Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2012-11-17T00:51:53Z

Gplanter6:

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

== Comments ==

:As a participant in the [[Conservative Bible Project]], I was amazed at how much insight into the world and into logic was gained from nearly every verse that I translated. This was the finest educational project that I have ever done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:17, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I did very little work, but from what I did do, I would agree with Andy's comments. My learning acquired in this matter is the very real latitude there is translating from the Greek and Aramaic and how a translation can reflect on what we hope to get out of it, and the purpose or the people and "address" we envision for it[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 12:40, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
:It's one of the finest educational works of the last century, in my opinion. I wish I had registered sooner to help! [[User:AlfredB|AlfredB]] 13:10, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
I discovered just how wildly different translations can be, and learned a fair bit about books I'd read little or superficially in the past. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:20, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I was astonished at how conservative [[St. Paul]] was in his letters. He was far to the right of modern conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:35, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

How do I go about helping out? -[[User:JasoT|JasoT]] 00:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:Pick any verse of the Bible you like, and either improve the translation that is there or propose a translation if it has not been done yet. I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

How do I get an invite to the Google group for this project? Thanks in advance. I would like also to assist with the project as I have time. - [[User:BradleyC|BradleyC]]

== Why the first instance? ==

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." What is wrong with this? As a believer in Biblical inerrancy I do not see why you would change the Bible to meet with "conservative thought patterns". What is the reason for removing this? --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 16:43, 17 November 2010 (EST)

: The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy does not resolve the issue of a few passages of doubtful authenticity. Your quoted passage has heavy liberal overtones, suggesting it is suspect. Scholarly analysis independently confirms that it is not authentic.

: What are the liberal overtones? First, note how often the media, movies, books and liberals love to quote that passage rather than other passages given far greater emphasis. The quoted phrase is false: many of Jesus's persecutors knew what they were doing. The quoted passage contradicts many other statements and facts about Jesus. Jesus did not forgive sins without repentance, but [[liberals]] like to pretend falsely that repentance is not necessary. Let's not be misled, and let's not mislead others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:41, 17 November 2010 (EST)

::The people who nailed him on the cross did not know that he was God; rather, they thought that he was a common criminal. Later, in Luke 23:47, the centurion realized that he was a righteous man, even though he still did not realize that he was God.

::The Bible should be translated according to the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew words, and it should ''not'' be translated by people who do not know God; that is why the modern Bible version are so messed up because people don't care about God's word and put in what they want, disregarding what it means. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 09:39, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::I'm a bit puzzled by this as well. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but it sounds as if your standard for declaring a Bible passage to be illegitimate is that it is cited by liberals. That hardly seems sufficient. Furthermore, given that forgiveness is a major theme of the Gospels, isn't the line at least consistent with the rest of the text? --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 14:35, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::I definitely did not agree with it, but wanted to find out why. Conservatism should conform to the Bible, not the Bible to conservatism. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:16, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::: Folks, you're ducking the flaw in the passage: ''repentance is required for forgiveness''. It's [[liberal denial]] to pretend otherwise, and that's why liberals love this passage. Scholars agree it's not authentic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::::: Jesus forgives everyone of what they did to him on the earth; that is why there is another verse that says "Every blasphemy against the Son of man shall be forgiven" (paraphrase) This corresponds right. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 19:53, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::::: LK, perhaps you've been misled by [[liberals]]. Jesus talked more about [[Hell]] than about [[Heaven]]. Repentance is a prerequisite to forgiveness. The [[Bible]] is crystal clear about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:01, 18 November 2010 (EST)

You can forgive someone who wrongs you without them ever repenting of the wrong they did to you. There are more meanings to forgiveness than you think. The verse does not state that they automatically went to heaven. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:46, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:That was always my understanding of the passage, but even that's not really relevant to whether or not it belongs in the Bible. If you had some evidence that the verse was based on a bad translation/interpretation or was not present in the original Hebrew or Greek versions, this wouldn't be an issue. However, it appears to me (and again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you are rejecting it based on politics rather than validity or consistency. --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 16:01, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Christ did not engage in spin, LanthanumK. Forgiveness is just that. The act of our forgiving shouldn't be predicated on what the person does or does not do.....that remains the province of the Lord to judge them. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:02, 19 November 2010 (EST)

LK, if you're not going to address my points, then this discussion has become unproductive. [[Jesus]] repeatedly emphasized that repentance is a pre-condition to forgiveness by [[God]], and Jesus repeatedly emphasized that Hell awaits those who don't repent. It's fine to forgive your neighbor, but your neighbor isn't going to obtain forgiveness from God without repentance. [[Liberal denial]] is working overtime to hide this truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:Why do you hide behind a smoke screen of conservatism? Jesus forgave them for what they did to him on the cross; since they did not repent, any sins after that would still send them to hell. Its [[conservative denial]] to pretend otherwise. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 21:17, 19 November 2010 (EST)
:Jesus did forgive them while on the cross, but did that mean those same people were given eternal life on the spot? No. And while Jesus was forgiving them, they sat amongst themselves casting the dice for the clothes they had ripped from His body before they crucified Him. Kinda sounds like they continued with their sinning despite what Jesus did, doesn't it? I think you had better read your Bible a little closer; maybe it'll help clear the fog you've created around yourself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:36, 19 November 2010 (EST)
: The key thing to keep in mind here, I think, is that just because Jesus forgives you for some specific sins, that doesn't mean he forgives you for ALL your sins, and especially for sins you may commit in the future. So someone forgiven by Jesus can still go to Hell if they continue to be sinful afterwards. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 22:37, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Surely unconditional and unilateral forgiveness or withholding forgiveness until the offender repents depends on the nature of the situation. Both are reflected in the scriptures. The verses quoted below are from the New Testament of the Conservapedia Bible--a most reliable Modern English translation, done by the best of the public in over two months, much more efficiently than other translations such as the NIV currently being worked on by the elitist college professors dominated Committee on Bible Translation.
:::‘Remember always, that if another should harm you, you should rebuke him, and if he repents, you should forgive him.’ (Luke 17:3)
::That is clearly conditional on repentance. However,
:::‘Thus you should be merciful, as your Father is merciful. Judge not, and you shall not be judged; blame not, and you shall not be blamed; forgive, and you shall be forgiven.’ (Luke 6:36-37)
::and
:::‘Because if you forgive men the wrongs they do, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well. But if you do not forgive men their wrongdoings, your Father will not forgive your wrongdoings either.’ (Matthew. 6:14-15)
::would appear to be unconditional, unless it can be shown that some verses of the scriptures take precedence over others.
::Surely Christian personal forgiveness takes place in the heart regardless of the sin or a lack of confession and repentance. Forgiveness protects us from developing grudges, becoming bitter and resentful, which may turn to hatred or anger. Forgiveness also ensures that we reflect first on our own sins and God’s gracious forgiveness toward us as undeserving sinners. It is a Christian's love for the sinner that will move him to repent.
::I am fascinated by the suggestion that the quoted phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." is false and would love to learn more about that. Who are the Scholars who agree it's not authentic and which of their publications deal with the issue?
::Surely Christ's death on behalf of mankind was so that God would not immediately call the sinner to judgment when he sinned? Without the death of Christ, God’s justice and holiness would have required the immediate judgment of the sinner. Since Jesus died for our sins, a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurs, not eternal forgiveness. That is reflected in "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." If they ‘know not what they do’ they cannot repent, but once aware of what they have done, they will have ample opportunity to do so.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 20:21, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you also ignore the fact that [[Jesus]] emphasized [[Hell]] more than [[Heaven]]. Who do you think goes to Hell, if not unrepentant sinners???

::: Your first quote from Scriptures is clear, and your second and third quotes do not contradict the first one. Moreover, the suggestion that man forgive unconditionally does not mean that [[God]] will. [[Jesus]] was crystal clear that Hell is real and crowded.

::: [[Liberal denial]] of the existence of Hell is axiomatic to [[liberal]] misinformation. As to the phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do," it's simply not there in the "early and diverse manuscripts." (Philip Comfort, "Essential Guide to Bible Versions"). It's obviously a liberal distortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:46, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you use a lot of words, but don't say many insightful things. I am going to provide a concise answer to your main question - why is "Father, forgive theml for they know not what they do" most likely inauthentic. First off, this verse appears only in Luke, and not any of the other gospels. More importantly, however, it doesn't appear in many of the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, thus implying it was added in later, and not written by the original author. Many scholars acknowledge this, and many Bible translations do not include the verse (the United Bible Society for example does not include it in their translation). I recommend doing more research before engaging in a discussion here. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:48, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Andy, I referred to a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurring, not eternal forgiveness. I saw no reason to mention Hell, or Heaven for that matter, in a discussion about the nature of forgiveness. I can however assure you that I am fully aware that Hell is real and crowded full of sinners. Thank you for the Philip Comfort reference. I will endeavour to acquire a copy. TeacherEd, thank you for further clarification about the authenticity of the phrase in question. I can assure you that I make the utmost efforts to research that of which I wish to learn more. Perhaps I am not the best of researchers. I once tried to search the online New American Bible but was unsuccessful. I come here to learn from a unique and unparalleled educational resource. I assumed in good faith, and with an open mind, that engaging in discussion was part of that learning process. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 21:50, 20 November 2010 (EST)

:::Amanda, since you agree that Hell is real and crowded, who do you think goes there? Not repentant sinners, but unrepentant ones. This isn't rocket science, and it is absurd for [[liberals]] to deny that unrepentant sinners go to [[Hell]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Sorry if I was unclear. I of course meant that Hell is full of unrepentant sinners, for not to repent is the ultimate sin. Please forgive my oversight. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 22:06, 20 November 2010 (EST)
::: I'm glad you have come to realize the truth on this matter! For learning more about Biblical concepts, I recommend signing up for the [[Bible Lectures]] --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 17:31, 21 November 2010 (EST)

Stephen, in Acts 7, said, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." Was he a liberal as well? What is frequently ignored is that there is two types of forgiveness: (1) forgiveness on a human level and (2) forgiveness on a divine level. I can forgive someone for sinning against me, but that does not mean God forgives them (if they've not repented). On the other hand, they could gain God's forgiveness, but I could staunchly refuse to forgive them out of anger and spite. So when Jesus said "Father forgive them," He was not granting them forgiveness on a divine level. If He WAS granting them divine forgiveness for their sins, He would have just pronounced their sins forgiven (like he did on other occasions in the NT). Instead, He asked the Father to forgive them. Why didn't Jesus pronounce their sins forgiven? Because they did not show faith in Him and they did not show repentance. His prayer was answered in part starting at Pentecost when the people were granted "remission of sins" through their repentance and subsequent baptism. The evidence supporting this passage's inclusion in the NT is overwhelming. I personally serve a God who can preserve His word through the ages. --[[User:BradleyC|BradleyC]]

== Bible Project ==

Hello, I think that this Bible Project is just to pick verses out of the Bible to use them to your extent. The Bible should be read in ''context''. The meaning of a verse can be changed by the verse following it... What is the good of this project? [[User:Xeno|Xeno]] 08:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

:This project is comprehensive and does not take verses out of context. The good of it is to produce a more precise translation free of [[liberal bias]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

== Hello ==

I just found this from the main page and commend the site for creating this excellent resource. You have my best wishes for success.--[[User:RoyT|RoyT]] 15:29, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

== Intrigued ==

How is this project definitively different than the project which produced the NET Bible (http://net.bible.org/)?
:According to [http://bible.org/article/preface-net-bible-first-edition their 'about' page], the main motivation for that project was to produce a Bible translation with liberal copyright terms. As you can see from the article, the CBP has much broader aims than that. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:57, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

::The NET Bible is a helpful project, but it may suffer from some of the same weaknesses that Wikipedia has: allowing too much trivia (which can obscure learning) and not adhering to conservative principles to facilitate the most accurate result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

== User: Conservative - my criticisms of the Conservative Bible Project ==

I am not a fan of the Conservative Bible Project.

Here are a list of my objections:

1. At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Basic rules of New Testament exegesis]).

I don't think academia is the sole way of gaining knowledge. On the other hand, I don't see the project recommending various resources and having translators be required to read these resources before participating in the project. One way or another, I think people need to show they are competent before getting involved in the project. I am not saying that everyone who participated in this project was necessarily incompetent as I recall TerryH indicated he studied under someone very knowledgeable about Bible translating, but I do think the bar was set too low for people to participate.

Let me illustrate an important point:

So as not to be rude and to keep family harmony, I took a gamble one time and I had a family member who did not go to barber school cut my hair and she did an excellent job. However, when doing things like going over bridges and having dental work done, I would like to know that the people involved knew their stuff. As a Christian, the Bible is too important a book for me to take a gamble by relying on a translation done by people who don't have the requisite knowledge.

2. List of [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] to be used in the translating: I think when you translate you should use the best word available and not have a prior agenda of putting certain words in.

Plus, I am not a fan of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] page as don't buy the idea that the Western World has become more conservative over time and I have reservations about the idea that conservative words have been created at a geometric rate. I think Western culture has become more liberal and less Bible believing in the last 50 years or so for example (abortion, less people in Western Civilization believing in Bible inerrancy). I also think the webpage has examples of words which have attempted to be forced to be "conservative words" such transistor, clueless, cogent, coolant, etc. However, there are encouraging things happening now in the the Western World and the world at large such as fiscal conservatism having a higher profile, the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]], pro-life movement making some progress, etc. etc.

3. I do realize that Western Civilization has been profoundly affected by the Bible in a positive way. Yet, the name of the project, the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] mentioned above and the lack of knowledge of ANE culture among some translators gives me the suspicion that personal preferences and modern American conservatism ideas are influencing the project too much rather than original intent of the Bible writers. Ancient Hebrew tribal culture and first century culture in the Mediterranean are in some ways was a lot different than modern American culture and modern Western conservative ideas.

4. I see the translation principles unnecessarily reflecting the personality/ideas/preferences of the creator of the project.

For example, one of the principles of the project is: "Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels". The apostles were upbraided over and over by Jesus for their lack of teachability plus except for Peter, the disciples did not initially believe the women's report about their visit to Jesus's tomb. Peter, however, ran to the tomb to investigate.

Here is another example: "Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God.""

I have certainly seen my share of liberals at Conservapedia drone on and on via talk pages about nothing. On the other hand, in this instance I see overemphasis on conciseness due to the predilection of Mr. Schlafly. God has various names in the Bible and they are used to convey the various attribute/qualities of God (see: [http://bible.org/article/names-god names of God]). For example, El Shaddai:“God Almighty. I also see the lack of appreciation for the various names of God as being a symptom of not understanding and appreciating Ancient Near East (ANE) culture enough in order to provide an excellent translation. Names were very important in terms of their meaning in ANE culture and that is one reason why Abraham and Peter had their names changed for example.

5. After doing some quick searches, I found Christians on the internet criticizing the project and providing examples were the translating was done poorly for key Bible verses which are cited often by the Christian community as far as doctrine. Those verses have been fixed, but I don't think the mistakes should have happened in the first place.

6. There isn't any requirement that someone be a Christian to participate in the project. Given various non-Christians trying to pervert or censor the Bible (Thomas Jefferson's version of the Bible removing all the miracle verses, Jehovah Witness versions of the Bible trying to deny the deity of Christ, etc.), I think this is a big flaw of the project. Plus, according to the Bible, Christians are given the Holy Spirit which guide them whereas non-Christians are at emnity with God and can even be demonically possessed. In addition, having a good understanding of Christian theology is helpful to understand the Bible from a big picture perspective and aids in the ability to do Bible exegesis/translating. Non-Christian translators are often going to fall short in this respect.

SUMMARY: While I do have other criticisms of the project, those are my principle criticisms. Barring the name of the project being changed and barring some radical changes to the project, I will stick with primarily using my NASB and NKJV versions of the Bible and I will not be using the Conservative Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:First time poster, long time reader. Just registered my account to post this, so go easy. :)
:I agree with what [[User:Conservative]] has posted here, but I think it tells of a bigger problem; that is to say, that the Conservapedia has kind of forgotten its ''purpose''. Was this site not meant to be the "Wikipedia Without Liberal Bias"? A Wikipedia with quality, concise articles and a source for education and learning ''without'' the indoctrination?
:As a long-time reader, I see lots of things here that make me wince. My kids accordingly go to a private school, rather than being tutored here, partially because of these issues. Is it not time that the Conservapedia administration sit down and ask themselves some hard questions? Every organization has to do it at some point, small or large, and Conservapedia -- despite its excellent moral foundation -- is no exception.
:One of those questions is, regretfully, is... "is the Conservative Bible Project actually worth continuing?" Or even worth keeping? Does it, ultimately, do more harm than good?
:Personally, on this issue, I am with [[User:Conservative]]. I believe that the Bible, Christian ethics and morals, and Conservatism as a whole can stand on its own merits; millions and indeed billions of people worldwide agree with this simple assertion. There were conservatives before Conservapedia and if we pulled the plug today, there'd still be conservatives tomorrow. Conservatism doesn't need fixing because, simply put, it's not broken.
:But Conservapedia isn't perfect, either, and nothing is to be honest. We are all flawed copies of God's perfect image, with vices and errors all our own... that's just the Human condition. While I agree with [[User:Conservative]] on specific matter, regarding the Bible Project, I must confess that there are certain other elements of Conservapedia that I consider to be... regretable. A dark stain on an otherwise noble enterprise. I'm sure you all know what I mean.
:Without going into specifics, I can say that the number of 'attack pages' on Conservapedia -- especially those hidden in the form of the Essay namespace -- is disheartening. Once again, Christianity, Conservative values -- these things stand on their own and do not require constant reinforcement. I would like to see Main Page Right being used for something ''other'' than political grandstanding (Obama is out the next election, we all know it) or the constant promotion of the Question Evolution! campaign... instead, I'd like to see interesting historical events. Points of interest, like, the work of Robert Oppenheimer and how his work harnessing the atom created the greatest peacekeeping tool the Earth has ever seen. I'd like to read about alternate takes on the Theory of Relativity without it being linked to ''moral'' relativity. There's no link there other than the name. Call it the Hand of God Theory if you want, the bottom line is, no matter how accurate or inaccurate it is its ''name'' has no bearing on anything. I'd like to see pieces on dark-ages metalwork, on the Apollo programme, on the first man in space, on the Roman Empire.
:I'd like to see a positive spin on ''everything'' we do. We're not here to call names, insult people of other faiths and beliefs (or to push an agenda)... like the wise men used to say back in the day, "Just the facts, ma'am".
:I believe that facts, not rhetoric, not insults, not 'satires', are what Conservapedia needs. Just the facts, nothing more, nothing less. If that means we have to, say, accept that certain individuals who are well liked held Liberal views -- then that's fine. They are mortal men, flawed and weak as the rest of us, and they are not perfect. Rather than belittle and insult Liberals, why don't we try and be a guiding force for ''good'' - to be a shining, unfailing example of professionalism, and demonstrate the value of Conservative values. Hard work gives good results, my dad always used to say, and that's what I believe we should demonstrate at every opportunity.
:This is, I believe, the way forward for Conservapedia. Tone down the rhetoric, encourage tolerance and diversity, remove all of the inflammatory and hyperbolic articles, return to our roots... that of teaching and learning, knowledge and the persuit of knowledge, humility and love, tolerance and peace. Focus on history, art, science, culture, religion (''all'' religions), and let the merits of our work bear the fruits that are due to us.
:In summary, instead of constantly saying how we are better than Liberals, we should ''show'' them we are better... through our courage in setting a bold, bright, shining example.
:
: -- L.Hill
::::L.Hill, thanks for agreeing with me on some points. Second, Solomon said there is a time for everything under the sun and I do think satire has a place in a project like Conservapedia which is part news (front page), part encyclopedia and part essays. Third, I do think that evolutionism is one of the most pernicious ideologies in the Western World and efforts to combat it are noteworthy. Next, I think America and Europe are going to soon have to pay for their past financial folly in terms of the debts they have accrued. With the resulting greater scarcity of resources, I think this will cause more partisan bickering and not less and Greece rioting is a harbinger of things to come in many parts of the world. I do know that the revival associated with [[John Wesley]] avoided revolution in England and I am hoping something similar happens in the West as it will avoid a lot of unnecessary turmoil and violence. Lastly, sometimes criticism is necessary and there is no way to put a positive spin on it. While optimism has its place, constructive criticism and satire have their place as well. Being a Christian, I do have an optimistic view of life as I read the book of Revelation and it has a happy ending. Plus, I do think that adversity builds character. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::It was not a problem at all, and call me Lauren. :) --[[User:LHill|LHill]] 11:24, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

I agree with Conservative that there is a place for satire on Conservapedia, especially in essay space. He makes good points about the Bible project, though it could be an interesting endeavor if someone with knowledge of the ancient Hebrew and Greek. I say it should be on hiatus until someone knowledgeable comes along. Conservative makes some really good points here, and I am optimistic about Revelation as well.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 09:48, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reply to the above criticisms ==

The above criticisms are presented and argued well. But they overlook some key facts:

*[[professor values]] increasingly control modern translations of the [[Bible]], and those translations are predictably distorting the meaning for liberal purposes
*as in many other areas (such as [[public schools]] v. [[homeschooling]]), the [[best of the public]] is the best counterweight to [[atheistic]] influence
*the [[Conservative Bible Project]] has already yielded much benefit, as in uncovering the pro-[[abortion]] slant of the [[NIV]] (see [[Feminist Bible]])
*an online approach to learning the Bible is essential because young people do not read books, including the Bible, as much anymore
*new [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|conservative linguistic insights]] are appearing weekly, and only the Conservative Bible Project is going to make use of them to uncover the profound original intent in some biblical verses

The [[Conservative Bible Project]] addresses the above five issues, and addresses them well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:31, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, I clearly indicated that academia is not the only way to learn or show you are knowledgeable. I have no problem with the best of the public working on a Bible translating project, but they need to actually show they are the best before working on the project through showing they have: an extensive knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, an understanding of ANE culture, an understanding of [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Bible exegesis/translation principles], and lastly, have an understanding of Christian theology and be a Christian. Right now, there are too many novices in terms of their knowledge and ability working on the project. There are some tasks which require a lot of knowledge to do well and Bible translation is one of them. Employers hire people without academic credentials if they have the skills/knowledge, but they don't hire people off the street unless they are up to the job. I think the Bible is too important a book to translate poorly. Lastly, I raised some legitimate points that you avoided addressing. Unless the project is radically revamped on how it is done, I think it should be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:49, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:The first of the well-presented points is: ''At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: Basic rules of New Testament exegesis). '' I entirely agree with this point - and sadly, I haven't yet met a contributor to this project who knows more than the most basic Greek. And the lack of such knowledge can't be compensated for by good intentions! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:50, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar. Some may wince at that observation, but it's the same reason that sales of the Encyclopedia Britannica declined and Borders has gone bankrupt.

::Borders went bankrupt because of some bad business decisions on their part, not because of free (and in many cases incorrect) information that's available on the internet. Borders 1) failed to establish a online presence, instead choosing to go into partnership with Amazon, which had no (real) incentive to assist a rival bookseller in increasing sales, and they 2) failed to establish their ''own'' proprietary e-book system, unlike Amazon (Kindle) and Barnes & Noble (Nook). It's the brick-and-mortar stores that are suffering - Amazon's sales are up, but people are choosing to buy e-books instead of hard copies. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The real challenge to a Bible translation today is the ever-changing English language into which the Greek/Hebrew must be translated. English terms like "peace be with you" are constantly changing their meaning and a good translation has to have enough political savvy to react to liberal and atheistic biases that creep into language. See [[liberal creep]]!

The objection to the [[Conservative Bible Project]] is like saying an engineer should not try to build a bridge unless he first becomes a master in trigonometry. That objection doesn't work, because the trigonometry is well-understood and modern challenges in building a good bridge have little to do with sine and cosine functions.

The [[CBP]] stacks up favorably against any academic translation out there. You can pick a few verses, and so will I, and I bet CBP is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:May I ask, Andy, whether you speak or read any language other than English? That would help me better understand your arguments. I know some German and French, and find that translations between these (fairly closely related) languages is not at all trivial. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 16:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, You used again and again a Google search to bolster your claim that ἰδού can be translated as ''at that moment''. I've shown again and again that your Google searches were incorrect (see e.g., [[Talk:John_1-7_%28Translated%29#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]] and [[Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Shroud_of_Turin|here]]). So, I'm utterly unconvinced that using these tools while knowing only very little Greek will get good results! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, I'm not sure how much my input is wanted here considering that this a Christian translation of the Bible and I'm a Jew... But as a Hebrew speaker I must say that I was positively impressed by the Conservative Bible Project's translation of the Old Testament. For example, as I see [[Bible Retranslation Project|here]] one of the suggestions for this new translation is to replace the word "kill" in some of the instances in which it appears with the word "murder".

:::This is most correct in my opinion. For example, "Thou shalt not kill" should really be "Thou shalt not murder". The Hebrew word in the original text which is often translated to "kill" is "Tirzakh" (תרצח). This word only refers to the act of murder, not killing in general, and in fact the Almighty sanctions several killings in the Old Testament. Based on this I get the impressions that with enough work the project's volunteers can produce an accurate translation of the Bible. [[User:Markman|Markman]] 17:34, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the superb example, Markman! That does illustrate nicely the value in this project.

::::Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers.

::::If there are still any doubters, let's do this: pick your very best translation of the Bible, and let's compare key verses to the [[Conservative Bible Project]]. You can pick any five verses, and I'll pick any five verses, and observers can comment on which translation is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::1 Corinthians 13 1-5
NKJV:
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;

5 Does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;

CBP:

1 If I could speak all the languages of men and angels but I didn't have love, I would just be making noise like a gong or cymbal.

2 And if I had the gift of prophecy and understood all mysteries and knew everything, if I had enough faith to move mountains-- Without love, I am nothing.

3 And if I gave everything I own to feed the poor, if I gave my body to be burned-- Without love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient and kind. It doesn't envy. It doesn't boast, it isn't inflated.

5 It isn't rude or self serving. It isn't quick to anger. It doesn't focus its thoughts on wrong things.

I must admit that the CBP has a clearer, more concise wording, and fits in better with modern English. The quality of this passage of the CBP is on par with the NKJV.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 18:26, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Another reply to Andy Schlafly ===
Andy, you wrote: "The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar."

As far as the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages being well understood, this is patently false as a blanket statement. There is some correlation between how far you go back into history and the available evidence that is available. Ancient historians more often face the challenge of having merely fragmentary evidence so their educated guesses are probabilistic in terms of their accuracy depending on the amount of available evidence. I know you have received some flack about your world history lectures as of late. I will briefly state that I read a few of your world history lectures and some of them I really enjoyed and found informative and insightful, but I regrettably must say that I found some error in your material. For example you wrote: "World history" is the true story of thought, ideas, culture, language, wars, governments, and economic systems throughout all of mankind's history. This includes billions of people over thousands of years. '''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible. '''Everything mankind has ever written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed is part of "World history."''' This is demonstrably untrue.

For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13) [http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1026-what-was-the-book-of-jashar] Here is what the American Bible Society says; "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C.). It is excerpted twice or possibly three times in the Old Testament."[http://record.americanbible.org/content/bible-qa/book-jashar-missing-book] So you are clearly wrong about "every source is available to us". I suggest removing this statement from your world history lecture.

I have another example. This what a very conservative Orthodox Jewish site says about the identification of biblical animals: "After all, there are many biblical animals and plants whose identification is uncertain, as documented by Professor Yehuda Feliks in his Hachai Vehatzomeach Batorah."[http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet2.html] I know the translation of certain biblical animals is more challenging because the NIV translates the word "hare" as rabbit and rabbits were not introduced into Israel into post-biblical history. Again, this comes down to knowing the ANE history/culture. In this case, a novice armed with a laptop is more apt to make a mistake because he does not understand the importance of the exegetical principle of taking into account the ANE history/culture.

Now does the above mean that we need to throw out biblical history like some radical skeptics/atheists unknowledgeable about historical investigations claim? No. And no adult lives his life demanding absolute certainty. Children in an area uninhabited by poisonous snakes might leap on their beds because they are afraid a poisonous snake (or monster) might be under their bed due to some show they watched on television, but adults have enough wisdom and experience to realize the probability of a poisonous snake being under their bed does not warrant leaping into their bed and is hard on the furniture.

Lastly, translating comes down to context and translating an ancient language from another culture adds another layer of difficulty. Unless you are knowledgeable of the words surrounding a particular word and unless you have some understanding of the ancient/history culture, you are not going to translate as well. This does not mean we have to throw out our Bibles an act like the child who demands certainty that a snake is not under his bed, but it merely means that translating the Bible involves more knowledge and there are some passages which are more challenging when it comes to translation/interpretation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:You make good points, but still the biggest obstacle is keeping up with the changing meanings in English. The source (Hebrew/Greek) is static and thoroughly studied/available. Where Bible translations fall short is in failing to recognize the [[liberal creep]] in the English.

:Addressing a prior point of yours, I share the concern that any new translation may try to change the meaning of the original. But that risk is its lowest when guided by conservative principles rather than liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::No offence, Mr Schlafly, but either the Bible is the word of God - in which case it's too important to be translated by unqualified people - or it isn't, in which case it doesn't matter what it says because it's just an old book. Until your project attracts some proper scholars I'm sticking with my KJV. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:21, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::''Because it is the Word of God'' it deserves ongoing improvements in the English language that clarify its original meaning. The KJV is great, but the English used there has been distorted by [[liberal creep]] in the 400 years since, and it doesn't benefit from [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Best New Conservative Words]] that express powerful concepts better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:32, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::::So you plan to improve on the word of God? --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:39, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::As I said, the improvements are in how the Word of God is expressed in the English language - something that must be done constantly in order to keep up with the changing meanings of the modern language.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, I don't buy that argument. The Bible is the best selling book in the English language. If the most of the common words that the Bible used changed meaning that rapidly, every major Bible publisher would come out with a new version each year and there would be a demand for it. Bible Colleges would be pumping out Bible translators galore to meet the demand for their students. I personally don't feel as though I have to throw out the primary versions of the Bible that I like every year (NASB and NKJV) and look for new versions (both are very conservative translations of the Bible). It is far better for competent translators to do translations less frequently and have a quality translation. By competent translators I mean people with an excellent command of ancient Hebrew/Greek, a working knowledge of ANE history/culture, an excellent knowledge of biblical exegesis/translation principles and a good command of theology.

You really can't show me that the NASB and NKJV are liberal translations or that they are not good translations. I prefer reading a book as it faster and less strain on the eyes, but I am sure there are Bible programs which use these versions. In addition, you cannot also show me that there is a big demand for Bibles translated by novices some of whom may not be Christians. If you can show me that publishers have requested to publish the Conservative Bible Project work when it is published or show me any Bible produced by novices which sold well, I would be very surprised.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:An aside, I was wanting a conservative Bible translated by competent translators which combined the translation methodologies of word for word translation (formal equivalence) and thought for thought (dynamic equivalence) in an optimal manner, but I didn't think there was such a mixed approach translation. Due to this discussion which I endeavored to keep cordial yet adequately express my objections, I found that such a translation exist and it is the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]]. I am looking forward to examine this Bible. Andy, I hope there are no hard feelings and I did endeavor to keep the discussion cordial, but I do feel that the Bible deserves to be translated well and I don't think the approach this project is taking will produce a well translated Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::I did some preliminary research of the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]] and figured if the Southern Baptists were involved in the translation, it would probably be a conservative translation. Conservapedia takes issue with the Bible and says it mistranslated Matthew 9:18 which appears to be the most serious charge. It does appear as if no major translations translated the verse the way the Holman translators did. I am happy with my NASB and NKJV versions anyways so no big deal. I heard from someone that the Holman translation didn't sell that well so I had my doubts it was a good translation anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:08, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::All modern translations of the Bible suffer from [[liberal creep]], including the Holman Bible.

:::It's important to address this issue: which matters more, keeping out pro-[[abortion]] (and other liberal) influences in modern translations, or worrying about how much expertise a Greek scholar has?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:03, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, you are setting up a false dilemma. There is no reason you can't have a readable well translated Bible by competent people who are theological conservatives. You didn't show me that the NASB or NKJV versions were in any way deficient.

In addition, I already pointed out that there were errors in the CBP translation on important verses dealing with doctrine which had to be fixed. This wouldn't have happened if all the translators were competent.

Also, you didn't show me that competent translator doesn't have to be: excellent in their knowledge of Greek/Hebrew in order to understand context, be acquainted with ANE history/culture, having a working knowledge of Christian theology, and be excellent in terms of understanding exegetical/translation principles. In fact, you conceded I made some good points about this issue (other Conservapedians did as well). Plus, you failed to address my points below about: your chess software analogy, the issue of translation software being poor and the software for the more intellectually challenging game of [[Go]] (which requires human judgement/experience and an understanding about context) being easily being beat by experienced players. Also, you didn't show me there was any significant market demand for translations translated by novices.

Next, while I was interested in the approach that the Holman people took, you posted almost instantly after me so you probably missed my new post directly above yours about the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]].

In addition, you once said on this wiki that you hate to admit to being wrong. That is not a good characteristic to have. Solomon wrote in Proverbs: "Reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Instruct a wise man, and he will be still wiser. Teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning. (Proverbs 9:8-9). I realize that it is human nature to be resistant to admit to being wrong, yet the Bible indicates that this humble approach is exactly the approach one should take. Pride merely gets in the way of learning/teachability. Today someone said I made a mistake in medical terminology in one of my satires. I did a little poking around the internet, saw they were right and that I made a mistake and then I gladly made the correction. When people at this wiki have made legitimate points about any of my articles, I have made changes. I would rather learn something new and make any necessary corrections. On the other hand, I do have fun oversighting my revisions to my main page right posts for style/typo issues as I was told that certain obsessive atheists get frustrated when I do this. :) Here is an clear cut example of you not wanting to admit to making a mistake: You wrote in your World History Lecture: "'''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible."[http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One] I showed you above that the Book of Jashar which the Bible mentions is a lost book and not available to historians. Yet, you still did not make the correction and still say in your World History lecture that '''"every source is available to us".'''

Lastly, I still suggest consulting with the Wycliffe Bible translators (who appear not to require college education but merely equivalency plus use technology in their translation), better preparing your translators and requiring that all your translators be prepared. If you don't want to do that, I still suggest deleting the CBP as their is no shortcut to excellence and the Bible should be translated excellently. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:51, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, I revised my above post to provide an example of a relevant point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Addendum: I do like to be fair. You obviously are capable of coming up with great ideas. For example, the birth of a conservative alternative to Wikipedia was a fabulous idea and something the internet needed. I also like various ideas you have come up with and various articles/essays you have written. At the same time, having a resistance to admitting your wrong is a bad characteristic to have and you did admit to having this characteristic and you haven't made the correction to your World History lecture even though their is a clear cut mistake which I pointed out. Again, I do try to be fair and I am not reticent to point out people's good points which I did above. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Suggestion to Andy on proceeding forward if you wish to continue the wiki Bible translatiing project ==

Right now there are about 340 million people without the Bible in their native tongue. One of the primary organizations tackling this problem is the Wycliffe Bible translators. Wycliffe does not demand its translators be college educated. Wycliffe also uses computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. Wycliffe also offers training for their translators. Why don't you consult with Wycliffe and use some of their methodology if you insist on continuing with a wiki Bible project. Here is their website: http://www.wycliffe.org Here is their web page on training to be a translator: http://www.wycliffe.org/go/preparingtoserve/training.aspx

Many tasks require training to do well and I would suggest that if someone wants to obtain training in translation without large college bills that Wycliffe offers good training. Plus, you will help translate the Bible so more of those 340 million people will be able to read the Bible in their native language. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, there is a conservative gentleman who is hired by many organizations/businesses to speak. He helps people be more productive and effective. Here is a quote from him: "You were born to win, but to be a winner, you must plan to win, '''prepare''' to win, and expect to win."[http://thinkexist.com/quotation/you_were_born_to_win-but_to_be_a_winner-you_must/260044.html] I have no problem with you expecting people to do good Bible translating, but there has to be some preparation (training process) for them. Some sales managers, put a product in their salesmen's hands, quickly push them out the door and then say "Go get'm tiger." Then they wonder why they have such a high salesmen turnover and low sales. These people fail because they did not have enough preparation. You cannot expect people to be good Bible translators unless you provide some means of preparation and require they be prepared. I suggest incorporating some of Wycliffe's methodology as they do not demand their people be college educated plus they use computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. In many cases, if you want excellence, you cannot get around preparation. Bible translating requires some preparation and that is why the Wycliffe Bible translators prepare their Bible translators for the task of Bible translation. I would also suggest incorporating the changes to the project I gave in my initial post to you concerning this project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Chess software vs. translation software or someone merely using a browser with rudimentary knowledge of a language ===

Andy you wrote:

"The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar...."

Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers."

'''Here is an excerpt of an article from Slate:
'''

"I work at a large international organization translating speeches from French, Spanish, and Russian. When a rumor began spreading in my office that our jobs were to be "supplemented" by computer translation software, we mostly laughed it off.

Anybody who's played around with translation software knows how bad the technology can be. Everyone in my office knows the hoary classic in which "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak," translated into Russian and back, comes out "The vodka is good, but the steak is lousy." We all knew, or thought we knew, that computer translation—also known as machine translation, or MT—could never replace a human translator, with his vast cultural and linguistic experience, his ear for nuance, and his superior multilingual education. We all slept very well in the certainty of our indispensability...

The problem with translation software is context. When you hear or read a sentence, your brain refers not only to the spoken words but also to its accumulated experience. The words "con" and "pen," for example, have various meanings and can represent different parts of speech. But when you read "the con is in the pen," you know instantly that you are dealing with an incarcerated criminal—your life experience allows each word to contextualize the other. A computer can't do that because it has no frame of reference to help it match the contingent sense of "con" as criminal to the contingent sense of "pen" as jail. Short of being endowed with a knowledge base as vast as the human mind's, a computer simply cannot read context."[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/webhead/2006/01/the_translators_blues.html]

VERY GOOD! [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 17:00, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

While I have joked around a bit with translation software as far as the Chinese language at Conservapedia, I certainly don't think it is at the level of chess software. The Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made and the vast knowledge base of the human brain and the brains ability at relating pieces of information and putting them in the right context and making proper judgements should be harnessed to provide the best translation. Plus, it becomes even more important when you are translating an ancient text and the historical/cultural considerations also need to be taken into account.

Here is an acid test:

Can you show me a piece of software which translates ancient languages well? Can you show me a piece of translation software which is generally superior to human translators? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:41, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Here is another example of limitations of technology when human judgment/experience and context is involved: "The game of [[Go]] is one of the most popular games in the world and is on par with games such as chess, in any of its Western or Asian variants, in terms of game theory and as an intellectual activity. It has also been argued to be the most complex of all games, with most advocates referring to the difficulty in programming the game to be played by computers and the large number of variations of play. While the strongest computer chess software has defeated top players (Deep Blue beat the world champion Garry Kasparov in 1997), the best Go programs routinely lose to talented children and consistently reach only the 1-10 kyu range of ranking. Many in the field of artificial intelligence consider Go to be a better measure of a computer's capacity for thought than chess."[http://www.amazon.it/Go-Mathematics-Frederic-P-Miller/dp/6130704380] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:12, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Good points, but ... ==

You make good points, and this is an interesting and important discussion. But it is not "a false dilemma" to be confronted with a choice between well-credentialed but liberal translators, and the less-credentialed but conservative public. After all, that is the choice made by a constitutional republic in how the nation should be run.

The NASB is a pretty good (but outdated) translation, while the NKJV has more bias. It's not difficult to find instances of bias in both. I'll take a look now and doubt it will be even 15 minutes before I can post significant examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Liberal bias in NASB (Galations 5:19):

:{| class="wikitable"
|KJV||Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
|-
|NASB||Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
|-
|}

:Also, the NASB reduced the references to the [[Devil]] by almost 50% from the [[KJV]].

:Outdated, archaic terminology in NASB: describing the unconscious state of the martyr [[Stephen]] after he was stoned in Acts 7:60: "Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, 'Lord, do not hold this sin against them!' Having said this, he '''fell asleep'''." Really??? Stephen took a nap at that point???

(will add the NKJV next)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:: Shouldn't you be looking at which version best matches the original text rather than which one sounds more conservative to you? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::: Absolutely. And surely original text does not say that Stephen took a nap after being stoned.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::: I dunno, I don't understand Ancient Greek, but you never referenced in the original text in your criticism as to why it's wrong. Interestingly, the KJV (which you use for the CBP) also says "he fell asleep". Anyway, here's the passage:

θεὶς δὲ τὰ γόνατα ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· κύριε, μὴ στήσῃς αὐτοῖς ταύτην τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐκοιμήθη.

:::: Even if it doesn't say "feel asleep", how is this an example liberal bias? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:08, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: I didn't say it was an example of liberal bias, but the translation criticized above does sugarcoat the brutal murder of the martyr Stephen. "ἐκοιμήθη" means to die (or fall unconscious) in this context, not fall asleep.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:27, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: "He fell asleep - This is the usual mode of describing the death of saints in the Bible. It is an expression indicating:

:::::(1) The "peacefulness" of their death, compared with the alarm of sinners;

:::::(2) The hope of a resurrection; as we retire to sleep with the hope of again awaking to the duties and enjoyments of life. See John 11:11-12; 1 Corinthians 11:30; 1 Corinthians 15:51; 1 Thessalonians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Matthew 9:24." [http://bible.cc/acts/7-60.htm Source]

::::: This shows the limitations of relying on machines and dictionaries for translation. One needs to understand history, the language and the culture in which these texts were written in order to fully understand what is being said. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:20, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::: The "language and the culture" for the English is ''today''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Since you're translating something written nearly 2000 years ago in Greek/Hebrew then you should understand the language and culture of that time ''as well''. Otherwise you end up distorting or leaving out important things, like that "falling sleep" is how the death of saints in described in the Bible for the reasons mentioned above. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:37, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: "Falling asleep" is a term in English. It was not used 2000 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: *sigh* Forget it.--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:NKJV does not even use the oldest Greek texts (Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible), because they were discovered after the writing of the KJV.

:Archaic text in NKJV (Mathew 28:4): "And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men."

(will add more examples ...)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:09, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

: Actually, I could not easily find examples of bias in the NKJV. But it seems to present the [[Essay:Adulteress Story|Adulteress Story]] without a cautionary footnote that the passage was probably inserted later by a liberal. Other than that, I must admit the NKJV is a pretty good translation, but will become outdated in its English over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Andy, if I am to believe the NASB reduced the references to the devil by 50%, I am going to have to see some evidence and have more specifics. For example, the devil goes my more than one name in the Bible such as Satan, Lucifer, Prince of the power of the air, accuser of our brethren, adversary, father of lies, etc. etc. Again, I do know that ANE culture place a greater importance on names. Perhaps, having a diverse set of names to reflect the devil's attributes is a reflection of this. Again, one of my criticisms of this project is that some of its participants need to be more knowledgeable enough about ANE culture. I have also maintained that good translators take into account ANE history/cultural considerations when translating in order to impart the original intent of the biblical authors into the translated document.

Second, can you name 3 early church fathers or 3 prominent people in the early church who voiced the opinion that the adulteress story was fake. I do know that: "Most Greek manuscripts contain this passage. It also is in early translations such as the Bohairic Coptic Version, the Syriac Palestinian Version and the Ethiopic Version, all of which date from the second to the sixth centuries. It is clearly the reading of the majority of the Old Latin manuscripts and Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The passage has patristic support: Didascalia (third century), Ambrosiaster (forth century), Ambrose (forth century), the Apostolic Constitutions (which are the largest liturgical collections of writings from Antioch Syria in about 380 AD), Jerome (420 AD), and Augustine (430 AD)."[http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh7_53-8_11.html] Jerome was an early church father who wrote most of the Latin Vulgate. '''Question: Was St. Jerome a liberal?''' '''I think you are going to find a hostile audience to the proposition the Jerome was a liberal. ''' Also, "Eusebius indicates that Papias told a similar story of a woman accused before Jesus of many sins. The story also seems to be alluded to in the Apostolic Constitutions, and in the Syrian Didascalia of the third century, which tells bishops to deal with repentant sinners "as he also did with her who had sinned, when the elders set before him, and leaving the judgment in his hands, departed." (See Morris' commentary on John, 883, and Beasley-Murray's commentary on John, 143.)"[http://www.tektonics.org/af/adulterypericope.html]

Fourth, you seem to think the KJV is a conservative Bible translation. Yet, it has the adulteress story in John. '''Is the KJV a liberal Bible translation? I think you are going to find it to be a hard sell to convince people that the KJV is a so called liberal Bible translation.'''

Fifth, I really don't know if the NASB was warranted in their decision as far as Galations 5 at this point. I do know that the Young's literal translation, which is a strictly literal translation, has this as the translation: "And manifest also are the works of the flesh, which are: Adultery, whoredom, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strifes, emulations, wraths, rivalries, dissensions, sects, envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revellings, and such like, of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that those doing such things the reign of God shall not inherit." You may be making a legitimate complaint about this passage being translated poorly or less than ideally translated by the NASB.

Sixth, you say this is an interesting discussion yet you really don't adequately address my important points. So I don't believe it is much of a discussion. Therefore, I am bowing out of this discussion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:41, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:I'd like to address any specific points. I have an open mind about this. In response to your points above, liberal deception is not always obvious. Jerome and others (and the KJV) did not have all the evidence and political experience that we have today. Jerome was an expert scholar, rather than an expert at recognizing deception.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:58, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, I have endeavored to keep this discussion civil. I have also gone the extra mile and pointed out your accomplishments at this wiki (having the great idea of a conservative wiki, writing some good articles and essays at this wiki, having some good ideas as far as how this wiki is operated). I also said that I read a few of your World History lectures and found some interesting information and liked them. However, you are not convincing me that you have a strong propensity to be open to admitting error. For example, why do you still have this sentence in your first World History lecture?: "'''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible. '''Everything mankind has ever''' written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed '''is part of "World history.'''""[http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One] I clearly showed you that our knowledge of history is partial and that all sources are not available to us. For example I said this: "For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13)." I also cited this: "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C"[http://record.americanbible.org/content/bible-qa/book-jashar-missing-book] Yet, this sentence in your World History lecture stubbornly remains. Therefore, I am concluding that you do have some resistance to admitting error. I am not saying you do not have some openness to hearing others, but I do see evidence that you dislike admitting error. A good start in changing this trait would be to fix this error in your World History lecture. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:25, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==Example of what liberalism has done==
John 3:16 (KJV) ''"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."'' Liberal version: ''The Message'' (1983): ''"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life."'' Removed from ''The Message'' is "eternal life". Why? Could it have been done by people who think they're smarter than the original Biblical writers? Could it have been done by people who think there's no such thing as God? Could it have been done by people who think Jesus is just a fairy tale? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Excellent example. And a strong counterweight is needed against such liberal bias, or liberals will distort everything in the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Karajou, even if Andy were to somehow convince me that all other translations of the Bible were liberal and/or have errors, that still wouldn't negate the fact that the CBP needs to make some significant changes on how it is done and step up its game in terms of scholarship (you don't have to be an academic to display scholarship). It is apparent to me that Andy is not willing to make this commitment despite the good points I have made. And Andy does admit that I made some good points plus there are other conservative Conservapedians who agree with me. I still hold to the position that the CBP needs to make significant changes and step up its game or be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:38, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Should the Best of the Public vote on it then? [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]] 00:43, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

==Top 5 Bible verses==
{{cquote|If there are still any doubters, let's do this: pick your very best translation of the Bible, and let's compare key verses to the Conservative Bible Project. You can pick any five verses, and I'll pick any five verses, and observers can comment on which translation is better.}}

According to the [http://www.christianpost.com/news/most-popular-bible-verses-revealed-29900/ Christian Post], the five most popular verses of the New Testament are John 3:16, John 1:1, John 14:6, Matthew 28:19 and Romans 2:23. So these a the verses most likely to be looked up in the CBP - let's have a look for ourselves.
{|class="wikitable"
!verse
!KJV
!NIV
!CBP
!Criticism
!CBP Contributor Responds
|-
!rowspan="2"|John 3:16
|rowspan="2"|For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
|rowspan="2"|For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
|rowspan="2"|For God so loved the [people in the] world that He gave His Unique Son, so that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.
|rowspan="1"|the bracketed bit seems to be clumsy, and it's impossible to read aloud... But more to the point ''unique Son'' (why ''Unique''? Are all attributes to the Lord to be capitalized?) isn't as good as ''one and only'': υἱός μονογενής generally refers to a single child.
|rowspan="1"|There is no problem reading the CBP version aloud, and it properly clarifies that God's love is for the people, not the world. The older translations now have an environmentalist spin due to changing meaning for the term "world". The capitalization is because Jesus is God; the "unique" conveys the significance better than "one and only" (which leaves the possibility of God having a daughter, or that Jesus was not unique).

Please note that Isaac was called Abraham's "υἱός μονογενής" as well, but he was not Abraham's only son (ever heard of Ishmael?). He was the son of promise, the one-of-a-kind son. In short, Isaac was the unique son of Abraham. To call Jesus the "one and only" Son is to say that Ishamel and the other six sons of Abraham weren't really his kids. Only Isaac was. Unique is a excellent translation. - BradleyC
|-
|
*I've never found a way to vocalize brackets satisfyingly - unless omitting them totally
*the Greek doesn't exclude the existence of a daughter, neither :-)
|-
!rowspan="2"|John 1:1
|rowspan="2"|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|rowspan="2"|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|rowspan="2"|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|Here, I like ''all'' versions :-)
|At times the CBP version has had a stronger, richer translation (check history file) along the lines of "In the beginning was the Living Word, and the Truth was with God, and the Perfection was God."
|-
|There seems to be a reason that this translation isn't in the canon of the CBP any longer: It doesn't seem to be stronger, richer, but only more confusing: It lacks the aesthetic beauty of the original. However: when you said to chose verses from the CBP, I only thought of the current version!
|-
!John 14:6
|Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
|Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
|Jesus said, "I am the Route, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me.
|Again, the capitalization. And then ''route'' - the ''way, path'' to the Father seems to be quite comfy...
|
|-
!Matthew 28:19
|Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
|Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
|"So go and make students from all ethnic groups, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Divine Guide,
|''ethnic groups''? Ethnic is a derivation from ἔθνος, but ''ethnic groups'' is quite a stretch! This is about the contrast of Jews and gentiles. And ''divine guide'' for ἅγιον πνεῦμα? Really? For me, that seems to be much to corporeal.
|
|-
!Romans 3:23
|For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
|for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
|For all are sinners, and fall short of the glory of God;
|''having sinned'' (expressed by ἁμαρτάνω) makes us ''sinners'' (expressed by ἁμαρτωλός). But even if we havn't sinned, we would be all sinners because of Adam's transgression. So there is a reason to stick to the more literal translation!
|Read Ezekiel 3 and 18. God does not hold anyone accountable for the sins of their father. No one is guilty of the sin of Adam except for Adam. We will be judged according to OUR works, not Adam's works.
|}
IMO, both the KJB and the NIV are doing better than the CBP. And keep in mind that I didn't search for the verses translated worst in the CBP, but that I gave a semi-random selection!

[[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 07:57, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)
:::ErnestO seems to be correct in a lot of instances. For example, as far as Romans 3:23, the New Testament generally refers to Christians as saints and not sinners. The Apostle Paul, for instance, when writing to various churches refers to believers as saints and not sinners. For more information, please see: http://www.bereanpublishers.com/Important_Issues/are_christians_sinners_or_saints.htm#_Toc499463048 This is another illustration of why it is helpful to know about theology and ANE culture when translating. I don't have time to get into why ANE culture applies to translating the Romans 3:23 verse. Again, I recommend that if the CBP doesn't make significant changes on how its done and step up its game then it should be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:22, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly, your translation of John 4:52 as ''So he asked them the precise moment when he began to feel better, and they told him, "His fever broke yesterday, at 1 pm."'' shows your problems with what User:Conservatives describes as the ''ANE culture''. [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 13:58, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)

:::::What's the specific problem?
::::::You are applying our standards of precise time measurement to a society which had no idea of this concept. [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 19:05, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::I'd like a response to the issue of how the phrase "so loved the world" now has an environmentalist spin in English.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::If you only read ''half a verse'', you can try to give it an environmentalist spin. But I don't see a problem, as we should look at the context, even when reading a translation. [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 19:05, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

I really dont know how and if "so loved the world" has an environmentalist spin in English, but a word about translations. I hope that it is not beating the obvious to death, and I don't mean it as disparagement for any translator. A translation is from one language to another. For a translator of the Bible, this means a translation from Hebrew (and a to lesser extent, Aramaic), and Greek to English of our day. Whether a word or sentence is successfully translated depends upon the knowledge of these languages, and that depends upon the knowledge of the relevant literature. It takes a great deal of knowledge. A discussion of the the success of a translation, it seems to me, must rest upon a discussion of these languages and the text itself. One needs to breath these languages in and out, and the accuracy of a translation may even be scarcely apprehended by the translater himself, let alone by others that do not know the languages and the relevant literature. I say scarcely apprehended by the translater himself because, as in all real life, much of our living is scarcely understood, yet we are living in the reality all the same. Translation is reduplicating life and instilling that reproduction in another, using his own linguistic apparatus.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 16:01, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Here is the original text of those verses to compare with the various translations.

{|class="wikitable"
!Verse
!Original
|-
!John 3:16
|Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν Υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς Αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

It is in this way that we see that God has loved the world, in the giving of His only Son, that anyone believing in Him not be lost, but have life eternal. [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

We do get the term "cosmos" from κόσμον, but I think here it should be translated as "people [of the world]", or "the inhabitants of the world." See [http://concordances.org/greek/2889.htm]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:46, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:yes, "cosmos" is taken from κόσμο'''ς'''. Using brackets in a translation seems to be odd: the language of these verses is simple and straightforward and shouldn't become to convoluted in the translation, IMO.

|-
!John 1:1
| Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

In the beginning, was the Memra. The Memra was in God's presence standing before Him: God was that Memra!

Read "Targum Onkelos" in this article http://www.conservapedia.com/Targum [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|-
!John 14:6
|λέγει αὐτῷ Ἰησοῦς· ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή· οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ δι’ ἐμοῦ.

Jesus says to him "I am that pathway, and also the truth and the life. No one can get to the Father except it be by going through me." [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|-
!Matthew 28:19
| πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος

Go, teach all the peoples, performing the Rite of Immersion for their entrance into the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|-
!Romans 3:23
|πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ,

Everyone has sinned and with respect to the Glory of God, found wanting.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|}
--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:07, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

:Professional writers who are exceptional know the language they are writing in very well. Why should translating language be any different when it involves knowing two languages? Plus, with an ancient language from a different society the cultural milieu can be radically different and make things more difficult. Andy's claim that a novice can do it just as well is a case of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Does the Bible have antipathy towards having more knowledge/experience/skill? No, it does not. Solomon wrote: "Do you see a man skilled in his work? He will stand before kings; He will not stand before obscure men." (Proverbs 22:29). Societies that have contempt towards people who are more knowledgeable have caused unnecessary suffering and put their societies in a disadvantageous position when competing against other societies. For example, the Khmer Rouge killed people with glasses. Mao Tse Tung's Cultural Revolution was dismissive of knowledge/expertise and failed. Do experts sometimes go beyond their expertise due to pride? For example, make unwarranted claims about matters of opinion? Yes, they do. But this doesn't give one a license to be unskillful/ignorant and pretend we can do just as well as someone who is more skillful. Plus, there is no great demand for Bible's translated by novices. There are untold problems/opportunities in the world. Conservapedians should focus on these problems rather engage in bush league translating when more knowledgeable teams of translators can do a much better job. Here is a lesson from history on the value of expertise: 17,000 United Nations troops did not do as good a job as about 100 highly trained troops from the firm Executive Outcomes as far as fighting murderous rebels. The Bible deserves a team of "[[Naval Special Warfare|SEALS]]" to do translating and not a bunch of people who have a gun thrown in their hand. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:52, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

MatthewQ, I agree with your point that we need the highly trained in some field to further the common good. And there are the highly trained in many fields to do what no single man can do, and should not be expected to do. "Leveling out" so no one has expertise, or feeling that any Joe can do any job is suicidal for the individual and for society, including the Church. And I think that most of the work on the Bible translation project is not translation but putting things into one's own words. Is there value to it? Yes. I think great value. But another viewpoint - I am fairly proficient in Hebrew, Aramaic and its dialects, and Greek, but I readily tell people that there is very little I can get from the Scriptures in their original languages that they can not get from almost all of the English version Bibles that I am familiar with. The experts are needed, and they do their work and we have their English versions. But almost all people get a tremendous boost and depth of understanding from the process of digging into the English version they have, puting things "in their own words", re-presenting it to others for their input, etc. And this is what I see has happened in the process of doing the Conservative Bible translation project. I really don't demand that it be "translation", and it would be better not to claim that, but there has been a value and a blessing in doing the work. Much of what we think we are doing, anyway, is, in reality, doing something else, but that does not denude it of value. One other thing, some of the people involved in the work, are, indeed, based in the original languages. They mnay not be experts, but they are developing. You could say, there are future translaters in our midst. [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 11:25, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

: I'm Catholic and the Church tells us we must understand the original intentions of the authors. From [http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html the Vatican's website]:
:: "However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
:: To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." '''For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.''' (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8) [Emphasis added]"
: Out of curiosity, has the Catholic Church expressed any opinion on the Conservative Bible Project? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:20, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:: Andy's position seems to be very odd. He recognizes that language and culture are intertwined and one must be knowledgeable about this. However, he only seems to apply that reasoning to the language the text is being translated into (i.e, contemporary English), not the language which it is being translated from (i.e, ancient Hebrew, Greek). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 16:04, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

I don't don't know if the Catholic church has a position on the CBP. I think it would not, at least at this stage. As an aside to the discussion, but relevant to Bible Project endeavor, the Bible is like a deep well to a thirsty man, or an ocean. Contact with it, for the thirsty of course, and those desiring to be clean, is totally beneficial. Even approaching it through linguistics or archaeology produces good in us, as long as we will have faith and an obedient heart. Sometimes I will pass over Scripture when it is in a writing which aims to make a point, as I feel that Scripture, so often, is being "used", whereas when Scripture is just read or "read out", I feel free to give full attention. In our church, there is the custom of reading the Gospel portion assigned by the lectionary. We say, "The Holy Gospel according to so and so". I like it this way rather than telling what chapter and which verse. I'd rather not that a reading from the Gospel be analysed as to correctness of translation, or notes be taken while reading, or even criticized in some way by our penchant for finding fault. So we just "hear" the Word of God, and let it do its work. There is a time and a place for analysis, like in the
Seminary or some other study situation. I think that all dealings with God's word, mixed with our faith and a pure heart, by God's grace, will produce much fruit. I know that no one here disagrees. Just feel compelled to say it [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 14:28, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

== A new namespace for the CBP ==

I'd like to make my case - again - for a separate namespace for the the Conservapedia Bible Project. I see only advantages (but for the work which has to be done, of course):

*More option when searching: you could search the CBP for a phrase - or the whole of Conservapedia.
*Bible verses can be used like templates: <nowiki>{{:CBP:John 20:2}}</nowiki> results in: {{:CBP:John 20:2}}
*The translation history of each verse can be looked up - that is interesting in cases like John 1:1, quoted by Aschlafly: ''At times the CBP version has had a stronger, richer translation (check history file) along the lines of "In the beginning was the Living Word, and the Truth was with God, and the Perfection was God."''
*The translation could be read more easily

[[CBP:John 20:2]] is an example how this could be done: at the moment, it is in the main namespace (therefore, you have to add a '':'' when using it as a template).

[[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 11:03, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

== Why not just use the KJV? ==

You stated: "The KJV is great, but the English used there has been distorted by liberal creep in the 400 years since". If the problem is the liberal creep in the last 400 years, then why not just use the KJV as of 1611 (almost 400 years exactly)? If the language is so antiquated that a modern audience can't understand it then use the KJV as your starting point and reword it in a way which can be understood today while still being faithful to the Greek, Hebrew and Latin texts. If it was there in those documents, it should not be deleted, nor should anything be added regardless of whether it supports a liberal or a conservative position. It doesn't matter who likes what the Bible says. It is what it is.

There's no problem with using more powerful conservative words, so long as they don't alter the meaning of the original text; if it does, then you are substituting your views for the word of God. [[User:PallasAthena2|PallasAthena2]] 12:08, 7 January 2012 (EST)
:Pallas, the Conservative Bible Project was a response to the liberal bias in newer translations of the Bible such as the [[TNIV]]. This project puts the KJV into modern language while taking advantage of new conservative words and insights.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:18, 7 January 2012 (EST)

::Pallas, the [[Conservative Bible Project]] is what you say it should be: using modern language untainted by liberal bias to best describe the original text.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:16, 7 January 2012 (EST)

== Bible Translation ==

I was noticing your Bible translation project. I have a sample up of what I think such a project should look like here:

http://bibletranslation.wikia.com/

My concerns are not about liberal bias in wording for the Bible, but that different Hebrew and Greek words are translated differently throughout the Bible. I think they should be translated the same every single time. I use a program called PowerBible CD - it's possible to request a 90-day free trial for it:

http://powerbible.com/

Anyway, I use the Interlinear feature to see each Greek and Hebrew word. I look at how that word is used throughout the entire Bible, and pick an English word choice that will fit its usage throughout the Bible, so that translation will be perfectly consistent each time. I'm still not even through Genesis 1, but every single word translated has been chosen with care so the word can be translated the same every time used from then on, whether 5 times or 500. I also create a page for each Hebrew or Greek word translated noting where it's used, and what the English translation is.

http://bibletranslation.wikia.com/wiki/Genesis_1

The KJV is pretty good, but it did make a few major errors in translating to the English. For example, the Greek word translated virgin in 1 Corinthians 7, parthenos, should've been translated widow as seen from an examination of the chapter and how it's used elsewhere in the New Testament. Also, there are multiple Greek words translated love that have different meanings, and we don't see this from the KJV.

--[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 12:50, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

Using PowerBible CD, you can right-click on the screen to turn on Interlinear, to see the original Greek/Hebrew words. Clicking on any one brings up the Strong's definitions for that word. You can also see the definitions and word locations at BibleStudyTools:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/raqiya.html

Anyway, from there you can search for that Greek or Hebrew word, and see how it's used throughout the Bible. I've been doing this since 2003, so whenever I'd be uncertain about correct translation, I'd run a search on it to see how it's used all throughout the Bible. This is the method I am using. I basically look at each and every Hebrew word, see where it's used all throughout the Bible, and figure out an English word translation that will fit in every single location it's used in. I want a translation that will be perfectly consistent throughout the Bible. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 12:57, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

A good online thesaurus for evaluating different word choices can be found at OneLook.com, too. Using an asterisk followed by a colon before a word in the search box looks for all words related to that word:

http://onelook.com/?w=*%3Afill&ls=a

What I like about OneLook is it gives the rarer, lesser-known words that are often overlooked by Thesaruses and Thesaurus websites. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 13:27, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

:Interesting! I am curious to see a few examples. I wonder though why you would want to translate an original word each and and every time by the same English word. Isn't the whole essence of translating finding words and phrases that fit most naturally in the target language? Suppose you would want to translate the Spanish sentence ''Mercedes quiere a Juan y quiere casarse con él'': How are you going to translate both instances of ''quiere'' by the same English word? And why would you want to? [[User:Richman|Richman]] 13:56, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

:Joshua, your comments are fascinating but I likewise question why each and every use of a word should be translated the same way. The word "get" in English would not be replaced by the same, more formal, word in every context. Sometimes it means "fetch", sometimes "understand", sometimes "receive", etc.

:In John 1:1, I think the repetitive use of "logos" should be translated three different ways to convey its full meaning. In modern English usage, repetition is disfavored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:06, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

::I do think every word should be translated the same way so people know that what they're seeing is consistent. As I learned to read the Greek and Hebrew, what began to annoy me is that some alleged discrepancies are actually just cases of the same word being translated differently, or different words being translated the same. If there's a version out there that translates everything the same consistently I'm not aware of it. You're right that different English words can have different connotations. But from everything I've seen so far, there isn't a case where a single word needs to be translated differently.

::As for the word logos in John 1:1, it's used as a name and should be consistently translated I think - this is PowerBible's interlinear: "In <en> the beginning <arche> was <en> the Word <logos>, and <kai> the Word <logos> was <en> with <pros> God <theos>, and <kai> the Word <logos> was <en> God <theos>."

::Logos is a good example of how the KJV translates the same Greek word differently. It's translated "cause" in Mt. 5:32, "communication" in Mt. 5:37, "sayings" in Mt. 7:24-28, "word" in Mt. 8:8 and 8:16, "words" in Mt. 10:14, "account" in Mt. 12:36, "thing" in Mt. 21:24, "talk" in Mt. 22:15, "reckoneth" in Mt. 25:19, "matter" in Mk. 1:45, "word's sake" in Mk. 4:17, etc.

::As BibleStudyTools says, " King James Word Usage - Total: 330 word 218, saying 50, account 8, speech 8, Word (Christ) 7, thing 5, not translated 2, miscellaneous 32"[http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/logos.html]

::I don't think it needs to be translated differently in all those cases. By looking at how it's used throughout the Bible in all 330 cases, a word choice can be found that will fit every instance. Different verses provide clues. For example, Mt. 5:37 shows it has to do with speech or preaching, and can't just mean truth (a word I was considering). It appears to be consistent with "word" or "words" so by going down the list I can check whether such a word choice fits all cases. It appears to fit consistently, though in a few cases it's used as a saying, "ask you one word". (Mt. 21:24, Mk. 11:29, Lk. 20:3) However, word/words appears to fit all 330 cases where logos is used, and I don't see a need for the 40 or so different translation choices the KJV used. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 21:28, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

::While not as diverse as the English language, Strong's Greek lexicon shows 5,624 different words are used in the New Testament. Strong's Hebrew lexicon shows 8,674 different words are used in the Old Testament. Similar words are used with slightly different meanings. I would argue the language still won't sound too rigid or simplistic. It will still be possible to have multiple words with similar meanings in the same sentences. While the English language has around 750,000 words, the average person knows only about 30-50 thousand. The average newspaper uses about 8,000 different words, which is slightly under what the Old Testament uses. Therefore reading level should still be at about the same quality as a newspaper for the Old Testament.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8013859.stm] --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 21:43, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

::The original Hebrew doesn't really show word suffixes. For example, the same Hebrew word, "rabah" is sometimes used twice, right after a previous instance: "Genesis 22:17 That in blessing <barak> I will bless <barak> thee, and in multiplying <rabah> I will multiply <rabah> thy seed <zera`> as the stars <kowkab> of the heaven <shamayim>, and as the sand <chowl> which is upon the sea <yam> shore <saphah>; and thy seed <zera`> shall possess <yarash> the gate <sha`ar> of his enemies <'oyeb>;", "Genesis 16:10 ¶ And the angel <mal'ak> of the LORD <Y@hovah> said <'amar> unto her, I will multiply <rabah> thy seed <zera`> exceedingly <rabah>, that it shall not be numbered <caphar> for multitude <rob>."

::I think this is a case of the word increase being used as increasingly. "will increasingly increase your seed" and "I will increase your seed increasingly". It's the same word but with different suffixes. By using suffixes like this where appropriate, I would think the total words used will increase to over 10 or 12 thousand for the Old Testament. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 22:08, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

:::You post a very interesting analysis and good statistics. Thanks for providing that information. But I still feel that the original meaning is what matters, not consistency in translating a Greek word the same way in very different contexts. "Logos" had a variety of original meanings in Greek, just as "get" does in English today. There is no equivalent for "get" in French, so a good French translation of "get" should vary depending on the context.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

::::Still, while Logos was used a number of different ways in the Greek, just as different people today can use words like "faith", "religion", or "theory" to mean very different things, it follows the Bible's authors had a specific meaning for words like Logos, and since God was guiding the process from start to finish the end result should be a consistent process. We should be able to identify what the definition of such a word is, and given the English language's vast complexity, find a suitable word or phrase that fits in all cases.

::::The ability to understand what is being said is strongly emphasized by the Bible. Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 said tongues were worthless for speaking in church unless interpretation was made, and that without "words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken?" Paul further said, "Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me."

::::"1 Corinthians 14:6-11 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me."

::::My concern is that without such consistency, it's too easy for human errors to come in. People can too easily change the verses to say what they want without such consistency. By making sure the same word or phrase is used consistently throughout it's assured the correct choice in translation is made for better accuracy of what was originally said.

::::While this kind of a translation is more laborious, essentially requiring a careful translation of all 14,000+ words in the Bible, and plugging them in as one goes, it would be incredibly accurate and consistent throughout the entire Bible. Paraphrases and modern wording updates are much easier to accomplish, but do not identify the mistakes made by past translators, and select the correct word choice. Only by this kind of a careful translation can it be certain correct translation is consistently being made. And to the best of my understanding, I don't know of any Bible translation to date that has accomplished this. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 00:01, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

:::::Joshua, I am afraid your rigid adherence to an extreme version of the formal equivalence principle is misguided, as it doesn't render accurate translations. If you know any other languages than English, try to translate the following sentences picking the same foreign word for ''run'' every single time:

:::::*Romney will be ''running'' the marathon
:::::*Romney is ''running'' for president
:::::*Romney ''runs'' a bycicle repair shop.

:::::I think you will fail, because the word ''run'' has a different meaning in different contexts, and it is impossible to find a unique foreign word that would fit in all these different contexts. You see, semantic fields in language A hardly ever overlap entirely with corresponding semantic fields in language B. By the way, an interesting and insightful article about various approaches to Bible translation can be found here: [http://www.bible-researcher.com/gordon.html]. [[User:Richman|Richman]] 08:04, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

::::::Good point about how a single word can carry different connotations. However, the Hebrew language as seen in the Bible only uses 8-9 thousand words as opposed to the 1-2 million of the English language. It would make sense then that every single word choice in Hebrew was carefully made and individually selected for accurate translation by future generations. For the most part I don't see this phenomenon in the Bible where a single word is used different ways in the way that an English counterpart cannot be. If you know of a single word where this is the case I'd like to see it.

::::::Right now I am going by the assumption that such varying connotations will not prove detrimental to a literal translation of the Bible. It's been my experience in looking at the original Hebrew and Greek that this won't prove an issue. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 09:09, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

== We completed our translation of the [[New Testament]] on April 23, 2010. ==

I changed the sentence ''We completed our translation of the [[New Testament]] on April 23, 2010'' to ''We completed '''a first draft of''' our translation of the [[New Testament]] on April 23, 2010'': still there are parts of verses missing (see e.g., [[Luke_1-8_(Translated)#Chapter 1|Luke 1:45]]) and the whole translation isn't proofread. So it seems downright dangerous to call it a ''complete translation'' (see [[Revelation 16-22 (Translated)#Chapter 22|Rev 22:19]]). --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:40, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

== Textus Receptus vs. Westcott & Hort ==

As far as I can see most of the translations follow the [[Textus Receptus]] (any paraphrasing of the KJB would seem to do so), while there are a few verses obviously translated from [[Westcott & Hort]]. Is there any guideline which telling us which version is preferable? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

==You should call this Liberal Bible Project==
Think about this, the word ''conservative'' generally means to keep things the same and avoiding change, and the word ''liberal'' means to embrace change and progress, at least in America. So since this Conservative Bible Project actually promotes ''changing'' the bible, wouldn't you be acting like the liberals you hate so much instead of the conservative you claim to be? [[Gplanter6]] 07:51, 16 November 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Joseph McCarthy

2012-11-17T00:37:25Z

Gplanter6:

*[[Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive1]] (March 10 2007 - March 31 2007)
*[[Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive2]] (March 31 2007 - June 29 2007)

== "Who killed Joe McCarthy?" book ==

Rob, I finished a book last night titled, "Who killed Joe McCarthy?" It was just another anti-McCarthy book among a number of such books. But the real joke about this book is that there isn't one single footnote!! No joke. This guy didn't even bother to give attribution to his comments. At the end of the book, he lists a bunch of books and sources that he used to source his book but he does not say what goes where. The gist of the book is how Eisenhower worked behind the scenes to destroy McCarthy using sleazy methods and violating the U.S. Constitution. The author was actually praising Eisenhower for these acts!! There's a reason why I was able to buy this book used at Amazon for one penny: It wasn't worth any more than that.

I also bought Roy Cohen's book, ''McCarthy''. It's actually a great read. He addresses the subject in a very neutral fashion and doesn't try and screw with the reader. Cohen gives attribution to his sources, aside from his own observations.

While I've read most all of the anti-McCarthy books that have ever been written, I haven't re-read any of them for a number of years so I'm going to endeavor to buy used copies of those books over a short period of time. As I recall, there's really nothing in those books that can negate Buckley's book or certainly none of the Venona info, which they didn't know about anyway. Thought you might be interested. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 16:48, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

=="Victims"==
*''While innocent persons may have been abused, many of the truly guilty walked away free under the cloak of "McCarthyism".''
:This is an extemely important aspect of Venona revelations in relation to McCarthy & McCarthyism. [[Harry Magdoff]], for example, was a Senior Economist in the [[War Production Board]], according to Venona & Soviet Archives had been an active [[KGB]] agent working in the U.S. Government since 1938. Much of the information he passed to the KGB was found in Soviet Archives. Here, in a dispute over his biographical entry in WP [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Venona_project&diff=next&oldid=23941675#NPOV] let me reproduce part of that exchange:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
This edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage&diff=23856282&oldid=23851850], reveals [Chip Berlet, former VP, [[NLG]]] is so anxious to insert "McCarthy hearings" into this text, that with a keystroke he has converted a written FBI Deposition of Elizabeth Bentley into oral testimony before a Congressional Committee. Witness: 

Original text: "...[[Elizabeth Bentley]] who provided this information to the FBI [http://foia.fbi.gov/silversm/silversm2c.pdf]:" (followed by deposition quote). 

[Chip Berlet's] doctored text: "...[[Elizabeth Bentley]] who provided this information to the FBI and later testified to that same effect during [[McCarthy era]] hearings [http://foia.fbi.gov/silversm/silversm2c.pdf]:" (followed by deposition quote). 

The following facts were established two months ago:
*Harry Magdoff left government 30 December 1946.
*Joseph McCarthy took office the first week of January 1947.
*Harry Magdoff was never summoned before a Committee chaired by Joseph McCarthy.
*The circumstances of Magdoff leaving government employment had absolutely nothing to do with Joseph McCarthy.
*Harry Magdoff was not "hounded out" of government by Joseph McCarthy, and/or "McCarthyism".
*Joseph McCarthy did not begin his crusade until morethan four years after Magdoff leaving government employment. 

Nevertheless, after several months of establishing the facts, and presenting the evidence in carefully crafted language by several editors, in [Chip Berlet's] exuberance to insert references to Joseph McCarthy, and present Magdoff as a "victim" of "McCarthyite" "persecution", [Chip Berlet] with a simple phrase transforms facts into a world that never existed. This fits the definition of [[Wikipedia:POV]]. [RobS] 20:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

:'''[RobS] is correct that my original wording about the Bentley testimony was unsatisfactory''', which is why I (not [RobS]) changed it on my next edit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage&diff=next&oldid=23889258]. [ed note: This is false, Mr.Berlet did not correct it.] I have no idea why [RobS] has not noticed this, and assume his attack on me for having "doctored" the text was due to inadequate research. I will be happy to accept his apology for this error. We all make mistakes.
</blockquote> [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:24, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, I'm completely confused as to what you're trying to tell me here. I originally removed the sentence, ''While innocent persons may have been abused, many of the truly guilty walked away free under the cloak of "McCarthyism".'' because the "innocent" people that "may have been abused" are not identified. Who are these innocent people? I can't find anyone that was innocent and abused by McCarthy. If you have any names, please post them so that we can adhere to verifiability and truth. There's no citation. I just re-phrased the sentence to simply state that, "Because of the Truman Administration being unaware of Venona, many of the guilty people escaped under the cloak of 'McCarthyism'". Also, we're being redundant in a couple of places.

We're stating the same exact thing in two places. We are stating this in one place:

''McCarthy sought to characterize President Truman and the Democratic party as soft on or even in league with the Communists. McCarthy's allegations fell flat with Truman who was unaware of [[Venona project]] decrypts which corroborated [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s debriefing after her defection from the Communists. While innocent persons may have been abused, many of the truly guilty walked away free under the cloak of "McCarthyism".''

And we're stating this in another:

''McCarthy was able to characterize President Truman and the Democratic party as soft on or even in league with the Communists. McCarthy's allegations were rejected by Truman who was unaware of [[Venona project]] decrypts which corroborated [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s debriefing after her defection from the Communists.''

The second one obviously doesn't have the "innocent persons" comment, so I'll add back the line I suggested above so that it reads like this:

''McCarthy was able to characterize President Truman and the Democratic party as soft on or even in league with the Communists. McCarthy's allegations were rejected by Truman who was unaware of [[Venona project]] decrypts which corroborated [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s debriefing after her defection from the Communists. Because of the Truman Administration being unaware of Venona, many of the guilty people escaped under the cloak of "McCarthyism".''

I think this second one sounds better so I will edit out the first one.

Also, in the section above Venona, I stated:

''McCarthy is said by some to have made the claim, "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party."''

You re-added into Venona, ''McCarthy is said by some to have made the claim, "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party."''

Obviously we're being redundant. That's why I changed the one in Venona to address directly the 205 figure. But you reverted that back so it's now redundant. Now, I changed the wording slightly so it doesn't appear so redundant but still retains the essence of what you are trying to say. Hopefully that covers all aspects of those sections. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 21:51, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== Solomon Adler ==

Rob, do you know if Adler ever testified in front of McCarthy's Committee? I can't find info on that in his article. Please let me know. Thanks. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 22:34, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== Locking of McCarthy article ==

I posted this on your Talk page:

Rob, what are you doing on the McCarthy article? I have explained all of my work on the Discussion page and urged us to avoid redundant statements. Now you have locked the article so I can't add any further info to the article? Why? Why are you posting redundancy in the article? I have been upfront with all my changes and called your attention to all changes. It's not as if I have been making modifications without talking to you first. And my changes do not affect your work at all. So I'm totally confused about what you are doing. There is no vandalism going on so "protection" of the page is unwarranted. The page was unlocked at my request so I could add info. Can you please explain your reasoning here and unlock the McCarthy page? I would appreciate it. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 11:31, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
:Why do you keep removing Venona references, and why do you keep removing the summary conclusion? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:49, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

::Rob, can you be a bit more specific? To what references are you speaking? I don't recall removing any Venona references. In fact, the more Venona references, the better. And regarding the summary, to what removal are you addressing? Can you please be specific so I can see what your concern is regarding? Also, are you able to give a citation for the first paragraph under "Venona files"? It makes a serious charge but there is no citation for it. As it stands, it appears as Original Research. And, can you give a citation for this:

::::''While innocent persons may have been abused, many of the truly guilty walked away free under the cloak of "McCarthyism".''

::Can you cite who the "innocent persons" were that were abused? A citation here would be great.

::*Been cited several times; here's one [[Talk:Joseph_McCarthy#.22Victims.22]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:06, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

::Lastly, can you cite where Solomon Adler was interviewed by McCarthy? I couldn't find anything right off the top but if you have a source for an interview or maybe something McCarthy said, it would be great as well. I am hoping we can keep working together on this article but since you've locked it, obviously all the additional info that I have to contribute to the article is on hold. Please let me know what we can do to work this out. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 12:53, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Adler I will review. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:06, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

::::*''But even if Adler didn't have anything to do with McCarthy, that's still fine because he is an excellent example of a subverse in govt. that was later identified by Venona''
:::::Speaking from memory, I do not think Adler ever testified before the [[PSI]] either publicly or in Executive Session, but I do believe I is referenced several times by several witnessess in Executive Session. Also, Adler figures in the [[Amerasia]] scandal and the [[IPR]] controversy. ANd yes, we agree Adler is an excellant example of a subverse in govt. that was later identified by Venona.

::::If a dispute is said to exist, it simply is the prominence given to your weblink to the Univ. of Wis of a transcript cited in the 1998 book by Bedforsd that states McCarthy said 54 on the podium in Wheeling. That book, and that citation is fine, and making mention of it is no probably. The "dispute," such that it exists is, you are asking Conservapedia to take a definitive stand that McCarthy did in fact state 54 on the podium in Wheeling West Virginia. Obviously we can't do that. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:35, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Rob, have you actually taken the time to look at the links I provided regarding this issue? Also, if you don't have a copy of the Buckley book, I highly recommend getting a copy. This book is the fairest assessment of McCarthy's cases you're ever going to read. The conclusion of that book and that of witnesses is that McCarthy stated "57" (not 54 as you state above) cases. It's a simple matter of looking at the evidence to figure out the truth. For years, the leftists have tried to confuse people regarding this matter and sadly they have been rather effective in their efforts. Nevertheless, the evidence is there for anyone to review it. I'm merely reflecting the existing evidence and refuse to succumb to the propaganda of the Left that has no basis in fact. As you know, verifiable truth is the goal of Conservapedia and in this regard, it has been achieved. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 17:50, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::The issue of 57 vs 205 would be of interest if it were the issue; Venona has made it moot. Only leftists & commies still harp on it, as if it were determintive of McCarthy's credibility. And it makes sense they would do this, since they have absolutely nothing to refute Venona with. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:56, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Rob, the problem with that argument is this is an article about '''Joseph McCarthy''', not Venona. Venona is here merely to support the McCarthy article. It is not the highlight of the article. This article does not revolve around Venona, it revolves around McCarthy and providing verifiable and truthful information. It is incumbent on anyone working on this article to address all the issues related to McCarthy, including his life before being Senator. And, again, you're trying to suggest that since I'm addressing the 57 vs. 205 numbers, that I'm right in there with the "leftists & commies". Do you realize that your statement is insulting, inaccurate, and not at all helpful? You're making me spend more time in this discussion and less time improving the article. Would you do me a favor and think about that for a while before responding? Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 23:14, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Rob, one thing that occurred to me last night after I shut down my computer for the night is that it seems as if you've contributed as much as you can to this article. I think that you are very well informed on Venona and Communist subversion in govt. but you only have a limited knowledge of McCarthy's life and work. On the other hand, I'm a solid McCarthy expert. In fact, I had been in discussions with William Grigg and James Drummey about writing a McCarthy book. I had actually been working on one until I got wind of the fact that Medford Evans was working on the definitive book on McCarthy. Now, if I knew that Evans was going to postpone his release date for years, I could have finished my book. So now instead of writing a book, I'm putting my knowledge to use here at Conservapedia. I probably have around 20 books dealing with McCarthy and a few on Venona but my Venona info was going to be used to back up McCarthy not as a separate subject. You on the other hand probably don't own a single McCarthy book but have some number of books regarding Venona and related issues. So the bottom line is, while I estimate that I have about 100 hours of work to do on the McCarthy article including time needed to fill in the "red links", I don't see what more you can really add. I appreciate anything extra but it seems you are spending more and more time in discussion now than actually contributing to the article itself. You may wish to consider devoting your knowledge to the various other articles regarding Venona, communist subversion, etc. where your efforts can be best allocated. Just a suggestion. (By the way, I just got my copy of "In Denial" by Haynes & Klehr. If you don't already know, it's a great book about Left-wingers still living in denial even after Venona and other former Soviet Union documents have been released. Good book. I was looking for a way to include some of the info into this article.) Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 09:16, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== Mediation ==

Per private discussion with several sysops I will be moderating negotiations to end the dispute currently existing. I would like to request that no major/controversial editing take place. As one party is a fellow Sysop, I have unlocked the article to remove a unfair advantage.
Where does each side see issues that need to be discussed? [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 12:53, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

:Hi, Geoff, thank you for unlocking this page and mediating any existing issues. I think Rob has done some great work with the article and we only seem to have had an issue on a few minor things that I would attribute to simple miscommunication.

:(1) The first issue is regarding a sentence I removed because it had been in the article for a long time yet had no citation. That sentence is, ''While innocent persons may have been abused, many of the truly guilty walked away free under the cloak of "McCarthyism".'' Because the "innocent" people that "may have been abused" are not identified. I asked, "Who are these innocent people? I can't find anyone that was innocent and abused by McCarthy. If you have any names, please post them so that we can adhere to verifiability and truth. I just re-phrased the sentence to simply state that, "Because of the Truman Administration being unaware of Venona, many of the guilty people escaped under the cloak of 'McCarthyism'".

:(2) The second issue was about being redundant in a couple of places basically saying the same thing.

:We are stating this in one place:

::''McCarthy sought to characterize President Truman and the Democratic party as soft on or even in league with the Communists. McCarthy's allegations fell flat with Truman who was unaware of [[Venona project]] decrypts which corroborated [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s debriefing after her defection from the Communists. While innocent persons may have been abused, many of the truly guilty walked away free under the cloak of "McCarthyism".''

:And we're stating this in another:

::''McCarthy was able to characterize President Truman and the Democratic party as soft on or even in league with the Communists. McCarthy's allegations were rejected by Truman who was unaware of [[Venona project]] decrypts which corroborated [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s debriefing after her defection from the Communists.''

:The second one obviously doesn't have the "innocent persons" comment, so I added back the line I suggested above so that it read like this:

::''McCarthy was able to characterize President Truman and the Democratic party as soft on or even in league with the Communists. McCarthy's allegations were rejected by Truman who was unaware of [[Venona project]] decrypts which corroborated [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s debriefing after her defection from the Communists. Because of the Truman Administration being unaware of Venona, many of the guilty people escaped under the cloak of "McCarthyism".''

:So, I tried to keep this version as the best one.

:(3) The third issue was in the section above Venona, where I stated:

:''McCarthy is said by some to have made the claim, "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party."''

:For some reason the essentially same sentence existed in the Venona section. It says, ''McCarthy is said by some to have made the claim, "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party."''

:Obviously we were being redundant. That's why I changed the one in Venona to address directly the 205 figure. I changed the wording slightly so it doesn't appear so redundant but still retains the essence of what Rob was trying to say.

:(4) The fourth issue was just asking for a citation regarding Solomon Adler who is listed in this article but there is nothing to indicate that he was either interviewed by McCarthy or if McCarthy ever spoke about him. A simple citation would handle this issue nicely. But even if Adler didn't have anything to do with McCarthy, that's still fine because he is an excellent example of a subverse in govt. that was later identified by Venona. I was just asking if there was some direct connection to McCarthy.

:Rob and I have been working very nicely on this article but we seem to have run into some minor issues with which we could not seem to effectively communicate. I look forward to continue working with him. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 13:26, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
::What has been taken care of? [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 15:10, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Geo, can you please elaborate? Are you addressing Rob or me? If me, can you please re-state the question? Thank you for your help. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 15:19, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Geo, I would like to ask your advice on a [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians Manual of Style] issue. Rob has submitted some excellent info to the article that we've named the "Moynihan" info. It begins with the words, "After the collapse of the Soviet Union..." and ends with the words, "...more thoroughly penetrated.'" The only dispute is where to locate that info. Rob believes since it's very important info that vindicates Senator McCarthy, it should be placed in full right in the first section, which is normally identified as the "Executive Summary".

However, I disagree with that placement for a number of reasons.

(1) I believe that the intro section or "Executive Summary" should be brief and not go into detail about any particular item in the biography of the subject.

(2) This article is about Joseph McCarthy's entire life and not just his Senatorial career and that the info Rob posted is far too detailed and far too involved to act as a brief description in relation to the rest of the intro section and as compliant with the format of Manual of Style.

(3) I believe that [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians Manual of Style] makes this very clear and affirms my perspective.

(4) I believe the info should be placed in the "Venona" section and fits very nicely as the first paragraph of that section.

That is the essence of my argument. Rob may wish to add some additional perspective on his reasoning, but this is in sum my complete thoughts. Would you please mediate this matter and issue an instruction to place the information in question in the proposed section? I thank you for your time and help. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 17:47, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:How about a compromise, brief mention "was later proven correct by gov. inquiry" with full info in another section? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 23:11, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
::I agree 100%. The disturbing thing is that Rob removed this from the intro paragraph:

:::''He was noted for claiming and subsequently proving that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government.''

::It was fine the way it was but Rob changed it without discussion. I have no problem changing to what you suggested. How should we proceed? Do you want to make the change or me or Rob? Your call. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 23:20, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

::Congratulations, Rob, you are now in contempt of a Mediators orders. I'll alert Geo. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 00:23, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

==Trim==
I suggest we can tighten up this article by moving the Buckley/Bozell footnotes as the basis to create new pages to fill in all the red links. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:30, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

:I had actually considered doing that but the essence of McCarthy's career is based upon those cases and I wanted to make the reader easily able to find this incredibly important information. That's why I have added into the footnote of each case only the bare minimum information that makes the case. [[Philip Jessup]] is a perfect example. Jessup has a very extensive biography but I refrained from going into every aspect of his background so that the footnote didn't get ridiculously large. On the subject of Jessup and others who's biographies are more extensive than what I noted in their case footnotes, I did not add biographical info that extended past the McCarthy investigation period because it would seemingly suggest that the case in question was employed in that position during the time before or during McCarthy's investigation. For that reason and for brevity, I did not add the entire employment biography of those cases. But I noticed you added it to the Jessup article so that's good. So, for the sake of consistency, and without some reason to deviate from that format, I think it's best to remove that additional information from Jessup's footnote.

:Also, I absolutely agree that we need to fill in the "red links" and I was planning on focusing on that after we had pretty much wrapped up what we were going to put into the article. But, I have recently started filling in the red links. I was planning to work on the Jessup article but you already added my info to it so thanks for handling that. As I mentioned there is still more biographical info for Jessup so I'll add to that article as soon as I can. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 15:17, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

::Oh, so because McCarthy was a crank, a commie gets appointed to the [[World Court]]. You'd think this would be news. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:53, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Do you realize that does not make any sense at all? As I stated, that information is appropriate to the article on Jessup but in order to be consistent in the footnotes in this article, it would not be appropriate to list the entire biography of every case McCarthy mentioned. Is that more clear? [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 16:50, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

::::That was probably the discussion in the Kennedy Oval Office over Jessup; someone probably argued McCarthy was a crank, and here's mud-in-the-eye of all those right-wing commie hunters. So they appointed Jessup to the World Court. And President John Kennedy appointing a communist to the World Court would probably be of interest to Conservapedia readers, but somehow, you forgot to mention this fact. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:01, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Rob, you're doing it again. You're not understanding what I'm writing. Like I said, that info is great for the Jessup article but it doesn't make sense to stick it in the footnote section that we are trying to keep brief and trying to keep focused on the case itself. The footnotes are not the place for a detailed biography of each person. And, yes, Kennedy appointing a communist to the World Court would be of interest to Conservapedia readers but it should be mentioned in the appropriate place. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 19:30, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Ok, so you wish to downplay the areas McCarthy was right on, and emphasize the areas McCarthy was wrong. We at least got that out in the open. The ==securirty risk== subhead is modeled on the ==Venona list== subhead; let's take the case of [[Frank Coe]] for example: the evidence placing him on the Venona list predates his appointment to the [[International Monetary Fund]], yet it is included in his credentials. There are other cases we can disucss.

::::::Keep in mind, we a writing a bio based upon historical perspective, not rehashing highly charged partisan arguments widely propagated in the media from 1954 based upon limited knoweldge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:13, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Rob, please tell me that you're joking around. Why are you ignoring what I'm saying? I've broken it down to the extent that it's so very clear what I'm stating. Again, all I'm saying is that for the sake of brevity in the footnotes and so that we can focus on the jobs that any particular person held before and during the time the person was being charged with being a security issue, that we leave out extended biographical info. I've repeated this to you several times now so I'm just wondering if you're not understanding or you're kidding around with me. Again, the whole bio of the person is appropriately placed on the article for that person. The info we should provide in the McCarthy article should be related to McCarthy and frame the resume of the case with that in mind. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 08:55, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Right. Ignore the historical record that McCarthy's conspiracy so immense of infamy so black as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man which when finally exposed, its principals shall forever be deserving of the maledictions of all honest men and focus on McCarthy's errors. I understand completely. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:12, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::OK, now I know you're just kidding with me. You had me going there for a while. :) I appreciate the chuckle. You are officially the "King of Communist Subversion Comedy"!! :) Thanks for breaking the tension between us. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 13:43, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Ed, yes we're discussing trimming the mainspace here. What we are likely to do is spin the text off from the footnotes into individual articles for all the red links in the Security risk subhead. That a good place to start. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:27, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:I know we have to come to some conclusion on this. This page is indeed 108 kilobytes long and the Wikipedia article is 99 kilobytes long. Not much difference in size yet this article is far too short in order to properly cover the topic. Rob is right that we should spin off the text from the footnotes at some point. In fact, we should probably create an article dedicated to those footnotes. We will have to eventually summarize more of the sections and spin off the larger issues into related articles. For example, there's no way we can fully address the "censure" debate in this article. It will have to have it's own article. All we can do is keep working at it until we have it right. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 10:10, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

===Silvermaster file Summaries===

Scorpio, last nite I found an excellent source that may be useful in melding some of the Buckley/Bozell material with known Venona spies. Someone created a summary page for the massive FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/CSR/Holdings/Silvermaster/summaries.htm Silvermaster File Summaries]. See for example,
*Volume 7 late November 1945"
:"Interactions of [[Victor Perlo]] and '''[[Stanley Graze]]'''."

*Volume 14 December 1945—January 1946

:"Interactions of [[Maurice Halperin]], [[Joseph Gregg]], [[Robert Miller]], and unidentified woman employed by [[UNRRA]]. Contacts recounted among [[George Perazich]] of UNRRA staff (Yugoslavia), [[Irving Kaplan]], [[Edward Fitzgerald]]. Further details on Perazich. Contacts of [[Robert Miller]] with Herman Habicht, John Marsalka, Minter Wood, and, apparently, [[Alger Hiss]]. Further background on [[Mildred Price]] (Ed note: this is the sister of [[Mary Price]], [[Walter Lippmann]]'s secretary; I had a short bio on her but its been lost somehere in WP or among wikimirrors). Extensive biographical data on Miller, '''listing more than 70 individuals''' known as contacts of Miller and his wife, including Travis Hedrick, Duncan Aikman, Alice and '''[[Philip Raine]]''', Maurice Halperin...Haldore Hanson...Howard Fast...plus additional contacts of Russian origin or nationality. Not indexed."

*Volume 15 December 1945

:"...Extensive background on Grace Granich, links to [[Amerasia]] group, and report that she was to be contacted by '''[[John Stewart Service]]'''..."

*Volume 16 December 1945—January 1946

:"...extensive background on [[Albert Kahn]] and his reported contacts including Mrs. [[John Abt]] (Jessica Smith), Howard Fast, former White House aide [[David Niles]], CP leader Gilbert Green, union leader Harry Bridges, '''[[Philip Jaffe]]'''...

*Volume 19 Dec. 1945—January 1946

:"...contact between Victor Perlo and Stanley Graze of OSS"

*Volume 25 (Part I) March 1946

:"Summary of investigative results concerning [[Willard Park]] (including connection to [[Louise Bransten]])(Ed. note: Louise Branston is the mistress of KGB Rezident [[Grigory Kheifetz]] who made initial contact with [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]), [[Bernard Redmont]], [[William Remington]], [[Peter Rhodes]], Ruth Rifkin, [[Helen Tenney]], [[Cedric Belfrage]], [[Albert Kahn]] and his contacts, including [[David Karr]], Howard Fast, [[David Niles]], Gilbert Green, Harry Bridges, and '''[[Philip Jaffe]]''' of [[Amerasia]].

*Volume 42 April 1946

:"...'''[[Gustavo Duran]]'''..."

*Volume 58 July 1946

:"Extensive section also on James Newman, contacts with Helen Gahagan Douglas, '''[[Philleo Nash]]''', Alfred Friendly, Byron Miller, Thomas Emerson, Harold Stein, Myer Cohen of [[UNRRA]]."

*Volume 64 August 1946

:"... various interactions and contacts among subjects dating to December 1945. Among items noted are connections of John and Cynthia Dierkes to [[Robert Miller]]; contacts of [[Edward Fitzgerald]]s and [[George Silverman]] with Mrs. Frank Cameron; discussion of [[Alger Hiss]] State Department contacts Donald Blaisdell and Chester Williams, the latter formerly with [[UNRRA]] and [[OWI]], and brief mentions of Williams employee '''[[Esther Brunauer]]'''

:Volume 65 August 1946

:"Summaries of activities, contacts and interactions of subjects during July 1946. Among items covered are ...continued interaction among [[Maurice Halperin]], Theodore Halperin, David Wahl, Philip Dunaway, Maynard Gerstler, [[Julius Joseph]]. Contact between Theodore Halperin and identified CP member in DC area; further correspondence of '''Philip''' and [[Mary Jane Keeney]], detail on Mary Jane Keeney discussion with Sylvia Schimmel about Just Lunning, notation of Mary Jane Keeney contact with Lois Carlisle.

:"Discussions also of Mrs. Keeney’s contacts with [[Michael Greenberg]], Eric Beecroft, and Ursula Wasserman; background on Florence Levy, sister-in-law of [[Robert Miller]], including work at State Department and previous employment at Hemisphere; interactions of [[George Silverman]] and [[David Weintraub]], recently fired from [[UNRRA]]; contacts of Ursula Wasserman with David Melcher and '''[[Philleo Nash]]''' formerly of OWI;

AMYWAYS.....altogether there are 162 Volumes, and this is just glancing at it since last nite. I have read most of the Silvermaster file, but this Summary [http://education-research.org/CSR/Holdings/Silvermaster/summaries.htm] is the first one page online summary with links to the PDF files.

A NOTE ON WHAT YOU ARE READING: This in the ongoing FBI investigation which opened about November of 1945; the FBI was not aware of Army Signals intelligence Venona decrpyts for yet. This is between disbandenment of the OSS, and the creation of CIA in 1947. And there is no knowledge yet by the FBI in 1945-46 of Soviet theft of nuclear secrets. So what the aims of this investigation are is to simply drive security risks out of the State Department and elsewhere, particularly after disbandenment of the OSS, because many were seeking to be reemployed elsewhere. The object is not so much to gather prosecutable evidence, but rather to simply and quietly remove security risks.

By the time McCarthy is introduced on the scene in 1950, most probably at the behest of Hoover, (1) FBI coordination with Venona began; (2) Hiss and others were exposed publicly; (3) the Soviets tested a nuke & this was public knowledge; (4) there still remained a large number of unidentified codenames and known security risks in the government. So the Silvermaster file reveals ''why'' so many of McCarthy's cases were suspected in the first place, as you can follow detailed surveillance activity by FBI field investigators in late 1945 and 1946 with others who are now known to be KGB operatives. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:13, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Rob, that is some incredible information. Nice job finding it. The size of this data is mind-boggling. What are your thoughts as how to incorporate this info into new or existing articles? [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 19:46, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::That link gives us which names from the Buckley/Bozell list to begin with, including the volume from that link as an external link. So those entries will have two sources to begin with, Buckley & Bozell, and the specific volume as cataloged from that site (incidentally, Herbert Rommerstein is connected with that project). It's still gonna be a job to dig out the infromation, cause some volumes have as many as a 165 pages, and the search feature can't be used. But I am somewhat familiar with the Silvermaster file, and this cataloguing and summaries is a big useful step. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:53, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Copyedit==

Scorpio, I proof read the entire article over the past few days, but haven't made any substantive changes (beyond an addition to the intro) til we got our bearings on the process to move forward. Yes, there is one or two redundancies that should be consolidated, and the 205 vs 57, I suggest we momentarilly put it on hold.

There are only two sentences you've added I question"
*''In addition to some of the individuals identified in the Venona project listed above, there are other security and loyalty risks identified correctly by Senator McCarthy included in the following list:''
:*This should be clarified, because McCarthy only accused one of being a Soviet spy, [[Mary Jane Keeney]], the rest all came up in a different context.
*'' He was noted for claiming and subsequently proving that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government. ''
:*we need to drop "subsequently proving;" McCarthy didn't prove diddly, as we all know, he's famous for barking up the wrong tree.
There are a few typos, grammatical errors, and links I'd like to copyedit, when you are ready to let me know.

As to the Executive Session transcripts, I suggest you look at the [[William Henry Taylor]] article, and read his testimony available from the footnotes. Also Alvin Hall from the Bureau of Printing and engraving, and [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s testimony, all three are contiguous. This relates to the stolen occupation currency plates. Taylor, though not identified in Venona, was (a) a memver of the [[Silvermaster group]], and (b) did not plead the Fifth but actually testified. The names of Harold Glasser, Lud Ulman, Silvermaster, Frank Coe, and Harry Dexter White -- all Venona spies -- are discussed in his & Bentley's testimony. This is one instance where McCarthy actually was on a hot trail.

Because Taylor is not identified in Venona, I am hesitant to put him in the list subheaded Venona, yet I'd like to get him into the article. Perhaps we should consider doing a mini-section on the currency plates, as this alos ties in the deceased Harry Dexter White. (And the transcripts also cite that Bentley had testified one time earlier; the Ruth Watt external link on the main page has a little background material about when Bentley testified, how she liked to drink beer, etc., if it helps get some feel for the context. Actually, in reading her testimony, she does sound either hungover or drunk in some places....). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:13, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:Rob, let me address your points:

:You stated, ''This should be clarified, because McCarthy only accused one of being a Soviet spy, [[Mary Jane Keeney]], the rest all came up in a different context.''

:What I'm saying is that in addition to the Venona names you have provided, the names in the "Known Security/Loyalty" section were exposed by McCarthy. I'm not saying that the names in the "Known Security/loyalty" section are all spies. If you think we can phrase that better, please post an alternative here and let's talk it through.

:You stated, ''we need to drop "subsequently proving;" McCarthy didn't prove diddly, as we all know, he's famous for barking up the wrong tree.''

:Are you trying to be funny again? Like I asked you before, have you read the Buckley book and read the ''Congressional Record''? There's a reason so many witnesses took the Fifth when asked if they were a member of the Communist Party. I laugh everytime I'm reading the transcripts and when Cohn or McCarthy ask that question, the person takes the Fifth!! Great stuff. It's all there for you to see. McCarthy was right and Buckley documents it all very nicely as do the transcripts. I loved Carl Bernstein's father's comments about McCarthy being right. And, Ann Coulter talks about that as well. McCarthy did his job, it was up to the appropriate U.S. dept. to deal with dismissals, which many McCarthy-named people did get dismissed.

:You stated, ''There are a few typos, grammatical errors, and links I'd like to copyedit, when you are ready to let me know.''

:If they are simple errors, please feel free to make the changes. I only ask that you be careful and not change the meaning of a phrase unless there's some compelling reason for doing so.

:As for the transcript stuff, by all means, if you have names to add, please add them in the same format that is currently in place. No reason to wait on that. I'm still adding names from McCarthy's initial list but if you have names from the transcripts, go for it!! And, yes, the Ruth Watt article was excellent. She refutes a great many misconceptions and distortions about McCarthy. I loved reading that, so thanks for posting it.

:The only thing I would caution is to remember not to get too carried away with adding Venona stuff to the article that doesn't apply. Please keep focused on the fact that we are doing an article on McCarthy here and the Venona stuff added should compliment the article. One criticism I've seen the Left-Wingers make is that much of the Venona stuff doesn't have anything to do with McCarthy. Of course, in this case, they're right. Nevertheless, they miss the point that McCarthy was right about Communists in govt. As you know, there's tons of great Venona stuff out there that has nothing to do with McCarthy. Reading the book, "In Denial", is a perfect example of Venona stuff that is great but is not directly related to McCarthy. And it amazes me to the extent the Left-Wingers will go in order to discredit Venona and related Soviet archive material.

:Lastly, that new info you added regarding Moynihan is great but I don't think it should be placed at that part of the article. I think it should be in the Venona section or in a sub-section to Venona. The first part of the article is best for giving an "Executive Summary" rather than getting into specifics of the article. Without any objection, I'll move that info to either Venona or create a sub-section to Venona, whatever looks best. Or, feel free to do it yourself since it was your addition. I'll wait until tomorrow or the following day to give you a chance to think about it. Best Regards. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 18:37, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

::Buckley & Bozell repeatedly say things such as " How [[Stanley Graze]] passed the State Department's Review Board remains unexplained." IOW, unlike Venona, (a) the question is inconclusive, and (b) the question is usually on the lower level classification of security risks rather than more vital question of espionage. And the witnesses pleading the Fifth is largley moot, because the questions usually are about CPUSA membership, not espionage.

::The Moynihan Secrecy Commission cite up front gets to the heart of the matter--it confirms the conspircay of infamy so black that, when it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men. If we can leave this up front, I would not be averse to citing Rovere's phrase somewhere, (something to the effect of) "McCarthy was the greatest demagogue to ever walk these shores." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:22, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Rob, again, it's great to use Venona to back up McCarthy but it's also important to state upon which evidence McCarthy used to nail people like Graze. I have told you repeatedly that Venona is important here as well and should be used at every possible opportunity. And as I stated, I love the Moynihan info, but it should be moved as I think you also now recognize. As for citing Rovere's phrase, it really is funny now looking back at the evidence but sadly people still aren't well educated in this matter and tend to keep believing the real demagogues like Rovere. So as poignant as that statement would be to unmask the liberal stupidity, other than people like you and me, they just wouldn't get it. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 10:06, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Bottomline: the Moynihan Commission corroborates McCarthy's "conspiracy of infamy so black", which actually is the common title given to McCarthy's 20 February 1950 Senate floor speech which you have quoted extensivley in the mainspace. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:36, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Rob, what do I keep telling you? This is an article about '''ALL'''of McCarthy's life, not just the Senatorial aspect of his life. That paragraph would be perfect if we were doing strictly an article on his Senate career but this is not such an article. That info is '''perfect''' for the Venona section. So, unless you have a better reason for putting it in the "Executive Summary" section, let's move it to the "Venona" section, OK? [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 12:42, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

From the ==Analysis of the resolution== section, final sentence, paragraph two:

*''Therefore, the first count was a complete fraud and nothing more than a trumped up charge in order to damage Senator McCarthy. ''

We should probably remove or reword blatant editorial speculation of this nature. Perhaps attributing it to Drummey or Buckley, or wherever it came from. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:55, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, I agree. In fact, that info comes from a couple of good sources but I have a much better analysis from Cohn's book that I was planning to replace that section with so please be patient and let that sit for now and let me replace it as soon as I can.
:Also, please consider why when I make a change why I'm doing it. I don't make changes for the laughs, I do it for a reason. Would you please explain why in a biography of a person's whole life, that you place in the "Executive Summary" section a detailed explanation of one aspect of the person's life? It would be one thing to put a one line sentence, which is what already there but such a detailed bit of info goes against the concept of Manual of Style. I realize that the Senate part of McCarthy's life is the most significant but it's important for the article to flow correctly that we adhere to proper form so that the reader does not get confused. Please let me know your thought process on this. Other than placing verifiable truthful information into the article, I'm also concerned about proper structure within each article by not putting details of a person's biography in the wrong place. So, please, let's make sure we're conforming to the appropriate Manual of Style. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 12:42, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
::Simple answer: everywhere McCarthy's name is associated with alleged "witchhunts;" the Moynihan Commission finding is directly associated with McCarthy's career and life. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:49, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Rob, that still doesn't address my point. This is an article about '''Joseph McCarthy''', not [[McCarthyism]]. Please see [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians Manual of Style]. You are failing to adhere to the basic layout of Conservapedia MOS. Do you want me ask [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] to chime in on this? I think it's fairly obvious but if you want another opinion, we could always ask him. It's up to you but I don't think we need him to tell us that we should not violate Conservapedia protocol and that with the current position of the Moynihan comments, that is exactly what is happening. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 14:15, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
::::Wow, I thought you wanted to tell the world how misunderstood & slimed McCarthy's has been fro 50 years. There's no better way to exonerate McCarthy's motives than to put the U.S. Government's admission he was correct right up front. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:55, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::I do want to tell the world the verifiable truth about McCarthy but Conservapedia has a Manual of Style for their articles and I just want to follow protocol. Is that wrong? As a Sysop, I would think you would be a stickler for this sort of thing. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 16:37, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Oh, so a per Manual of Style, we couldn't mention [[George Washington]] is the Father of the Country in the opening section, right?
:::::::LOL!! Yes, of course we could but do you think it would be appropriate to quote anyone or anything in great detail about it in the opening section? Do we place footnotes before a prologue? Of course not. Manual of Style. We are bound to it. You're just messing with me now, right. :) [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 17:11, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Rob, it seems we've hit an impasse on this Manual of Style matter. So in all fairness, I'm going to submit this matter to Geo for mediation in the above "mediation" section. Please feel free to make your case there. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 16:27, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Rob, doing clean-up is one thing but you're changing material information in the article. Can you please discuss any changes before you do them? I've spent a lot of time with this article and I would like to be included in any changes. I would appreciate it. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 23:25, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:BTW, you seen [[Soviet spies in America (1921-1948)]], it's a beauty. It combines Venona, Bentley, Guzenko, Budenz, Gorsky memo, ''et al'' into one list. It's still amazing how many names & bios I got that are not yet on the list.

:This is a chronology & structure basically from the day Lenin declared "we must establish everywhere illegal apparatuses."

:[[Golos]], an [[NKVD]] officer, came over in 1921 and started operations. I can't find anything on him in the [[Ellis Island]] database under either his birth name, or Golos, or his place of origin. Seems they were operating illegally even before Golos got here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:27, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::Rob, that's great stuff. Well done. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 18:41, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::Rob, thanks for adding "America's Retreat from Victory" to the external links. I listed it alphabetically and added it to the reference section as well. Great link. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 18:52, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

== H. Julian Wadleigh & "The Venona Progeny" ==

Rob, thanks for linking H. Julian Wadleigh. I didn't know he had an article here. Well done.

Also, please see if you can find another link for "The Venona Progeny" (footnote #79). The existing link at the Naval War College is dead. Simple typo but, the author's name is "Peake" not "Peale". Please see what you can find.

Lastly, before I forget again, is there a good source on the internet that gives the full "Lee List"? I've been looking but haven't found anything other than this [http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html one]. Please let me know. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 15:44, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, that is Haynes site, and it's the only one I know of. The entire list would have to be reconstructed from how Haynes displays it, but I think it's possible. Also, Haynes gives a citation where to find it.

:Perhaps between Haynes & CP, these are the two best sites available on the internet. Marquette University gives an inventory of the McCarthy Papers [http://www.marquette.edu/library/collections/archives/Mss/JRM/mss-jrm-s-14.html], and it's cited as "Lee Report, 1948, n.d." The McCarthy Papers remain sealed until 2050, but we do have a list of other files McCarthy was using. Some are quite interesting (like "State Dept. Rifling of Files", "Franz Leopold Neuman", and "Harold Glasser").

:Lastly, Whitakker Chambers personal papers will be available soon, so it looks like we'll have some new information shortly. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:41, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

==Update==
Scorpio: I've been spending a lot of time on Herbert Rommerstein's werbsite. His organization has procured much of the Silvermaster file through FOIA. After the Silvermaster investigation was aborted because of leaks, much of it was incorporated later into the Rosenberg file investigation. What has been declassified of the Silvermaster file must be 40,000 pages (wheeww). Parts are missing, for example SAC Lamphere's files. Lamphere was FBI field
investigator laiason with Army Signals Intelligence Venona decyptors.

On a preliminary basis, here's what happened: from the point of Elizabeth Bentley's deposition in December 1945 until about December 1947 the files reflect routine surveillance reports. All information was channelled through Hoover, rather sparingly, to Department heads and the White House. Venona was kept secret even from Silvermaster field investigators. An internal leak occurred when a field investigator began discussing prosecution with DOJ Criminal Division. The Criminal Division learned of Bentley, and wanted to interview her personally. It was at this point Hoover, and other field investigators, realized prosecution was unlikely if not impossible once the investigation was compromised.

Sure enough, after the lower level DOJ Criminal Division prosecutors heard of the investigation, stories began to appear in UPI (United Press International). Congressional investigators became interested. Bentley submitted to an interview with DOJ Criminal Division prosecutors, a full report was summarized internally by the FBI, HUAC and other Congressional Committees began subpeonaing documents and witnesses. By August 1948, three months before the election, Bentley & Chambers testified publicly accusing Hiss & others. Nixon built his career off of this.

Meantime, when the FBI summarized the investigation, an Executive Conference was held between the FBI and the Criminal Division to determine how to proceed. Notifying Department heads of security risks was recommended, but it was obvious that once some members of the underground apparatus knew they were being survielled, all knew they were suspect.

Then in 1949 and 1950 the situation got worse. The Ruskie's exploded the bomb and thier [[Comintern]] ally invaded South Korea. Also, who lost China. And the Berlin Crisis, etc. Yet no action had been taken in the State Department and elsewhere to remove security risks. So in early February 1950, Hoover briefed McCarthy on the some of the details, vaguely, McCarthy saw the poltical potential to embarass Truman & the Democrats, took the ball and ran.

McCarthy was working only with files earlier Congressional investigations procured, and what he got from Hoover. Hoover did not give up any valuable material with provenance, only stuff that could be used to compromise the "weaker sister." Given the nature of the CPUSA, and CPUSA underground apparatus, it was a family affair. Whole families were invovled, mother and daughters, in-laws, etc. These were the people who were targeted to get them to compromise someone they might know.

Now, as to the Executive Session transcripts, and VOA investigation, there is really some very interesting things here that could totally destroy some of the myths about McCarthy (still propounded for example, by Wikipedia). I'll update you on that as time allows. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:50, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

:Rob, thanks for that update info. I haven't looked at Conservapedia since I've been on vacation. I'm still going to be away but check out the [[Edward R. Murrow]] article. I added a bunch of stuff. I would like to work some of it into this article as well. After I get back, I'll return to assist you with the work on this and the various related articles. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 14:38, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

== Alphabetical listing of Venona cases ==

Rob, do you have any objection to listing the Venona cases in the Venona section in alphabetical order? They seem to be listed randomly. I thought in keeping with the MOS that they be re-listed in alphabetical order. Any thoughts? Do you want to handle it or do you want me to do it? It doesn't matter to me. Let me know. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 20:48, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
:There is a phenomenal mass of material on Mary Jane Keeney in the Silvermaster file, absolutley phenomenal. She seems to have had a very active social life, and was ''personally'' in contact with virtually everyone involved in the CPUSA Underground Apparatus. She singularly is probably the most surveilled and reported on individual in all 164 volumes of the Silvermaster file (I estimate it at 40,000 pages). This is significant, because in sum, Mary Jane Keeney is the only case were McCarthy made an accusation in an open hearing of her being Communist agent, which she denied. Let me do a little more study before alphabetizing, ok?

:Also, as to Dan Margolies, I found a Dan Morgolis in the Silvermaster file, but am unsure if its the same. I suspect it is, but need more information. Also, there are several figures in the Silvermaster file which may be spouses or relatives of names on the Lee List, buy again we need more information (there are several Stones, and couple of Hunts, for example).

:Interestingly, I discovered former CIA Director [[Richard Bissell]] came under surveillance in 1946 in connection with a suspect; it appears he was inquiring about information on a veteran's relief bill or something, and propably got some information to passed to him. Nothing subversive, just your routine everyday Washington Congressional leak.

:Another little quirck I may have stumbled upon is, Haynes & Klehr make light of the fact that [[Charles Flato]] was never named in [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s deposition, and didn't recieve full scrutiny as the other suspects named by Bentley, so it was much of a surprise when [[Venona]] documents added him to the Silvermaster group. A document from Soviet Archives corroborates it, misspelling his name as "Floto." I found summaries of FBI wiretaps (in those days wiretaps include reading telegrams), one from Mary Jane Kenney & Philip Kenney to a "Charles Slato." Who knows, a teletypist may have misspelled Flato's name, Bentley didn't ID him, Hoover kept tight lipped about Venona to most of these FBI field investigators in the Silvermaster case, and by a total fluke of history Flato was never fully developed as a suspect and escaped scrutiny and surveillance.

:Such is life. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:27, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:P.S. You know the 1954 version of Buckley/Bozell is online in its entirety, right? Do we have a link to it? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:27, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

::Nice work, Rob. It's incredible what you've been able to find. As for the alphabeticalizing, sure, no problem, take your time with it. I only suggested it because it seemed odd in its' current format but feel free to do what you feel is best. Also, no, I didn't know that Buckley's book is online. Do you have a link? Thanks. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 21:31, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm not certain what this website is, but it on here [http://americandeception.com/index.php?page=usercat&catid=8&PHPSESSID=03d3557b41f249f71349e6d730cc8498], along with Budenz, Toladano, Krivistky, and some other interesting things. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Block on article ==

Rob, I've noted this in Geo's Talk page but I also thought it would be appropriate here as well. I'm wondering if there is there any way that it can be arranged so that these blocks do not prevent me from working on the McCarthy article? I realize that the the newest block was put into place to protect against vandals but unfortunately this also affects my ability to add to the article and I don't think my additions are an issue. Can you please work with me to find a solution to this matter? I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 10:36, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

== National Review article plus we should mention MCCarthy's apparent drinking problem ==

Here is a helpful article from the conservative magazine ''National Review'': http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_24_51/ai_59247144

Next, I think we should acknowledge McCarthy's apparent alcohol problem and some of his possible other shortcomings which the conservative National Review article mentions. I think it is important that Conservapedia does not fail to reveal relevant facts about a person as one of the virtues of the Bible is that is does not fail to reveal the blemishes of its heroes. I think having a article on McCarthy without mentioning his apparent excess drinking is like having an article on Churchill without mentioning his excess drinking. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:37, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

: The National Review article doesn't mention his (alleged) drinking problem. Do you have any objectives sources that he did have a problem? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Oops, the NR article does say "Alcohol addled McCarthy's wits, which were not that sharp to begin with."[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_24_51/ai_59247144/pg_3] But that's all. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:07, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

Ruth Watt, who worked on the PSI staff [http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/watt_interview_3.pdf] is ths best unbiased source on this. In an interview for the Senate hisotrians office she says for example,

'''Watt''': Joe McCarthy was a very kind man, very thoughtful of people working with him, and I was very much taken with the way he treated people. (pg. 140)

'''Ritchie''': You once said that you had watched the program "Tail-Gunner Joe," on television. What was your impression of that program?

'''Watt''': I thought it was terrible. It was not factual. It was an insult to the Marine Corps, I thought, because who in the Marine Corps would allow somebody to go around shooting the way he did? It was completely untrue, I'm sure. I don't believe the girl that did the work did the research in the right places. She did the things she wanted to do, in my opinion. I thought it was very inaccurate. I was disgusted with it. I didn't think it was fair or true. There might have been some things in there that were true, but very few. But I suppose she had to make it interesting for TV, probably.

'''Ritchie''': The portrayal of McCarthy as a senator didn't ring true to you, as a person who knew him?

'''Watt''': Not necessarily, no. They had to exaggerate. Of course, a program like that was not supposed to be a factual thing anyway, was it? If it was, it was not factual. There were just so many things that were not true. I'd have to go through it piece by piece before I could say what. (pgs 154-155)

'''Ritchie''': I've heard that after the censure Senator McCarthy began to drink pretty heavily. Was that noticeable?

'''Watt''': I don't think it was any different then it was before.

'''Ritchie''': He drank heavily before?

'''Watt''': I think he drank before. I don't know that he drank that heavily, but by the end of '55, about '56 he was in pretty bad shape and we knew he had cirrhosis. And about that time someone told me that McCarthy had told Senator McClellan he had just a year to live. He knew that he had something that was not going to get any better. The person who told me this, he never would have said it, but this person knew that he had said it to Senator McClellan. I was told about it in '56 sometime. He died the end of April in '57. (pg. 150)

: That is unreliable hearsay. Watt didn't know the answers to the questions, and just recited rumors. If this is the best evidence, then it is better to say nothing. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:15, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

:*''"I think he drank before''. '''I don't know that he drank that heavily''', but by the end of '55, about '56 he was in pretty bad shape and we knew he had cirrhosis." That doesn't even come close to being a reliable source, factual or worthy of any mention in a scholarly article. Period. It is worthy, however of Wikipedia or the National Inquirer. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:16, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

::*Watt attended all the hearings, all of them, public and private, worked with McCarthy outside hearings in routine staff work, and she knew McCarthy as intimately as any living family member could testify, which are few in number, unavailble, or haven't left any written record. She worked closely with him for many years (and all the Senators, Ray Cohn, and Bobby Kenedy), knew them all very personally, and tells us all straight up what has been written and publicized about McCarthy for several decades is untrue.

::*Watt even shed some light on the close relationship between McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy, and Bobby Kennedy's family (McCarthy is the Godfather of two of RFK's kids).

::*Watt talks about the spirit of bipartisanship on the Committee, defined as such,

::*"Everybody worked together and there were no politics involved. It was just an investigating committee and you were for motherhood and against sin!! Everybody was in the same boat. But after the McCarthy problems, why then the senators said we had to have a minority counsel, that was in January 1954. ([http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/watt_interview_2.pdf pgs. 61-62]) [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:35, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

P.S. United States Senate Historical Office -- Oral History Project in league with the WP or National Enquirer? I'd rate it a little higher. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:40, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

*Rob, I don't think either Roger or I are disagreeing that he might have been a drinker. Or doubting Ruth Watt...however, it is uncorroborated, and she herself said "I don't know that he drank that heavily", so we now have conflicting information, and nary a Doctor to define for us what is "too much" and "not much". Personally I would be surprised if he wasn't drinking, given the number of years he was under constant attack. Her recollections of the committee style is something she is expert on, so that isn't hearsay. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:09, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Her testmony is extremely important. It shows (a) all the garbage from Hollywood and elsewhere is untrue, including what it says about his drinking. Much of the stories of his drinking originate from that film, ''Tailgunner Joe''. (b) She says he was a very kind man. She sat through the roughly 600 witnesses who were called to testify. She doesn't say what an animal he was. Rather, she was very taken by his kindness.

:*Watt relates only one instance she feared things might have got out of control. Her husband was a door guard, and a witness who was to testify had threatened McCarthy's life. Her husband had to search the guy for weapons, and if he did sneak a weapon in the room, her husband would have to be the guy to intervene. And he likewise was fearful of her, cause she was in the room with the crazed communist lunatic who the press reported would kill Joe McCarthy if given the chance. She says the hearing went without any trouble, McCarthy was cordial and polite as he always was, and the guy was just chicken, all talk & blather. Given the opportunity to kill the monster, chose to give testimony instead. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:11, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

== thrust of National Review article - Is it accurate? ==

Is the thrust of National Review article accurate?

The [[National Review]] is a conservative magazine. Is this National Review article a generally accurate portrayal of McCarthy:

"Arthur Herman, a program coordinator at the Smithsonian Institution and an adjunct professor at George Mason University, has filed a brief for the defense that is simultaneously audacious in its argument and painstaking in its scholarship. It is a work of vindication all the more powerful for standing so nearly alone, its only company a new novel by William F. Buckley Jr. And it challenges us to rethink our understanding not only of McCarthy's moment, but of our own.

Herman, it should be said straight off, can do only so much with McCarthy the man. Herman freely admits that McCarthy was careless with his facts and reckless in his rhetoric....Herman's McCarthy is crude, ignorant, bullying, and possibly even mentally ill: McCarthy's manic mood swings, his gambling, the chaos in which he worked, his ability to go for days without sleep-these all look to Herman like the symptoms of a hypomanic disorder. But if McCarthy never rose to the marble-statue level of statesmanship, he was, Herman contends, something more than the vicious demagogue he has been made out to be.....

McCarthy is held in odium for his accusations that men like George C. Marshall and Dean Acheson accepted security risks into their department because of some lack of loyalty to the United States. Herman has no more time for those accusations than the severest of McCarthy's detractors. But something hindered those two wise men from acting as vigorously as they ought to have done to protect their department and their country against those risks, and Herman's defense of McCarthy is based on exposing what that something was. He quotes Raymond Moley, one of FDR's early advisers, confessing in 1953 that McCarthy "was the product of the fright and anger of a 'deceived and injured public,' who had been lied to regarding the Soviet threat both at home and abroad.....

Herman's book does a fine job of exploring individual cases and exposing the falseness of the allegation that McCarthyism led to the punishment and humiliation of innocent people. He does a fine job, too, of catching McCarthy's political opponents in behavior every bit as unscrupulous as the junior senator's...."[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_24_51/ai_59247144]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:38, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

:That's right. Herman makes largely the same point I made; the issues McCarthy took up were two decades of Soviet infiltration into the New Deal. The US fought a war as a Soviet ally, and suddenly the US was forced into a nuclear arms race with that same ally ''because of New Dealers'', not because of any technolgical achievements the Soviet Union accomplished in its own right. Our fellow citizens who were responsible for this insane nuclear arms race responded that they just had never stopped fighting fascism, McCarthy and anyone else who question thier motives or methods are considered by them as fascists as well. These are the basic issues. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:53, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
:::RobS, you agree with the good things that Herman stated about MCCarthy but do you agree with this: "Herman freely admits that McCarthy was careless with his facts and reckless in his rhetoric.....Herman's McCarthy is crude, ignorant, bullying, and possibly even mentally ill: McCarthy's manic mood swings, his gambling, the chaos in which he worked, his ability to go for days without sleep-these all look to Herman like the symptoms of a hypomanic disorder." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
::::McCarthy, at the time, did much damage to the cause of anti-Communism. McCarthy it appears was using the issue for short term partisan advantage. When Ike won, what it really looks like is Eisenhower himeself was behind McCarthy's destruction. And if there's a villian, it's probably Hoover, who really just used McCarthy without telling him all the facts. With the picture we have today, we can say McCarthy was right in his basic premise. But then again, it all relates more to the Adminisration of Franklin Roosevelt, who basically it appears, allowed a foreign power to take over his Adminstration.

::::For example, the Soviet Union manuovered the US into war with Japan, to get the US to destroy the lone obstacle to the Moscow directed plan to spread Communism to China & the Far East. Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union is what purchased the enslavement of 100 million people for 50 years in Eastern Europe (350 million at the time of the collapse of the Soviet bloc). The Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, none of these things had to be; it all was the result of CPUSA infiltration and subversion into the Adminstration of Franklin Roosevelt. Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, bascially to stop the exact same things the CPUSA was doing here in the United States at the exact same time. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:24, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
::I think Hitler probably came to power for different reasons as a whole, but it cannot be denied that Hitler was anti-communist. At the same time, I am not that familar with what the CP was doing in Germany. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:40, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

<---

Look at the exact language used here [http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1941/410622b.html STATEMENT BY JOACHIM VON RIBBENTROP, GERMAN FOREIGN MINISTER, ON THE DECLARATION OF WAR ON THE SOVIET UNION], Berlin, June 22, 1941. ''New York Times'', June 23, 1941, where the Germans explain precisely ''what'' prompted the German invasion, and ''why'' the Hitler-Stalin pact was ended; no less than three times it is stated:

*"..Comintern to seek to conduct their subversive activities..."

*"subversive activities were carried on in territories occupied by Germany"

*"subversive activity and reconnoitering carried on by the Comintern. "

A pattern develops. So what is the official German version that motivated the German-Soviet War? Comintern subversive activities. How did the Soviert Union obtain atomic weapons knowhow from Los Alamos? Comintern subversive activities. How did the CPUSA & the Soviet Union penetrate the White House, the Manhattan Project, the OSS, the State, Treasury, and War Depts? Comintern subversive activities. What was McCarthy investigating? Comintern subversive activities. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:54, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

Arthur Herman does a good job when he sticks to facts and relies on the Congressional Record and other official documents. Herman fails when he attempts to make nice with the liberals by spreading the same unsubstantianted rumors that had been making the rounds in the early 1950's. I've noticed that the anti-McCarthy info that Herman cites usually has no citation or is attributed to incredibly unreliable sources. One example is where Herman makes a reference to Oshinsky who makes reference to another source that ultimately is just a rumor. That's how a great deal of these "biographies" have been written and the article here at Conservapedia has done the best job in sticking merely to the facts and avoiding rumor. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 14:03, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== Flanders role in Senate censure ==

Regarding Vermont Senator Flanders's role in speaking out against McCarthy and initiating the Senate censure hearings, I request that the italicized passages below be either properly referenced or deleted.

While, over the past few years, Senator McCarthy withstood countless biased and unsubstantiated attacks by Liberals, Communists, etc., the organized effort to remove McCarthy from his Chairmanship and officially condemn him began in the Spring of 1954. It was started by fellow Republican Senator Ralph E. Flanders of Vermont ''at the behest of a coalition of Communists, Liberals, and Eisenhower Administration officials''. Flanders told the Senate that McCarthy's "anti-Communism so completely parallels that of Adolf Hitler as to strike fear into the hearts of any defenseless minority"; accused McCarthy of spreading "division and confusion" and saying, "Were the Junior Senator from Wisconsin in the pay of the Communists he could not have done a better job for them."[97] ''Flanders had obtained his list of charges against McCarthy from a left-wing group named the National Committee for an Effective Congress.''

Regarding the statement that "It was started by fellow Republican Senator Ralph E. Flanders of Vermont ''at the behest of a coalition of Communists, Liberals, and Eisenhower Administration officials''," the citable literature suggests that Flanders felt that McCarthy's emphasis on possible Communists within our borders distracted us from a much greater menace of Communist encroachment abroad. The literature shows Flanders to be a conservative marching to his own drummer and not supported (except for one note from Eisenhower after his March, 1954 speech) by the administration. In his autobiography, ''Senator from Vermont,'' Flanders reports a cabinet member taking him aside and suggesting that a majority of other cabinet members wanted him to lay off.

Regarding the statement that "''Flanders had obtained his list of charges against McCarthy from a left-wing group named the National Committee for an Effective Congress,''" given Flanders's confirmed enmity towards the Roosevelt administration, it would be remarkable to suggest that he would be in collaboration with the National Committee for an Effective Congress. Instead, he reports having consulted with Senators Cooper and Fulbright to develop articles of censure that were consistent with previous actions. I've seen no other literature that contradicts this report.

I feel that even without the italicized passages, there's plenty of material to characterize Flanders's role. If there are credible citations supporting those passages, then they should stand.

[[User:Norwich|Norwich]] 13:49, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

:Norwich, your reliance on Flanders' own autobiography of the events surrounding Senator McCarthy is not set upon a sufficient factual basis. While the info you dislike is attributed to an appropriate primary source, namely the Congressional Record and the secondary sources of the Heritage Foundation [http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/IA5.cfm] and the recent book by Stanton Evans (pages 586-588). I disagree with your changes and challenge them with the aforementioned NPOV sources. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 22:59, 22 December 2007 (EST)

::Dear Scorpio, Thank you for your interest in this phase of history surrounding the McCarthy era. I'm unclear as to what aspects of the passage you are uncomfortable with. My concern with the previous text was the absence of sources and their citations. As to material that you cite as the basis of your concern, the Heritage Foundation document does not appear to contradict the wording of the subsection. I don't have access to the Stanton Evans book that you cite (I guess that you mean the one cited in the next section), but I'm certainly interested to learn what it says. Perhaps you could post a proposed change of the subsection with proper citations here. Sincerely,--[[User:Norwich|Norwich]] 11:17, 22 January 2008 (EST)

==Book by [[M. Stanton Evans]]==

Has anyone read the new book, ''Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies''? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:23, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:Not yet, but User:Scorpio said he'd be back after it came out. According to the [http://www.amazon.com/Blacklisted-History-Senator-McCarthy-Americas/dp/140008105X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0280032-8865773?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194391332&sr=8-1 Amazon Review],

::"the FBI knew '''as early as 1942''' that [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]], the director of the atomic bomb project, had been identified by Communist leaders as a party member; that high-level U.S. officials were warned that [[Alger Hiss]] was a Soviet spy almost '''a decade before the Hiss case became a public scandal'''; that a cabal of White House, Justice Department, and State Department officials lied about and covered up the [[Amerasia]] spy case; and that the State Department had been heavily penetrated by Communists and Soviet agents before McCarthy came on the scene."

:We have most of this I think already, but Evans maybe able to shed more light on other cases, and he certainly will be an invaluable, and historically definitve source in the post-[[Venona]]/Soviet Archives era. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:59, 7 November 2007 (EST)

::Hi, Rob, as promised, I have stopped by after ''Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies'' came out and had a chance to read through half of it. I can only say that Evans did a brilliant job with the book. But honestly, he could have taken some of his work straight from our work here. Evans has done the best job of examining Senator McCarthy's work ever seen. It is a must read for anyone who wants to work on this article or simply better understand the subject. I'm coming across a great deal of substantive information. The book utterly destroys anything that the Left had with which to attack the Senator.

::Unfortunately my schedule is such that I have limited time to devote to this article (or any article). (EDIT: I just noticed that the article has been unprotected and also noticed that the "Wikifying" of the article has begun with the addition of Senator Flanders own false perception of the events in question. Sad to see.) But I urge you to read Evan's book and add whatever you feel will bolster this article. Hope all is well and a Merry Christmas to you and everyone here at Conservapedia. All my best. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 22:10, 22 December 2007 (EST)

== McCarthy ==

First off I'm going to start of saying that I am and always have been a conservative.... but this site makes me feel ill... McCarthy was not a true conservative, he was an opportunist who destroyed any one who got in his way. This is not a model person as the article makes him out to be. And that's another thing I'd like to bring up... why does this site stoop so low as to call people with differing opinions stupid, ignorant, or selfish? They just have a different opinion! That's no reason to distort fact to make your side look better. I honestly expected a LOT more maturity from this site. Just look at the opening description on the Liberal page. That definition was NOT a definition it was some one's opinion and its only purpose was to slander... I wonder sometimes if a liberal made this site to make conservatives look bad with all the playground antics. lex231 13:07, 12 December 2009 (PST)

== Bias ==

This website seems to be one of the most conservative biased sites on the web, the way I see it you are no different from the others.
:Um, that's why we're different. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 13:01, 14 December 2009 (EST)
::I don't see how sitting on the other side of the teeter totter makes you anymore "trustworthy" than any other site.
:::Agreed

==Are you kidding?==
Are you really supporting Joseph McCarthy? The man was a rude and arrogant liar who used his witch hunt for communists only to better his political career. Have you ever read ''The Crucible?'' [[Gplanter6]] 07:36, 16 November 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Joseph McCarthy

2012-11-17T00:36:53Z

Gplanter6:

Talk:Marxism

2012-11-17T00:24:22Z

Gplanter6: /* Really? */

==Not Appropriate==
I think this article doesn't show how evil marxism is and gives the impression that it is a good thing, can someone please write about how marxism has hurt the world? {{unsigned|Jesusbushcheney}}
:The article is not locked. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:07, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Marxism, as a political view point, is not evil. However those who warp it, such as Stalin, are.

[[User:ComradeK|ComradeK]] 22:19, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

== Add Theory? ==

Would anyone mind if I put any actual marxist theory in this article? Its all about Soviet history, with a very very brief glimpse of anything remotely relating to Marxism itself [[User:LuxemburgFTW|LuxemburgFTW]] 18:22 April Your mother 2999

:Gosh I see all kinds of explanations of the theory in the article, but it is not locked, and I look forward to your improvements. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:30, 17 July 2010 (EDT)

==Really?==
Why is Barack Obama in the "see also" section? The man is ''no where near'' a marxist, that's just slander. It's like calling Bush a "fascist" or a "nazi," which is also not true. [[Gplanter6]] 07:24, 16 November 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Marxism

2012-11-17T00:24:08Z

Gplanter6:

==Not Appropriate==
I think this article doesn't show how evil marxism is and gives the impression that it is a good thing, can someone please write about how marxism has hurt the world? {{unsigned|Jesusbushcheney}}
:The article is not locked. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:07, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Marxism, as a political view point, is not evil. However those who warp it, such as Stalin, are.

[[User:ComradeK|ComradeK]] 22:19, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

== Add Theory? ==

Would anyone mind if I put any actual marxist theory in this article? Its all about Soviet history, with a very very brief glimpse of anything remotely relating to Marxism itself [[User:LuxemburgFTW|LuxemburgFTW]] 18:22 April Your mother 2999

:Gosh I see all kinds of explanations of the theory in the article, but it is not locked, and I look forward to your improvements. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:30, 17 July 2010 (EDT)

==Really?==
Why is Barack Obama in the "see also" section? The man is''no where near''a marxist, that's just slander. It's like calling Bush a "fascist" or a "nazi," which is also not true. [[Gplanter6]] 07:24, 16 November 2012 (EDT)