn't want to include the dirty bits of people's biographies? Hunh.

::And before you say it, I'm no Ted Kennedy fan (if I had a vote in MA. I doubt I'd have ever voted for him), but I just about lost it when "Random page" led me that article. Where are the priorities? :p Anyway, the "gossip" argument doesn't hold much weight imo. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not gossip, it is part of his biograpghy. ref <http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/10/rush.limbaugh/>

Yes, but it makes him look bad, therefore it lacks sufficient truthiness to be posted here. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:28, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I would say it can be mentioned only because he talked often about illegal drug users on his show, so the irony is rather large. Also, it was in the news extensively. BUT, it needs to be dealt with factually, not emotionally from either side.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== First source ==

Could somebody tell me how the first source backs the statement? I couldn't find any mention of "Limbaugh" or "Franken" on that page... I left it in because I didn't dive deeper into the thread, but a quick explanation would be appreciated :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought it was Bill O'Rielly and Al Franken that clashed constantly?

==On painkillers==
Limbaugh himself admitted doing it, so it's not gossip. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Parkinson's ==

The previous editor said that Fox's jerking actions were the results of his medication, not his disease. However, the citation itself says the exact opposite, stating that Fox often goes '''off''' of his medicine to make the symptoms more pronounced. Any assertion to the contrary of would need a new cite, one strong enough to disprove the citation offered (USA Today), common knowledge, and medical journals.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:For what it is worth, my grandfather suffered from Parkinson's. The shaking occurs because of the disease, not the medication.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::Absolutely, that's true. But Rush didn't know it, and claimed that Fox was faking the shaking by taking his medication. Completely wrong, and completely vile. - [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Denounced as a Witch? ==

Can anyone verify that? Took it out until someone can.

== Trivia ==

I removed the unsourced trivia (deaf in left ear, six toes, three divorces). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 08:14, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: I agree with this removal. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 10:16, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Illegally" ==
It is a descriptive term—not a legal claim. For example, the article on Hitler says he “murdered” 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, should that be deleted because Hitler was never arrested? Or tried for murder? Likewise, in the Clinton article says he “committed perjury”, but Clinton was never arrested or tried for perjury (He was Impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors” but not convicted), should that be deleted? Of course not, nether should be deleted, the claims describe the facts not the legal situation. Here, what Rush did was illegal, though he was never charged—I see no reason to omit that fact.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:49, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

: It is libel to say that someone committed a crime, when he was never convicted. Yes, those other pages should be fixed. Hitler is dead, and cannot sue. The Clinton page is wrong. Clinton was accused, but acquitted by the Senate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:27, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I disagree with your reading of libel law—it’s only libel (since we are talking about a public figure) if the person making the statement can be shown to know it was false. But, that aside, if you honestly believe the position you are advancing here, I have pointed out two major changes that need to be made and I urge you to do so (I will refrain from doing so, since I am not yet convinced by your position)—if your position is correct then there should be no major backlash.
::I maintain that, libel aside, if one breaks the law one has committed an illegal act, whether on not they were ever charged with a crime, and whether or not they are ever convicted. If that is correct, then the adjective belongs in the article, if it is not then it should be taken out of the article—I’ve yet to hear any argument that it is not correct. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Controversy section - how much should be kept or removed? ==
How is any of that information relevant or encyclopedic? I thought we were trying to avoid the gossip that is so prevelant on Wikipedia. I removed it, but some liberal agitator put it back almost immediately.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 16:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:See [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] scandals the political personality is known to have been involved in—not just rumored to have been involved in—are considered appropriate content. Here, Limbaugh is known to have been involved in all of these scandals and has given comments on them, so they are not simply gossip and are considered appropriate content.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::<s>Don't misquote: it says 'non-gossip scandals'.</s> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:14, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: "It's pure gossip. If I were to add a reference to a cigar in Clinton's article or Gore's son's pot arrest, you'd throw a fit and you know it.)" -- If Gore's son's arrest would be appropriate material, so would Bush twins being arrested for under age drinking[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBX/is_1_8/ai_78052874][http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1379000.stm]. Things the ''politician'' were involved in yes. Family members - no. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::So you would have no problem with me adding a cigar reference to Clinton's article?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Is that appropriately family friendly that should be read by a 12 year old? As it stands, the Starr report is blocked at the company I work at for "Erotica and Sex". I seem to recall that under the Communications Decency Act (granted, struck down) that the Starr report would have been considered an explicit document[http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=846]. Feel free to link to it, but I doubt such explicit material is appropriate here when other explicit material is blocked. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
::::It would be no worse than the references to @n@l $ex found [[homosexuality|here]], which I have complained about in that talk page.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:10, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

When you read an article about a perversion, you expect to see references to gross or raunchy stuff. Not when you are reading the biography of a respected adult. Clinton and Limbaugh are respected adults (okay, maybe only liberals respect Clinton). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: The Oxycontin story is significant, but the other stuff is just stupid trivia. It is not a scandal just because someone criticizes him. Rush says controversial stuff every day. I say it should be deleted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::Removed all but the pain-killer story. If we report every unkind remark made by politicians and pundits, we'll be swamped in gossip. Better to talk about the things he repeatedly says, like ''feminazi'' or ''talent on loan from God''.

::I don't really want to explain to my kids what a semen-stained dress is, or what Clinton and his girl intern were doing with a cigar. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Me either, and thanks to you and RSchlafly for making the right decision on how to improve this article.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::At the very least, Limbaugh’s repeated comments condemning illegal drug users should be restored to the Oxicoton controversy—otherwise it lacks context. It was the hypocrisy of doing what he had soundly condemned that made this scandal so big.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::The Viagra stuff is also a legitimate scandal—it involves illegal drug use just like the other one—and it is all the more relevant as it follows the Oxycontin scandal (illegal drug use after illegal drug use after criticizing illegal drug use is legitimate information). As far as the other two “Controversies” go—Allegedly attacking a 13 year-old child for who her parents are says as much about who Rush is perceived to be as the fact there is a newsletter named after him, and is relevant to understanding both why he and why talk radio are so controversial—the Michael J. Fox thing is probably relevant as the most recent time Rush made the national news (it was all over CNN, over and over and over again—in a very boring and monotonous way, but in a way that made national headlines that his other controversial statements don’t).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:34, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservapedia is not a forum for liberals to attack people they don't like with rumors and innuendo. Viagra is not an illegal drug, and Limbaugh was never arrested for being in possession of it. If you want to be a scandalmonger, feel free to take it to Wikipedia where it belongs.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Utilizing a prescription not made out to you is a crime—hard to prove, so no arrest, but, I think, relevant given his past drug abuse. I’d be happy to discuss the merits of my position with you, but if you insist on descending to ad hominem attacks, I fear that will be impossible.
::::My objection to Rush, by the way, is not a “liberal” one, I think he makes conservatives sound like school-yard bullies—and no one (or very few people) would vote for the school-yard bully—if I was a “liberal” I would love Rush the same way that most conservatives I know love [[Michael Moore]] (he makes liberals look so bad that it is easier to convince undecided voters).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not a scandal that Rush makes fun of people. Do you ever listen to his show? He makes fun of people a lot. I did revised the oxycontin paragraph. We really don't know that anyone did anything illegal, except that his housekeeper got immunity for something. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:58, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, I think there is a difference between making fun of politicians and a 13-year old child, but if you don’t that’s fine. (I don’t listen to his show anymore, because I find his “humor” offensive, and counter-productive.) What about the Viagra and the Michael J. Fox things? Also, the revised section on painkillers is, currently, miss-sourced. The link goes to the transcript of Rush’s admission that he had been abusing pain-killers which doesn’t support the vast majority of the claims in the paragraph it is currently the reference for (in fact most of the events in the paragraph it is the reference for occurred after the statement was made).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that it is tacky to make fun of a 13-year-old, but not a scandal. Viagra and Fox? Not scandals at all. Who cares? I wrote the painkiller stuff largely on memory. If I got anything wrong, please correct it. I didn't like the earlier text that implied that Rush had hired someone to buy illegal drugs for him. The charges were dropped. The prosecutor claimed to want to get him for "doctor shopping" anyway, and different offense. The prosecution appeared to be politically motivated to me. But I left that out. Try to stick to the facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:47, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::It all seems politically motived to me, except the inconsistency about the prescription pain-killers. Wikipedia recently beefed up their standards on "how much you can attack a public figure" in a biography article.

::Basically, people attack your character when they run out of ways to respond to your ideas. It's like an [[ad hominem]] argument. He insulted a kid, so his critique of feminism must be wrong. Should we attack Clinton's senate votes on the grounds that she abused FBI files or (may have) covered up the death of [[Vince Foster]]? I'd rather not.

::We should present verifiable (reliable) information about the careers and viewpoints of public figures. Well, that's only my opinion - I'm the new guy around here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I guess I’m not seeing the same distinction you are—I’m more than willing to concede the point, but I’d like it if there could be clearer guidance on what counts as a “scandal” and what is “just gossip”. (I wouldn’t have bothered to defend the inclusion of these scandals for nearly as long as I have were I not concerned that their removal as “gossip” would get the people who added them (and I am one of those people) labeled as a violator of the [[Conservipedia Commandments]], or just as too liberal, and then banned—my inclusion of the Viagra information was (I assure you) in good faith, but, apparently, I was adding gossip— clarity is much needed here and would be much appreciated).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:32, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Nobel Peace Prize nomination? ==

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/nomination_facts.html says:

:*Can I nominate someone for the Nobel Prize?

::If you are not invited you cannot nominate.

:*Has X been nominated as a candidate for the Nobel Prize?

::Information about the nominations, investigations, and opinions concerning the award is kept secret for fifty years.

:*What about the rumours circling around the world about certain people being nominated for the Nobel Prize this year?

::Well, either it's just a rumour, or someone among the invited nominators has leaked information. Since the nominations are kept secret for 50 years, you'll have to wait until then to find out.

Although the Landmark Legal Foundation issued a [http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-01-2007/0004518421&EDATE press release] giving the text of a letter offering Limbaugh's name as an "unsolicited nomination," it does not give any evidence whatsoever that the Foundation, or Mark R. Levin, was invited to make any such nomination. If there was no invitation, there was no nomination. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

P. S. Personally, I think Levin's use of the word "unsolicited" strongly suggests that he is not an invited nominator. The Nobel Foundation has a list of [http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/nominators.html qualifications for nominators], and the only one I can see him as meeting as "directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes."

I think it's a (successful) publicity stunt to counter the (equally baseless) rumors that Al Gore has been nominated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

P. P. S. Google News search on [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Rush_Limbaugh&action=edit&section=8 limbaugh nobel peace prize] only turns up four hits, none of them looking to me like a genuine news story. Two are from Rush Limbaugh's own website, one is about a (phony) "nomination" of Muhammed Ali, and one rambling essay that touches on Gore's rumored nomination and also mention Rush Limbaugh (not Limbaugh's nomination, just Limbaugh) separately many paragraph's later. '''If''' someone can find evidence that anything resembling a news source has reported this, a line could be added to the effect that "News sources have reported that 'Rush Limbaugh was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.'" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Rush's "Nobel nomination" was by Mark R. Levin, aka F. Lee Levin ( who is a Limbaugh flunky ).

::If we include his <ahem> "nomination" we should also include Elvis' FBI badge. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:50, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Monica Lewinsky

2007-05-08T21:25:00Z

Flippin: New page: Should there be more here about her life outside the "affair?" ~~~~

Should there be more here about her life outside the "affair?" [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:25, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Getting Web Traffic to Conservapedia - Article Creation/Improvement Drive

2007-05-08T21:22:49Z

Flippin:

You guys do realize this won't work, don't you? --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:You do realize that saying something won't work is utterly useless, don't you? We need to hear ''why'' it won't work. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:11, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree--to make this encyclopedia "trustworthy" is one thing, but to assume people aren't coming ''yet'' seems disingenuous. It won't work because the site is not "trustworthy" because it was meant to be designed with a flaw--the bias. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Well here is my 2 cents. I think the biggest problem facing Conservapedia right now is that a majority of the editors only care about highly controversial political/social topics. The good thing about Wikipedia is it is a good starting point for all sorts of topics. Regardless of bias, people are going to visit Wikipedia more often when they want general information on something, and people will come here to read the discussion pages and political bickering between people. For example, I know all about the conservative/creationist viewpoints on evolution now, but all I can find out about a rabbit is that it is a small mammal. Wikipedia currently provides a great starting place for a wider variety of information than here. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 17:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

VERY well-said. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Michael Moore

2007-05-08T21:20:13Z

Flippin: Are you kidding?

{{protect|TK}}

== Please note edits! ==

When making an edit, always note what it is exactly you did. Synopsis. Summary. Thank you! --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Would be happy to do that, but the thing is, the page seams to be locked like so many other pages here. Change i would have liked to make was to remove the ideological claim that all his documentaryes where "pseudo-documentaryes". I hope that SYSOP:s would read the articles and remove this kind of clearly opinionated sentences before locking the pages. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Your ideas, Timppeli, is exactly why it is locked, because they are not accurate. Moore does not make conventional documentaries, and as such, it is a misnomer to label them that way. I was the one who locked it. This is not Wikipedia. We do not engage in "double-speak" or label clearly propagandist efforts as documentaries. What Moore does is mix polemics, propaganda and the documentary styles together. While clearly he includes factual data, he also extrapolates, adds conjecture that comes from dubious sources, and mixes it with his own rather extreme leftist POV, all without any disclaimers in the credits.--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Hahaha, Moore isn't an "extreme leftist", I am. He's about in the center between you and I. The middle of the road is the yellow line in the center, not the white one on the right hand side. Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, they're lefties. Moore is a centrist, populist good ole boy who has a camera and a knack for making money. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:24, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::Has there ever been a political documentary which the other side with difrent opinnions havent claimed to be propagandist? There is allready a critisism section on the article, and thats fine, but to outright label the documents pseudo-documentaryes is not neutral in any way. What by the way are my ideas? i happen to disagree Mr Moore on several things allso. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, let us start with the fact he doesn't even label them "political documentaries". And I missed the "rule" that says we are neutral, would you point me to it? What I posted above is fact. Documentarians decry Moore, and don't respect him. But he is good at what he does, and highly successful. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Don't know where to start from... You seriously think that war in Irak, president Bush, gun controll and the the "war on terrorism" arent political issues? Ill just list some sites referring to Moores documentaryes as political documentaryes: [http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/multimedia/tp/aatpdocfilms.htm] [http://www.movie-vault.com/articles/DPVbuRTELEzZFOdb] [http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/147/report_display.asp] [http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/insideindies/infocus/truthorfaction/index.html] I really wonder how anyone could claim that his documentaryes arent political on nature, not atleast without an clear agenda to discredit him. What comes to neutrality of this site, how about some quates from the rules: " Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry." " Everything you post must be true and verifiable." So, i ask you, isn't labeling Michael Moores documentaryes as pseudo-documentaryes an opinnion that is mostly held by people who allso are against his political ideas? And there for against the rules. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 09:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:And now i am speechles. No arguments why your answer is no? I think this is clearly against the rules and no way of making an encyclopedia. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::*You asked, I answered. This isn't Wikipedia, or a debating society. I don't engage editors in endless discussion, as there is no point to it. Try to free your mind from your experience at other wiki's. :-) --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

...I'm sorry, at what point exactly did you not only get to decide that Moore's films aren't documentaries but the right to be smug about it too? I can only find one definition that suggests a documentary is obligated to be unbiased toward one viewpoint, but what all the definitions I've found agree on is that documentary films basically source all the footage contained within them as either coming from previous recordings of the news or Cspan or whatnot, or coming from the directors filming, and all footage is nonfiction. In F911 f'rinstance, Moore shows footage of himself interviewing senators, and other footage he did not film, but all footage was, inarguable, non-fiction, since the events depicted did happen. Moore's commentary supposes links between events that may (very very very likely) not have happened at all, but the premises of his suppositiong come from the documented non-fiction sources. I have to imagine you'd be hard pressed to find a definition of "Documentary" that doesn't have that core of non-fiction (probably the reason why you provide none). For you, therefore, to contradict this definition in order to use terms like pseudo-documentary (so Bush didn't say "Bring em on"?) is, in fact, your insertion of opinion, and for you to dispute the definition of "Documentary" is equally unsourced. You are violating two of this sites "commandments."

As such, however, I realize that you will recieve no reprimand, no mention from a higher up, in fact you're probably already being considered for the Presidential medal of freedom. I don't imagine that my calm and rational explanation of what rules youve broken and how youve done it will even manage to convince you that you're wrong about a blessed thing, and will only serve to get me banned again for pointing out things the site does not want pointed out.

Also, Michael Moore is fat. This is a central complaint lobbed against him by most of his critics. It is unfair of the article not to acknowledge this. Please make mention of how fat Michael Moore is.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 10:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I forgot that part. Corrected: Moore is a centrist, populist, '''''fat''''' good ole boy who has a camera and a knack for making money. Man is he ever fat. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:24, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Hmmmm, maybe your arguments are better suited here: [http://www.afi.com/] I do agree, however, that you have been fairly calm. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:51, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
::What do you mean by that? The AFI considers Moore a documentatian. Thats what his academy award was for, isnt it?

::*Well, they also gave an award to Al Gore. After he was post-facto made a producer of the film, or whatever it was that was going to disqualify his appearing on stage. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:26, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Fine, whatever, but my point is that the films themselves is considered a documentary. Inventing a term like Pseudo-documentary to describe it evokes films like Spinal Tap and Best in Show which are entirely fictive. You can dispute his methods and his logic, and lord knows half the people here already dispute his motives, but every piece of footage in his films is non-fiction. Disproportionally distorted nonfiction, perhaps, but nonfiction the same. Look, come from the other side, what would have to be different about his films for you to concede that they are actually documentaries? It cant be bias, all documentaries have a point to make, social, political or otherwise, and it cant even be distortion since any presentation of facts is going to play up some over others, so what then?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I enjoyed several of his films, FYI. Roger and Me, I actually own. However, legitimate footage, edited and altered to depict events that never happened as he said, when he said they happened, well that is fiction. Your moral compass seems a bit off, and I would have it checked. A lie, by any other name, is still a lie, no? Gently, nicely, ''respectfully'', I tell you that the matter is now considered closed. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:15, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::I tell you that it is not because with your narrowing criteria you've defined away the entirety of documentary filmmaking. You may as well say that March of the Pengiuns "Lies" by pretending that Morgan Freeman's voice is present everywhere in the antarctic. Thats the image it projects after all, if you want to argue that the film is factual. Isn't that a lie? Doesn't that disqualify it as a documentary?
::While I concede that, as you say, Moore does have a problem with depicting events as happening differently than they may have, it is done only for the same reason any documentarian makes any film at all, which is to argue a point. If he's incorrect, even consciously so, that's as it may be, but he is not as a result making a work of fiction, or a pseudo-documentary. Something like "Death of a President" that uses actual footage of GWBush to pretend he was assassinated and filming people's reaction to it, that can be called a pseudo-documentary since its presenting a central point which is entirely fictive, and acknowledged so by the filmmakers. However, though you may disagree with the central thesis of, for instance, F911, that doesnt make the film a work of fiction.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 10:45, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Please Fix==

This "paragraph": "Before producing Moore" Also, why did the line about him being an outspoken critic of Bush get removed? It's actually something he is famous for, even among those who do not know his work. Or, should I say, infamous? Hey, you can even say "reviled" if you want. But I'd say, put it back in. [[User:Human|Human]] 14:13, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Are you kidding? ==

That picture is the dumbest thing I've ever seen, and to portray this as "just another image" is indulging in ridiculous, childish games. Please, if you even have the pretense of being "trustworthy" choose an image that looks like the person and not just catching them in an off-guard moment, or speaking, or eating, or whatever you choose to make people look silly. Otherwise, all you are doing is engaging in propaganda. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Getting Web Traffic to Conservapedia - Article Creation/Improvement Drive

2007-05-08T21:13:01Z

Flippin:

Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2007-05-08T21:09:14Z

Flippin:

To save humanity, we should focus on the worst first. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:30, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

1) hunger 2) preventable disease 3) unsolved diseases like AIDS 4) natural resources 5) preventing war 6) poverty ..... 19) global warming 20) asteroid striking Earth.

1) overpopulation 2) preventing war 3) preventable disease 4) natural resource protection .... 19) maintaining American sovereignty over the world 20) asteroid striking Earth. My quick 0.02, arbitraged through the Euro. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) totalitarianism/world government 2) global warming 3) pandemic risk 4) US national debt 5) genocide [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) terrorism 2) Communism 3) genocide 4) Hunger/Poverty (not the government's job however)... 19) US national debt ..... 267) natural resources ..... 1,532) asteroid striking earth ..... 7,854,238) alien invasion 7,854,239) global warming. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 00:31, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) preventing gay marriage 2) preventing abortion 3) putting the 10 commandments in schools 4) convincing the global scientific community that evolution is false 5) defeating terrorism indefinitely and continuously 6) stopping liberals 7) keeping guns 8) stopping socialised health care 9) preventing environmentalist lies from damaging America's economy 10) making the speed of light more scriptural 11) abolishing public education 12) promoting conservative facts

1) Rejection of God. Solve that one and the rest would fall into place. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1)Prevent global warming, by finding alternative (read:wind, solar, hydrogen, and, if it ever appears, fusion) sources of energy.
2) Stop, and reverse, the deleterious effect that free trade and international repression has had on developing African and Asia countries.
3) Enshrine the [[UDHR]], the effective culmination of 12,000 years of thought from various religions and philosophies, into national law throughout the world. Give the UN a credible way of enforcing this which is independent of [[Russia|various]] [[USA|national]] [[China|interests]]. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::: Yikes, add mind control--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Poverty (people with money tend not to go hungry). 2) Wider, deeper democracy in all countries. 3) Preventable disease. 4) Alternative energy sources. 5) Be generally nicer to each other. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 10:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

(1) Homosexuality; (2) Lack of acceptance of Jesus Christ as the one Lord, our God and Saviour; (3) Buttsex; (4) Hippies; (5) People who don't like chocolate sprinkles (I had a hard time ordering 4 and 5); (6) Brown people.--[[User:mittromney|mittromney]] 4:52, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Wealth Distribution 2) Global Warming 3) UN given greater powers 4) Save as many species as possible 5) Gun control [[User:50something|50something]]

::: What's wrong with wealth distribution? Don't you want people to have incentives to work hard? Global warming is a phantom. Do I even have to go into the total and complete worthlessness of the UN? Why would you want an organization that promotes fascism and homosexuality to be more powerful? I may most strongly disagree with you on (4). Who are you to think that some species deserve to live even though God obviously put them in a place where they are destined to die out? Isn't that hubris of the worst kind? "I think God did a bad job with this species and it's up to me to come in and make sure what should happen to it, should God's plan be brought to fruition, in fact does not?" And then gun control: Let me guess, once we repeal the second amendment, we should just go ahead and get rid of the whole bill of rights? I think the people at [wikipedia] would be more attuned to your baseless ramblings... --[[User:mittromney|mittromney]] 4:57, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: You may choose to disagree with me over certain matters. And I will disagree with you that 'Buttsex' is a global problem. Or sprinkles. Oh, and also, I'm of partial South American descent, so I take issue with your hate-ridden 6) as well as 1) If you're not prepared to be serious in your own posting, don't expect much from me. [[User:50something|50something]]

:::I don't even know how to respond to that. My normal argumentative strategy is to take what you say and demonstrate how it's inconsistent, but if you're going to hate on chocolate sprinkles yet champion buttsex, it seems apparent that consistency is not something you value in argumentation. Hey, that's fine, have your buttsex and ignore the sprinkles, see if I care. [[User:mittromney|mittromney]]

:1) Poverty 2) Democracy by choice, not war, in all countries. 3) Cure as many diseases as possible 4) Alternative energy sources [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Sun Yat-sen

2007-05-08T19:17:01Z

Flippin:

Jiang Jieshi (Chang Kai-Shek) was not a member of the Communist Party.
:Sorry about that, I thought you were another sock. It would help if you signed you name with four tildes "~~" [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:17, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Sun Yat-sen

2007-05-08T19:13:38Z

Flippin: my mistake

Jiang Jieshi (Chang Kaishek) was not a communist.

Talk:Sun Yat-sen

2007-05-08T19:12:48Z

Flippin: Reverting Vandalism

Al Gore

2007-05-08T16:40:21Z

Flippin: childishness

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Al gore.jpg|150px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: turquoise no-repeat scroll top left;"|Al Gore;
Forty-fifth Vice President of the United States
|-
|Born
|1948
|-
|Term
|1993-2001
|-
|}

'''Albert "Al" A. Gore, Jr.''' was the 45th Vice President of the [[United States]](1993-2001) succeeding [[Dan Quayle]] and succeeded by [[Dick Cheney]], following service in the [[House of Representatives]] and the [[Senate]], spanning 1977-85 and 1985-93, respectively.
==Before Politics==
In his early life, Al Gore attended [[Harvard University]], served in the [[United States Army]], and worked as a journalist.

==Marriage==
He is married to activist [[Tipper Gore]].
==Senate==
In his Senate career, he proposed bills to fund the Internet and chaired panels on environmental issues. In 1992 he wrote "Earth in the Balance" and in May 2007 another of his books is set to be published, "Assault on Reason."
==Vice Presidency==
The [[Democratic Party]] selected him for Vice President on the 1992 ticket. The Democrats were victorious and he was sworn in on January 20, 1993.
==Campaign for the Presidency==
As is customary with Vice Presidents, he was nominated to the [[Democratic]] ticket for the 2000 Presidential election. Gore lost to [[George W. Bush]] in the [[Electoral College]] after a close vote, in which Gore received more popular votes than Bush, but fewer electoral votes. Gore contested the results in Florida, however on December 13 Gore accepted Bush's election to the Presidency.<ref>[http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2000 2000 Presidential Election Results]</ref>

[[Image:041109 al gore vsml 6a vsmall.jpg|thumb|150 px|Al Gore, [[2004]]]]
In the spring of 2000 Gore told the International Press Institute in Boston,

:"For all of my career, I have believed that America has a responsibility to lead in the world. ...we must also recognize that there is ...a set of threats that affect us all and that transcend political borders....we need a foreign policy that addresses the classic security threats -- and understands the new ones as well....We need to pursue a policy of "forward engagement" -- addressing problems early in their development before they become crises; addressing them as close to the source of the problem as possible" <ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0900/ijpe/pj52gore.htm ''A New Security Agenda for the Global Age''], Al Gore, Speech to the International Press Institute, Boston MA, April 30, 2000. Retreived from U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0900/ijpe/pj52gore.htm 12/04/07.</ref>

==Post politics==
Gore has started an investment firm to invest in environmentally sustainable technology and industries, a cable channel (Current TV), and is an adviser to [[Google]]. He also starred in a keynote presentation about the climate crisis, "An Inconvenient Truth," which won an [[Oscar]]. Al Gore is also mentioned as a possible [[2008]] presidential candidate. His famous sentence: "I used to be the next president of United States of America."

== Criticism ==
[[Image:Al Gore October 2006.jpg|thumb|150 px|Al Gore at the XPrize Executive Summit, October 19, [[2006]]]]
Al Gore has recently received criticism for his alleged hypocrisy on environmental issues. When it was discovered that Gore's utility bill is 20 times higher than the average American's<ref>[http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/02/26/al-gore-hypocrite/ Al Gore, Hypocrite]</ref> many of his detractors accused him of not living up to his own standards. Gore's defenders claim that the majority of that power came from 'green', or environmentally friendly, power sources such as solar and wind power. These power sources are much more expensive than traditional power sources such as coal and nuclear power. From The Tennessean:

<blockquote>
"Gore purchased 108 blocks of "green power" for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills.

That's a total of $432 a month Gore paid extra for solar or other renewable energy sources.

The green power Gore purchased in those three months is equivalent to recycling 2.48 million aluminum cans or 286,092 pounds of newspaper, according to comparison figures on NES' Web site."<ref>[http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/NEWS01/702270382]</ref>
</blockquote>

Also, some conservatives have pointed to Gore's use of a private jet while spreading the message about the dangers of [[global warming]].<ref>[http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2332/More_Inconvenient_Truths_About_Al_Gore More Inconvenient Truths About Al Gore]</ref>

Attention has also been called to Gore's profits from mining royalties. Specifically, the mining of zinc adjacent to his property he leased in Tennessee, which has released millions of pounds of potentially toxic substances into the environment.<ref>[http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770316074 Tennessee Mine Enriched Gore, Scarred Land]</ref> The mine has been closed since 2003. The new owner Strategic Resource Acquisition is planning to re-open the mine. From The Tennessean (3/12/07):

<blockquote>
'Last week, Gore sent a letter asking the company to work with Earthworks, a national environmental group, to make sure the operation doesn’t damage the environment.

“We would like for you to engage with us in a process to ensure that the mine becomes a global example of environmental best practices,” Gore wrote.'
</blockquote>

However, this was after he had already made $500,000 from the mining operations.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Vice Presidents of the United States|Gore, Al]]
[[category:liberal activists]]

File:Al gore.jpg

2007-05-08T16:39:53Z

Flippin: publicity photo

publicity photo

Talk:Strategic Defense Initiative

2007-05-07T19:54:34Z

Flippin:

Really interesting article/stub. Is there a way to get something in about the Patriot Missile System? I don't know enough about this. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:50, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::Really, SDI was/is about interception of '''ballistic missiles''', and is a strategic, not tactical system, so the article probably shouldn't address tactical systems.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 15:53, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, I see. I look somewhere's else. Thanks! [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:54, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Strategic Defense Initiative

2007-05-07T19:50:35Z

Flippin: New page: Really interesting article/stub. Is there a way to get something in about the Patriot Missile System? I don't know enough about this. ~~~~

Really interesting article/stub. Is there a way to get something in about the Patriot Missile System? I don't know enough about this. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:50, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:As You Like It

2007-05-07T19:35:17Z

Flippin:

==Do we really need the whole stinkin' play on here? ==
C'mon. Is this an encyclopedia or an anthology? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:11, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:I don't like your attitude on this website flippant. Anyway, by having the whole play on here it removes all biases from it because people are able to interpret the play however they like. --[[User:Spyder|Spyder]] 15:13, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::That isn't what the project should be about. Encyclopedias do not list the text of all things they talk about AND this is the only entry like this on the site AND it is way too long. I didn't ask if you liked my attitude, thank you. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:16, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:: How is having the entire material here less biased than say... Project Gutenberg? http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1121 Having the material here is likely to have interpretations added to it and the biases associated with those interpretations than linking to a source that has public domain text to begin with. You ''might'' be able to make the argument with works that need translation and the bias with translation (but then, you would need to do your own translation rather than use someone else's), but that is not the case here. The danger is in attempting to reproduce the entire collection of data already done at other projects without adding anything to it at all. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Guys, compromise. Why not add something like [[As You Like It/text]] and link to it from the front page. Then have the front page about the analysis of the play, as in, actually encyclopedic.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 15:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Just because this is the only entry on this site doesn't mean it should be removed. It just means that we should be putting up more plays in their entirety. Also, this is a discussion page and so I was discussing your attitude, I don't need permission to do that. Maybe I should go ahead and make a debate page on Flippant's attitude. --[[User:Spyder|Spyder]] 15:21, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I think we are all in agreement spyder that you need to chill out. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 15:22, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::What advantage does putting the full text of the play on the site offer over linking to a place where the public domain material is already hosted? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:24, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Etaroced, why do you speak for the entire website? Who is this "we" you speak of? Yourself and speaker?--[[User:Spyder|Spyder]] 15:25, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::So far, Flippin, Speaker, Mthur, and I. Thats pretty much everyone active on this page. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 15:26, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I also think it's rude to deliberately misread Flippin's name, Spyder.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 15:23, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:In response, I will give you an argument that Flippant would make: I didn't ask you for what you think is rude, thank you. --[[User:Spyder|Spyder]] 15:28, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you Speaker. I was saying that an anthology is for text like that, not an encyclopedia. the former contains only a brief synopsis of the play and the full text; the latter contains a fuller explanation of the issues and history with quotations. What about that is "flippant?" [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:27, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: but is that not thinking of an encyclopedia in the old paper and ink sense, where to have full texts, or even extensive extracts, would make the thing the size of a house? Now, thanks to new technology,m we can have it all... rejoice! [[User:Unthank|Unthank]] 15:33, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Having the entire text on the main page of the article distracts. we could certainly include a link as I believe Speaker did. BTW, I have no idea what spyders meant by that last post. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:35, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?

2007-05-07T19:32:50Z

Flippin: /* Are the Republicans capable of fighting terrorism? */

I personally believe the Democrats have zero clue about the war on terror. So much so, they want to change the wording, terror on the yellow brick road. How about a little insight to how they think, I give Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., "You can't end the war if you vote against the supplemental". They want to end the war on terror using congress. I've got news for anybody and everybody- the terrorists are not laying down their arms surrendering. Quit what? They attacked us and they will attack us until we are all dead, that's all they want. Anything less, you are dreaming of negotiations and nice talk. You are thinking irresponsibly.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:28, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== no ==
absolutily not! Why did Osama endorse kerry? liberals are more cocerned with spending your money on crazy social programs than on defense. In the words of Benjamin Netanyahu, "Today we have the power to destroy them. Now we must summon the will to do so". Its as if democrats dont understand the threat at all. they are too worked up over "global warming" (which I am sure they think is '''100%''' President Bush's fault!) [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:Maybe he endorsed Kerry knowing that it would benefit Bush. Al Qaeda benefit at least as much from the wars as they would from a lack of wars - think about what motivates their recruits. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:57, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I think what motivates Al Qaeda is its success in striking American targets without fear of reprisal. e.g. '93 WTC, '98 African Embassy's, '00 USS Cole, '01 9/11. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:48, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

To say that global warming is less of a threat then terrorism is to show a blatant misunderstanding of both subjects. Terrorism has killed a couple of thousand people since 9/11. Now, that is a couple of thousand too many, however the amount that could die from the very real threat of global warming is up there in the millions scale. At the same time, the best way to treat terrorism is the same way you would treat a kid at the beach who kicks over your sandcastle. Pretend to ignore it, while using assasinations, guerilla forces, SAS, CIA, whatever you want to call it. Big wars achieve nothing and they never have. Look at the crusades. Look at the Japanese in WW2. Its a very simple equation, war does not equal success. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 19:55, 23 April 2007

==yes==
1993 WTC bombing. Omar Abdel-Rahman was arrested, tried and convicted. That happened under Clinton. GWB hasn't even come close to trying, let alone convicting, any senior member of AQ that was behind the 9/11 bombing. Terrorism hasn't been reduced globally since the "war" began; if anything, it has spread. Now there are bombings in moderate Arab countries like Morocco. AQ almost stole Somalia from under our noses, and would have if it wasn't for Ethiopia stepping in. In no facet have the policies of GWB made a serious dent in terrorism.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::have there been any terrorist bombings here? no. war=success. but would anything be better with democrats in charge? do you seriuosly think we would be better off with clinton?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::You mean besides 9/11? Or are you saying that the War on Terror begins and ends at the US Border? Because if you take it as a whole, terrorism has only comtinued to ramp up since 9/11. Would the Democrats be better? Until they show me that they are as incompetent as this Administration, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:: unbiased liberal flippin can't give reasons why he feels that way. Democrats all claim they'll get rough with the terrorists, but they can't even participate in a debate hosted by Fox News Channel because their yellow.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[Fox "Noise" Channel]] is a ridiculous piece of conservative propaganda. And fighting terrorism is stupid with an army. They don't line up to be slaughtered. On the other hand, every soldier we put in Iraq becomes an instant target. Good going there. Maybe part of getting tough is getting smart--something the republicans are incapable of doing. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:24, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== YES ==
:Surprisingly. The real issue with terrorism is not that they want to just kill us. Were that the case, all they would have to do is start by killing every American they come across, around the world. This is not being done. Rather, the purpose of a terrorist act is the act itself. (I have spent significant time and energy studying this--even spoke at a conf. on the subject.) Take the example of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Now, as a thought experiment, ask your self, honestly, if no one had died in the buildings--if the terrorists were caught before they could kill more people than were on the planes--would it have still been a significant moment in American history? If you're being honest, the answer is yes. The sight of two enormous buildings collapsing is just too much for most of us to comprehend.

:Now, looking at the same event, if the planes were empty, and the buildings were empty, would we still have been as awestruck? Again, if you're being honest the answer is yes. I argue that it is not the fact that people died in the attacks, but the attacks themselves are the reason we are affected by terrorism.

:The message of terrorism is this: we (the terrorists) can do this to you whenever we want. We (Americans) are supposed to believe that if this giant building can be taken down, anyplace we hide will not be safe.

:When we look at our national response to the attack, the Republican-led administration has done exactly what the terrorists wanted in the first place: they listened to the message and played it over and over again for everyone to see and (re)experience. At the risk of a lifetime ban, the Republicans could not have responded better had Osama bin Laden been in the White House. We were meant to be afraid--to disrupt our society--to fear their strength.

:Now ask yourself this: Before 9/11 had you ever heard of Al Qaeda? More than likely you hadn't. A few of you might have--those i tune with the news cycles and so-on. Today, everyone knows the name Al Qaeda. Their name recognition is incredible. They are the Coca Cola of terrorism. When most of us ask for a tissue we say Kleenex, not thinking about the name brand, and now the same is true of Al Qaeda.

:The reason I believe the Democrats can fight terrorism is because I believe they will go back to attacking it through anti- and counter-terrorism tactics, e.g. Intelligence. Think of the movie Munich if you want a good example. I have no problem in my liberal heart with one of our SEALs putting two in the back of a terrorist's skull. That is how terrorism needs to be fought--not drawn out into the open-that's what they want. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:57, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::You want CIA to assassinate people.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:50, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:What do you do when confronted by scary, shadowy people who have no qualms with killing? Release your own scary, shadowy people who have no qualms with killing on them: the CIA.[[User:Fuzzy901|Fuzzy901]] 18:41, 18 April 2007 (PDT)

:::Yes. That is how the game is played. Would you rather we line our guys up on one side of the field and wait until they line up on the other? That is what the current administration is doing right now, which is why Harry Reid is right, we've already lost this war. However, I maintain we did not lose it recently--we lost it on 9/12. The way we win is with our shadowy guys versus their shadowy guys. The blunt force of the US military is misspent on this kind of "war." If you play chess, you know your pawns have seldom the chance to catch the queen that, say, a bishop or another queen has. We would do better to match them this way than to keep sending our soldiers out to e targets for their snipers. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:55, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I personally believe the Republicans have "zero clue" about the war on terror. It is a lot more complicated than "blow up the middle east." [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:57, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

==DA!==
They've always been capable. Question should be are Democrats willing? To put an end to terrorism? Nancy Pelosi showed us her willingness to appease those that sponsor it. If only she had waved a piece of paper upon her return and said "Peace in our time!" Or at least posed on an anti-aircraft gun overlooking the Golan Heights. But there are plenty of Democrats in the armed forces right now. The let down is the Democratic leadership at the State and Federal levels.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:02, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

==Are the Republicans capable of fighting terrorism?==
Does the question "is X capable of fighting terrorism" mean anything? Probably not, but lets pretend it does.

How successful have the Republicans been so far? '''I don't think Democrats would have done any better,''' and let me put that in bold, but I certainly challenge any notion that the Republicans have got terrorism under control. "Republicans-can-fight-terror-Democrats-can't" is pure slogan, playing politics with national security, and oversimplifying a complex situation.

*There have been no new major terrorist attacks in the U.S. But that doesn't mean anything one way or another. It was seven years from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing until 9/11/2001. You can't tell whether what's been done was effective or whether we've just been lucky. (I don't even want to think about Poisson distributions and how many terrorist incidents you'd need to have per year to have statistical significance as to whether things were getting better or not). The best you can say is that it would probably be more difficult to bring off a successful attack in ''the very same way.''
*On December 17, 2001, Bush said "Osama bin Laden is going to be brought to justice. It may happen tomorrow, it may happen in a month, it may happen in a year. But he is going to be brought to justice. He's on the run. He thinks he can hide, but he can't. We've been at this operation now for about two and a half months, and we've made incredible progress."[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/text/20011217-4.html] The administration has always stated its war aims so vaguely that you can never prove that they've shifted, but bringing bin Laden to justice was, absolutely, a goal of the "war on terror," and as nearly as I can tell the adminstration has successfully managed to change the subject. (The goal was '''not''' "to contain him" or "to make him hide" or "to render him unimportant," it was to ''bring him to justice.'')
*Homeland Security's response to Katrina was a reasonable indication of the effectiveness of that organization, which was created and organized and had its leadership appointed under Republican control.
*The 2006 National Intelligence estimate, as characterized by the Christian Science Monitor, "contends that the war in Iraq has increased Islamic radicalism, and has made the terror threat around the world worse."[http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html]

Do I know what to do about terrorism? No. Do the Democrats? No. Do the Republicans? No, and they've had the chance to deal with it from 9/11 through the elections in 2006 with control of Congress and pretty much a free hand. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:37, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::Republicans understand they are fighting terror today. Democrats understand they way to stop terror is to retreat. Democrats are not realists and are not capable of taking the fight to the enemy, even less capable of defending the nation from terror. As proof- they want to weaken the Patriot Act, point out USA strategies for tracking money transactions, eliminate eavesdropping, tell our enemies America has lost. What will democrats do next to fight terror, gut the missle defense shield to pay for peanut storage?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:27, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::You miss the point entirely. I have studied this--in college--and the surest way to lose to terrorists is to "take the fight to them." We do much better when we kill them quietly. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:As You Like It

2007-05-07T19:27:12Z

Flippin:

==Do we really need the whole stinkin' play on here? ==
C'mon. Is this an encyclopedia or an anthology? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:11, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:I don't like your attitude on this website flippant. Anyway, by having the whole play on here it removes all biases from it because people are able to interpret the play however they like. --[[User:Spyder|Spyder]] 15:13, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::That isn't what the project should be about. Encyclopedias do not list the text of all things they talk about AND this is the only entry like this on the site AND it is way too long. I didn't ask if you liked my attitude, thank you. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:16, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:: How is having the entire material here less biased than say... Project Gutenberg? http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1121 Having the material here is likely to have interpretations added to it and the biases associated with those interpretations than linking to a source that has public domain text to begin with. You ''might'' be able to make the argument with works that need translation and the bias with translation (but then, you would need to do your own translation rather than use someone else's), but that is not the case here. The danger is in attempting to reproduce the entire collection of data already done at other projects without adding anything to it at all. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Guys, compromise. Why not add something like [[As You Like It/text]] and link to it from the front page. Then have the front page about the analysis of the play, as in, actually encyclopedic.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 15:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Just because this is the only entry on this site doesn't mean it should be removed. It just means that we should be putting up more plays in their entirety. Also, this is a discussion page and so I was discussing your attitude, I don't need permission to do that. Maybe I should go ahead and make a debate page on Flippant's attitude. --[[User:Spyder|Spyder]] 15:21, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I think we are all in agreement spyder that you need to chill out. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 15:22, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::What advantage does putting the full text of the play on the site offer over linking to a place where the public domain material is already hosted? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:24, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Etaroced, why do you speak for the entire website? Who is this "we" you speak of? Yourself and speaker?--[[User:Spyder|Spyder]] 15:25, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::So far, Flippin, Speaker, Mthur, and I. Thats pretty much everyone active on this page. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 15:26, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I also think it's rude to deliberately misread Flippin's name, Spyder.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 15:23, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you Speaker. I was saying that an anthology is for text like that, not an encyclopedia. the former contains only a brief synopsis of the play and the full text; the latter contains a fuller explanation of the issues and history with quotations. What about that is "flippant?" [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:27, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?

2007-05-07T19:24:05Z

Flippin: /* yes */