Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism

2011-06-20T03:39:28Z

Harmil: Article may need some work...

== Problems with this page ==

While I think that comparison is, in general, an excellent tool, the comparisons given are really between communism (at least in part, see below) and the National Socialist German Workers' Party (the "Nazi" party). Only passing allusions are made to specific liberal agenda items, none of which have the kind of concrete basis in specific platforms and documents that the communist and National Socialist items do.

The Communist Manifesto outlines a series of steps that Marx and Engels considered progressive toward a communist ideal. From that list of 10 items, only 7 are presented, here. The remaining 3 are:

# "''Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State''"
# "''Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.''"
# "''Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries''"

It's not entirely clear why these were left out.

The "Program of the National Socialist German Workers' Party" is a 25-point program. As above, I'm not sure why the comparison is so limited in scope.

It's rather moot to compare liberalism to a specific extreme-left platform (e.g. communism), since liberalism is a broad label which encompasses the full range of left-of-center platforms from the modern U.S. Democratic platform (widely considered, outside of the U.S., to be a center-right platform) to the modern U.K. Labour Party (canonical spelling of proper name, not meant to promote the British spelling of "labor," generally) to the extreme of Marx's Communist Manifesto. Thus, any comparison of liberalism and communism is akin to a comparison between apples and granny smiths. One is, by definition, a superset of the other. What would make more sense is to differentiate Marxist, Stalinist, Maoist and other forms of communism, and then to compare and contrast those with modern, U.S.-based Democratic, Green and other platforms.

One danger inherent in this article is one of context. A national government such as the National Socialist regime implicitly has a broad focus. While specific elements of their party platform may have been obvious slippery slopes (the nationalization of the media; removal of social and property rights for minority ethnic and religious groups, etc.) others were simply the expression of global trends in the changing role of governments during the 20th century (e.g. universal access to education). It's worth calling out where these individual programs' influences came from and what specific programs (in some cases, pogroms) they lead to.

Of course, it's necessary to consult [http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html Godwin's Law] in order to avoid obvious rhetorical pitfalls. Perhaps broadening the scope to other organizations that either had or s]tarted out with an extreme-left social agenda would help?

Hope this helps. I'm not taking a position, politically, here. I'm just trying to illuminate what might be done to improve this article. -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 23:39, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

Science

2009-10-08T14:48:56Z

Harmil: /* Principles of science */ The older, tagged paragraph wasn't really accurate, as experiments like the LHC show, so I've re-written it to describe the process.

[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right]]
'''Science''' is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."<ref>Soanes,C. and Stevenson, A. (eds.) (2005) 'The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition)' Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.</ref> Science can be divided into two areas: [[natural science]], dealing with the [[physical]], [[natural]] world, and [[social science]], dealing with society and human nature.

Science differs from other methodologies of classifying knowledge in that a scientific theory is a description of the world which in principle is cabable of being disproved; this is known as [[falsifiability]]. It is this property which distinguishes science from other possible methods of discovering knowledge.

[[Epicurus]] is an important figure in the development of the [[scientific method]]. He insisted that nothing should be accepted except that which has been sufficiently tested through direct observation and logical deduction. [[Roger Bacon]] is hailed by many as the father of modern science. His focus on empirical approaches to science was influential. He wrote an encyclopedia, his ''Opus Majus''.

People who study science are called [[scientist]]s. Most of the early scientists who started many of the scientific fields, and some of history's greatest thinkers, such as [[Galileo Galilei]] and [[Isaac Newton]], believed in [[God]], or some other higher power, and many were [[creationists]].
In addition, [[Christianity]] [[Christianity and Science|played a pivotal role in the development of modern science]]. However, in recent years, American scientists have been much more [[atheism|atheistic]] as a group than the general public. <ref>http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm</ref>

== Principles of science ==

The basis of modern science is observation and hypothesis. It involves constructing the best theory to explain an occurrence based on the evidence at the time.

Economist [[Milton Friedman]] said, "In all of science, progress comes through people proposing hypotheses which are subject to test and rejected and replaced by better hypotheses." [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_miltonfriedman.html#10]

The generally accepted scientific procedure is:

* Observations of an unknown phenomenon are made
* A hypothesis is made to explain the observations
* A experiment or experiments are carried out to test the hypothesis.
** If multiple experiments support the hypothesis it is considered a theory
** If the experiment does not support the hypothesis it is either rewritten or discarded
* If at a later date evidence is produced which contradicts the theory, it is modified or discarded and a new hypothesis is developed

One of the fundamental tenets of science is that no theory is absolute; theories are constantly changing in response to the observation of new evidence. Hence, a scientific theory that begins with an immutable conclusion and attempts to "fit the facts" to that argument does not fall within the realm of true scientific research.<ref>Examples would include the claims that God created the world and that all living things evolved from a common ancestor.</ref>

When repeatable experiments for a phenomenon cannot be performed directly (e.g. the origins of the universe), scientists rely on devising experiments which simulate related or partial phenomena in order to build a supporting framework for an overall theory.

==Naturalism and science==
Since the beginning of modern science, scientists have worked under the assumption that their subjects of study have been controlled by consistent natural laws.
There is good evidence that this assumption was based on the [[Christianity|Christian]] view that the laws were created by a consistent creator Who didn't change those laws on a whim.<ref>See [[Natural science#Beginnings]]</ref>
This assumption is seen as a prerequisite for logical deduction to act on the observations made. Without the assumption that the universe is consistent we cannot apply the lessons drawn from an observation to any area other than the observations themselves. If a [[chemical reaction]] occurs in a given solution in a laboratory in one city it is assumed that the same reaction can occur in a different laboratory in a different city on a different day because the chemical [[solution]] and situations will be the same.

If a capricious supernatural force was to enter the equation they could not be controlled for and could not be studied.

The physical sciences largely concern themselves with questions involving the natural, not the supernatural, but this is not the same as assuming that the supernatural does not exist. In addition, there are also the social sciences like [[history]]. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] maintain that history testifies to the supernatural existing and that the physical sciences (such as [[Biblical archaeology]]) can aid in historical determinations and testify to the existence of God and the truth of biblical Christianity.

Three broad philosophies have developed in the scientific community.
* "[[Methodological naturalism]]" adheres to [[naturalism]] insofar as it concerns scientific experiments and observations, but does not rule out a personal deity. It does, however, ''a priori'' rule out the supernatural being an explanation for observations.
* "[[Philosophical naturalism]]" adheres to the belief that there is no beings or forces beyond what can be observed; this [[atheism|atheistic]] view rejects the supernatural, or is skeptical of such beliefs.
* The third approach is to follow the inference to the best explanation regarding whether or not a supernatural or natural cause best explains a past or present observation.<ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1315/</ref><ref>http://www.cgst.edu/publication/journal/43/J43_203_Forum04Abstract.pdf</ref> For example, this third approach is advocated by [[creation science|creation scientists]] and [[intelligent design]] theorists when it comes to the origins of the natural world. Creation scientists and intelligent design theorists rightfully maintain the falsity of the [[evolution|evolutionary]] position given the lack of evidence for evolutionary position and the many lines of evidence against the evolutionary position. Another example is that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second]] laws of thermodynamics argue against an eternal [[universe]], and [[creation science|creation scientists]] claim that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created.<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> But in other respects, such as why [[Krakatoa]] exploded, a natural explanation would be considered the best explanation.

==Religious cultivation of early modern science==
''See also:'' [[Christianity and Science]]

According to the historian [[H. Floris Cohen]], there exists two distinct levels of argument along this line of historical scholarship. <ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=wu8b2NAqnb0C The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry], [[H. Floris Cohen]], University of Chicago Press 1994, 680 pages, ISBN 0-2261-1280-2, pages 308-321 </ref> The first to be proposed was the [[Merton thesis]] in the late 1930's, which parallels the [[The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism|Weber thesis]] in suggesting that the rise of science was due, at first, to a [[protestant work ethic]] but later extended to a more general biblical ethic. The second to be proposed was that of [[Reijer Hooykaas]], who held the rise of early modern science was due to a unique combination of Greek and biblical thought. One of the main aspects of Hooykaas's argument was that the Greek disrepect for manual work prevented an experimental science from truly developing until the biblical view of honoring work with one's hands was socially sanctioned. Hooykaas reaches the conclusion that "Metaphorically speaking, whereas the bodily ingredients of science may have been greek, its vitamins and hormones were biblical." <ref> * [http://books.google.com/books?id=c6TEDHvAbXAC ''Religion and the Rise of Modern Science''], Regent College Publishing, 2000. ISBN 1-5738-3018-6 </ref>

Historian and professor of religion [[Eugene Marion Klaaren|Eugene M Klaaren]] holds that "a belief in divine creation" was central to an emergence of science in seventeenth-century England. The philosopher [[Michael B. Foster]] has published influential analytical philosophy connecting Christian doctrines of creation with empiricism. Historian William B. Ashworth has argued against the historical notion of distinctive mind-sets and the idea of Catholic and Protestant sciences in "Catholicism and early modern science."<ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=hs2edDIGCqEC ''God and nature''], Lindberg and Numbers Ed., 1986, pp. 136-66; see also [http://cas.umkc.edu/history/faculty/AshworthW/pub.html William B. Ashworth Jr.'s publication list]; this is noted on page 366 of ''Science and Religion'', [[John Hedley Brooke]], 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref> Historians James R. Jacob and Margaret C. Jacob have published the paper "The Anglican Origins of Modern Science," which endeavors to show a linkage between seventeenth century [[Anglican]] intellectual transformations and influential English scientists (e.g., [[Robert Boyle]] and [[Isaac Newton]]).<ref> [http://www.compilerpress.atfreeweb.com/Anno%20Jacob%20&%20Jacob%20Anglican%20Fdn%20of%20Modern%20Science.htm The Anglican Origins of Modern Science], [[Isis (journal)|Isis]], Volume 71, Issue 2, June 1980, 251-267; this is also noted on page 366 of ''Science and Religion'', [[John Hedley Brooke]], 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref>

Two well-respected theological surveys, which also illustrate other historical interactions between religion and science occurring in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, are [[John Dillenberger]]'s ''Protestant Thought and Natural Science'' ([[Doubleday]], 1960) and [[Christopher B. Kaiser]]'s ''Creation and the History of Science'' ([[Eerdmans]], 1991).

{{quotation|When natural philosophers referred to ''laws'' of nature, they were not glibly choosing that metaphor. Laws were the result of legislation by an intelligent deity. Thus the philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) insisted that he was discovering the "laws that God has put into nature." Later Newton would declare that the regulation of the solar system presupposed the "counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."<ref> [[John Hedley Brooke]], ''Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives'', 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]], ISBN 0-521-23961-3, page 19 </ref>
|Historian and [[Oxford University]] [[Science and Religion]] theologian [[John Hedley Brooke]]}}

[[University of California at Berkeley]]-educated historian [[Ronald L. Numbers]] has stated that this thesis "received a boost" from mathematician and philosopher[[Alfred North Whitehead]]'s ''[[Science and the Modern World]]'' (1925). Numbers has also claimed "Despite the manifest shortcomings of the claim that Christianity gave birth to science—most glaringly, it ignores or minimizes the contributions of ancient Greeks and medieval Muslims—it too, refuses to succumb to the death it deserves. The sociologist [[Rodney Stark]] at [[Baylor University]], a [[Southern Baptist]] institution, is only the latest in a long line of Christian apologists to insist that 'Christian theology was essential for the rise of science.'"<ref> ''Science and Christianity in pulpit and pew'', [[Oxford University Press]], 2007, [[Ronald L. Numbers]], p. 4, and p.138 n. 3 where Numbers specifically raises his concerns with regards to the works of [[Michael B. Foster]], [[Reijer Hooykaas]], [[Eugene M. Klaaren]], and [[Stanley L. Jaki]] </ref>

==Notes==

{{reflist}}

==See also==
* [[Scientific method]]
* [[Computing]]

[[category:science]]

Talk:Liberal

2007-07-12T20:47:24Z

Harmil: Some problems with Views

{{protected|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1]]
[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2]]
== Wikipedia Citations ==

*'''It is never acceptable to use citations from Wikipedia here on the Conservapedia, per Aschlafly'''

== Andy... falsehoods? ==

Andy, I can't find anything wrong with the paragraph that you deleted. It properly contrasts the difference between "liberal" in the classical economic sense, and "liberal" in the TV-punditry sense. It also appropriately treated the civil rights era. Is the only thing wrong with that paragraph that you don't like it's implications?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:47, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Where do we go to report vandalism by a mod? --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 02:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:''opposition to a strong American foreign policy''
:where in that ''WORK IN PROGRESS'' [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf] cited, can proof of the above claim be found? Define a ''strong'' American foreign policy? Many ''Liberals'' may disagree with the current foreign policy but that doesn't necessarily imply they have problems with a strong American foreign policy. What is the definition of a ''strong'' American foreign policy? In all fairness it must be said that the page does start with ''Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals'' so virtually anything could be added to the list. All the same such edits seem to be what the editor thinks ''liberals'' believe and are not an encyclopedic description of ''liberal'' thoughts or tendencies. Such edits contravene [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] 5: ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry''.
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: It is time someone unlocks this article. [[User:Order]] 17 April, 11:25 (AEST)

The statement that the label liberal stands for right-wing in Europe is utter nonsense. Neo-liberalism restricts the more general liberalism to economic topics. As a result, neo-liberals and conservatives have much in common regarding freedom of economy and influence of the state. This is, however, far from right-wing. A separate topic is the nationalliberal movement in Austria, which includes some right-wing, anti-foreigner standpoints.

: First, I have to agree that 'liberal' in Europe doesn't refer to the extreme right. The FPOE under Haider was indeed a bit far to the right when compared to the other liberal parties. However, the Dutch VVD, the Danish Ventre Parti, or the Polish Platforma Obywatelska, or the German FDP are all center to center right. And they are characteristic for an important poltical force, the self-identify as 'liberal'. It should be added that some countries have in addition a, often smaller, center-left liberal party. [[User:Order]] 20 April 23:55 (AEST)

These definitions certainly need clarification especially as it seems to be used as a pejorative term in the USA. In the UK the Conservatives were seen as the party that backed the aristocracy and big business while Labour (UK spelling) backed trade unions and the welfare state. Far from being a libertarian, Liberals were the party of the individual but took a middle way to the property rights and a welfare state that catered for the unfortunate as well asproviding universal healthcare and education.[[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 14:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Precisely part of the problem. Europeans & Brits (as we've seen reported in the European press during the elections of GW Bush) create an unfair & biased resentment against American conservatives ''precisely'' because of their prejudice against a titled noble aristocracy -- something forbidden by the US Constitution. Yes, European & American views of "conservatives" are different in "common usage". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:43, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Neoclassical liberalism==
I'm not sure that "sexual freedom" was an aspect of neoclassical liberalism. Ditto for equal rights independent of race or sex. The Enlightenment liberals were for limited democracy -- they certainly did not jump to extend these rights to women or non-whites. In fact, many even feared giving power to the lower classes. [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:34, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Split? ==

I recommend this article being split into two separate articles. One on Liberalism (as in the ideology that many Republicans have, including lassiez-faire economics), and one on Liberal (as in the label used in American politics that has a meaning more similar to Progressiveism). [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 16:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Silly" Definition? ==

What's wrong with those definitions? How are they "silly," Aschlafley? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:04, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

=="American Liberal?"==

Liberal is an absolute term. There is no difference in a liberal in one country and another. This would be like saying an American Christian and Canadian Christian are fundamentally different (which would be utterly rediculous). Also, most of the statements listed are rediculous.
eg.
-taxpayer-funded abortion
-censorship of prayer in classrooms
-a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written
Also, this artical would lead individuals to believe that all Liberals are clones of one another that have identical beliefs. Maybe "American Liberal" is supposed to mean Democrat, but even if that was the case the NDP has a platform that does not match what is posted in this artical.--[[User:ResistanceFighter|ResistanceFighter]] 14:19, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

:Which of the above three examples of [[liberal]] beliefs do you dispute?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

::All of them. I have yet to see wide spread support for tax funded abortion. Also, liberals are fine with individual prayer in schools, just not group prayer or teacher lead prayer. Also, I wouldn't say liberals are any more for a living constitution that conservatives. Conservatives expand on the constitution by acting as the world police and placing military bases overseas...
:::I've been in several military bases that were placed there by Democrats, and I've personally seen the damage done to the military's morale when liberals are in positions of power and authority over the military. And it was Colin Powell who stated that the world is sick of us being the world's police force, "but just who do they call when they need a cop?" [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:02, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Karajou, you made a huge slip up in this statement: "I've been in several military bases that were placed there by Democrats."Democrats are not the same as a liberal and from your statement you are saying that they are the same. You even use the words interchangeably.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 23:00, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

''This would be like saying an American Christian and Canadian Christian are fundamentally different (which would be utterly rediculous).''
:Perhaps, but an American Liberal is still to the right of a Canadian Liberal (and Canadian Conservatives as well).--[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 20:53, 22 May 2007 (PDT)

== Template ==

Could an admin add <nowiki>{{Political ideologies}}</nowiki> to the bottom of the page? thnx, [[User:MfD|MfD]] 00:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== Censoring Talk pages? ==

[[User:TK|TK]], why did you revert the last comment by [[User:ResistanceFighter|ResistanceFighter]] on the talk pages. I thought the Talk pages were for discussion, and I didn't expect that someone would revert comments. I'd expect you to reply to his comments, not remove them. [[User:Order]] May 21 11:40 (AEST)

*Order, I have an old saying: ''"Caution! Be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in operation!"'' The last comment there, FYI, was from the user BrianCo, who was blocked for being a vandal, and ResistanceFighter was his sock. Now, instead of posting here, just to gain exposure for your sly little ad hominem attack on me, you could have sent an email or gotten me on IM, or even posted on my talk page. Now, I expect an apology. This bit of foolery is certainly not adult or professional. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:30, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

: What is sly and ad hominen about my question? It was a fairly neutral question about why a comment was removed. I saw that a comment got removed without comment. And I asked you why? You could have added the explanation that you gave now already when you removed the comment. It appeared, and not just to my brain, as if a comment was removed without giving a reason. And that was exactly what you did. And even if it was a sock puppet, I still can't see why you did remove the comment without giving a reason. Wouldn't the normal procedure be to block the sock puppet, and revert vandalism if it happend. [[User:Order]] May 25

*Not necessairly here, Order, especially if one is busy, old, and it slips their mind. So I guess we see the same situation differently. No harm, no foul in that. Sorry is I was tarter than usual...trying times around here, and elsewhere. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Censorship of prayer in classrooms?==

Since I can't edit the main page, I'll comment here. This is a caricature--teachers may not lead prayer, but students can pray in public schools if they want. Now, if they are talking out loud, they might be dealt with the same as a student talking out loud about everything else. But that "ban" is not content-based. Students can pray in school, read the Bible, talk to their fellow students about God and theology, and, for that matter, can read the Koran and pray toward Mecca (again, provided they aren't disrupting class.) So, I have to ask you ... why does this article have such a cartoon-like description of liberals' stances on "prayer in classrooms?" --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 22:38, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

::You know the old saying: "As long as there are geometry tests, there will be prayer in school." --[[User:Catfish|Catfish]] 20:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

: Wennberg, you're in [[liberal]] denial. Group prayer in the classroom is prohibited, and individual prayer out loud is nonsensical. Please defend or oppose the law, but don't deny it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:12, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:: School-sponsored prayer is illegal. Students can pray if they want to, whether alone or as a group, as long as they are not being disruptive. Students also can't get up and read a book in the middle of class, in unison, either. --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 21:44, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==edit suggest==

one suggestion that globalism be bracketed so it links to the article [[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 16:07, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== Emotive distinction ==

The definition of liberal as 'weak' should be in there somewhere, as like it or not it has become a subtext in the political culture as influential as any points of substance. But to include that emotive definition in the same page as political philosophies of other countries could be too confusing. This could tie in with the idea of partitioning the article into two sections. unsigned comment by [[User:TraitortotheCause ]]15:25, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==Slight syntax change==

I propose that this sentence: ''Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals' ''be changed to read '''The following views are often associated with those who consider themselves 'liberals'.''' The way it reads now suggests that all liberals hold all of these views, when this is not the case. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 01:06, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

== Some problems with Views ==

The following items from the list of views need some work:
* a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written - This item is confusing. The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court (per the Constitution), so presumably everyone who agrees that the Constitution is a fair and valid basis for the U.S. system of government accepts the constant reinterpretation of the Constitution. What's the point of this sentence? If this sentence exists purely to accent the gun control bullet point, then perhaps they should be merged into "gun control per a specific re-interpretation of the Constitution as defined by ''U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).''"
* globalism - Globalism is awfully broad, and some aspects of globalism are clearly opposed by most liberals, and supported by most conservatives. If we're talking about international governmental bodies, then we should call that out specifically.
* opposition to a strong American foreign policy - This is clearly a subjective take, and has no place in an encyclopedia. I'd suggest re-wording this to refer to the generally anti-war stance of liberals to avoid using subjective language. There are many liberal foreign policy platforms that could be considered "strong" by many definitions of the word.
* support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right - This is poorly worded from the legal standpoint. A better wording which does not rely on the word obscenity (which is specifically loosely defined at a federal level, and is left to "community standards") should be chosen. Overall, the statement is correct, just not precise enough.
Hope this helps. -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 16:47, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Heart

2007-06-07T20:03:30Z

Harmil: Bible examples still need to be parred down

==Bible==
I removed the list of Bible references again, and before anyone goes and adds it again, could you please justify it's inclusion?--[[User:Czaryah|Czaryah]] 17:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

For an article on anatomy there does seem to be a preponderance of Biblical quotations and I'm not sure what their purpose is. Surely anyone with a decent Bible reference program can find these for themselves. There was also a browser add-in mentioned on the main page and Aschlafly's talk pages several days ago but I can't seem to find it now. I am posting this so there can be a discussion about it rather than just removing them ''en bloc''. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 03:48, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I kind of agree that they are out of place. We could at least cut down on them. If you do remove some, type "see talk page" in the info box. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:52, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think it would be sufficient to leave the reference in the first paragraph about the Bible's general viewpoint. However, I'll give it 24 hours or so to see if there is any other response. Hopefully my spelling corrections will flag other editors' watchlists but I'll add a temporary see talk page notice. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 03:58, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::The article still contains a giant list of random sentences from the Bible that happen to contain the word "heart." The list isn't informative in the least about the heart, and while it does give some context for the use of the word, there are multiple, redundant examples for every usage. -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 16:03, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Freemason

2007-06-06T19:43:40Z

Harmil: Redirecting to Freemasonry

#REDIRECT[[Freemasonry]]

Benjamin Franklin

2007-06-04T21:24:17Z

Harmil: /* Occult and Illegal Activities */ ref fix

[[Image:Benjamin.jpg|thumb|right]]
'''Benjamin Franklin''' (January 17, 1706 – April 17, 1790), printer, scientist, inventor, philosopher, and diplomat, was born in [[Boston]], [[Massachusetts]], to a tallow-maker.

Early in life, Franklin developed a love of reading. As he recalled in his autobiography, ''"From a child I was fond of reading, and all the little money that came into my hands was ever laid out in books. Pleased with the Pilgrim's Progress, my first collection was of John Bunyan's works in separate little volumes. My old favorite author, Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress ... has been translated into most of the languages of Europe, and suppose it has been more generally read than any other book, except perhaps the Bible."''

As a youth, Franklin was apprenticed to his older brother James, as a printer. Using several different pen names, Benjamin contributed many articles to Jame's newspaper. However, Benjamin felt his brother mistreated him and in 1723, he ran away to Philadelphia, then the largest city in British North America.

In Philadelphia, Franklin began publishing the ''Pennsylvania Gazette'', which was the longest lived and most successful of colonial newspapers. He published his ''Poor Richard's Almanack'' for twenty-five years; it was filled with witty sayings penned by Franklin and others. Franklin often borrowed material and rewrote it as he saw fit.

Franklin became one of Philadelphia's leading citizens, founding a sanitation department, a fire brigade, the American Philosophical Society, and the first circulating library in British North America.

In a draft autobiography written mostly in 1771, nearly 20 years prior to his death, Franklin described how he came to deism in his youth.<ref>A year after Benjamin Franklin's death, his unfinished draft autobiography, entitled "Memoires De La Vie Privee," was published in Paris in March of 1791. [http://www.earlyamerica.com/lives/franklin/] </ref> He recalled that his ''"parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."'' <ref>http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Fra2Aut.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, p.57</ref>

Franklin remained a deist until the end of his life. In a letter dated March 9, 1790, a little more than a month before his death, Franklin outlined his beliefs to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale:

:''"Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its conduct in in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

:''"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and His Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubt as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I need not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. I see no harm in its being believed, if that belief has the good Consequence, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers in his Government of the world with any peculiar Marks of his Displeasure."'' <ref>http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/franklin-stiles.html</ref>

This quote reflects Franklin’s leanings toward deism. In the first paragraph, Franklin professes a belief in a god, but does not name that deity. In the second paragraph, Franklin acknowledges that Jesus Christ existed, but he doubts he is the son of God. While he recognizes the value of Christ’s moral teachings, he thinks they may have been corrupted over time.

As Franklin grew older, he recognized that Christianity had positive effects on colonial society, yet he never became a Christian himself. Franklin befriended George Whitefield, the best known of the Great Awakening evangelicals. The two also had a business relationship, with Franklin printing nearly all of Whitefield’s North American sermons. After one of Whitefield's sermons, Franklin noted the ''"wonderful...change soon made in the manners of our inhabitants. From being thoughtless or indifferent about religion, it seem'd as if all the world were growing religious, so that one could not walk thro' the town in an evening without hearing psalms sung in different families of every street."''<ref>The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, p.104-108</ref><ref>At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Franklin proposed a prayer for divine intervention to aid the troubled proceedings.</ref>

By age 42, Franklin was wealthy enough to retire from news papering, and devoted most of his time to his scientific pursuits. Franklin invented bi-focal lenses, a heat efficient stove, and the swivel chair. His famous experiment with a kite won him membership in the prestigious Royal Society, but it also had a practical effect. It also led to Franklin’s invention of the lighting rod, and increased his fortune when he was contracted to outfit all the ships in the Royal Navy with lighting rods. By 1750, Franklin was easily the most famous of the King’s North American subjects.

While Franklin thought of himself as a loyal subject, he did question some of the Crown’s actions. In 1754, he proposed the Albany Plan of Union, which would have united the colonies (and the Iroquois League as well) under a Royal governor, and given the colonies the power to tax themselves. Many of the colonies did not send representatives to Albany, and nothing came of the plan.

Franklin put his prestige on the line to assist the expedition of British general Edward Braddock to capture Fort Duquesne (present day Pittsburgh) from the French. Pennsylvania’s Quaker dominated legislature refused to help provide supplies for the expedition, so Franklin made an appeal for colonists to provide provisions, horses, and wagons for Braddock’s army. In his autobiography, Franklin recalled questioning Braddock about the expedition’s chances of success. Braddock assured him he would easily capture the fort. After the disaster that Braddock met on the Monongahela, Franklin was less sanguine about accepting professional military opinion.

In 1757, Franklin went to London to represent Pennsylvania in its quarrel with William Penn’s heirs (Pennsylvania was the last of the propriety colonies). He remained abroad for eighteen years, not returning to American until 1775.

During Franklin’s tenure in England, he also represented several other colonies and became a regular observer, and unofficial representative of the colonies. In 1765, he assured British politicians that Americans would accept the Stamp Act, but news of colonial protest caused him to back away from that position. Afterwards, Franklin regularly opposed English attempts to tax the colonies.

Returning from England in 1775, Franklin surprised some by coming out in favor of independence. For Franklin, this stance carried a personal price. His son William, the Royal Governor of New Jersey, remained loyal to the Crown, and father and son never reconciled.

Until the end of the American Revolution, he was easily the most famous American in the world. He was one of the most prominent of the [[Founding Fathers]], early political figures and statesmen of the [[United States]].

He served as the Continental Congress [[ambassador]] to [[France]], where where he was instrumental in obtaining military and economic support for the struggle against England. In Paris, Franklin attracted attention by attending many of the salons and downplayed his status as Dr. Franklin. Instead, he sometimes cultivated the image of a rustic American, sometimes wearing a coonskin cap. Franklin's popularity helped in securing monetary and later military support from the Frence.

Franklin is one of the few non-presidents whose likeness appears on U.S. currency. Franklin graces the $100 bill while Alexander Hamilton appears on the $10 bill.

Franklin is responsible for the nomenclature of "positive" and "negative" charge. He believed he could tell the direction in which electricity traveled by observing sparks. Unfortunately he was wrong; the electrons, which are the particles carrying ordinary electricity, move in the opposite of the direction he thought they did. As a result, when electrons were discovered, according to Franklin's designation they had to be considered as having a negative charge — creating a minor headache for scientists and engineers.

However, Franklin realized the value of Christianity in public life, making the following motion for prayers to be said at the [[Constitutional Convention]]:<ref>http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/3rd_floor/god/2_convention.html</ref>

:''"Mr. President ([George Washington]) ... I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that 'Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.

:''"I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed, in this political building, no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and by-word down to future ages. And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

:''"I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service."''

Benjamin Franklin guided the establishment of the University of Pennsylvania, which was chartered as nonsectarian. According to the University, it was "a new type of learning institution, that unlike other American Colonial colleges, would not focus on education for the clergy, but would instead prepare students for lives of business and public service. The proposed program of study would become the nation's first modern liberal arts curriculum."[http://www.upenn.edu/about/heritage.php] In ''Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pensilvania [sic]'', (1749) he outlines an essentially secular curriculum. Religion is to be taught under the rubric of History; Franklin, however, makes a point of saying that
:"History ''will also afford frequent Opportunities of showing the Necessity of a ''Publick Religion,'' from its Usefulness to the Publick; the advantage of a Religious Character among private Persons; the Mischiefs of Superstition, &c. and the Excellency of the CHRISTIAN RELIGION above all others, antient and modern."''

Before the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin was a frequent visitor to [[England]]. He was a member of the [[Lunar Society]] based in [[Birmingham]], creators of the Industrial Revolution, and also the [[Hellfire Club]] of Sir Francis Dashwood.

Franklin believed strongly in the importance of political freedom to the American experiment. As such, he remarked, ''"those who would give up a little liberty, to gain a little security, deserve neither, and will lose both,"'' a stern warning applicable especially in today's world.

==In fiction and popular culture==
===''Ben and Me''===
Robert Lawson's 1939 book, ''Ben and Me: An Astonishing Life of Benjamin Franklin by His Good Mouse Amos,'' is a children's classic continuously in print since publication. It is written at level suitable for ages 10 and up, but is also enjoyed by adults. As the title indicates, the narrator is a mouse. Amos is not very respectful toward Franklin. He see Franklin as absent-minded, lacking in common sense, and barely able to take care of himself. According to Amos, it is Amos himself who inspired, and should be credited with most of Franklin's great inventions. Amos has nothing but scorn for Franklin's "Poor Richard" maxims:
:"'Early to bed, early to rise, makes a healthy, wealthy and wise!' ''Bah!'' When have you been ever been to bed early, or risen early, except when you've had insomnia? Yet you're healthy and wealthy."
:"Perhaps if I lived by the maxim I should also be—wise," he suggested, meekly.
:"That I doubt," I said. "it would require more than a maxim. A miracle, like."

In 1953, Walt Disney made a 20-minute animated short film from the book with Sterling Holloway as Amos, but it failed to capture the spirit of the story and did not even attempt to be faithful to the style of Lawson's illustrations.

In 2006, ''Ben and Me'' was selected for the annual "One Book, One Philadelphia" project, in honor of Franklin's 300th birthday.

== Occult and Illegal Activities ==

Benjamin Franklin was a [[Freemason]]. His investigation of the [[Hellfire Club]]<ref>[http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_02-06/031_leibniz_halle_rev.html Leibniz, Halle, and The American Revolution by Edward Spannaus]</ref> – a secret society that engaged in mockeries of religious ceremonies and debauchery<ref>[http://www.victorianweb.org/history/pms/hellfire.html The 'Hell Fire Club' Marjie Bloy Ph.D.]</ref> – may or may not have lead to his becoming a member.<ref>[http://www.infowars.com/articles/occult/hellfire.htm Benjamin Franklin, the Occult and The Elite]</ref> Certainly, his ongoing association with its notorious founder, [[Sir Francis Dashwood]], has been established.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=vAkNAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=%22francis+dashwood%22+%22benjamin+franklin%22+*.org&source=web&ots=_DGAo2Lht3&sig=V6iHSWafbaISr32cdmUTZviz2qI Science and Society in Early America: Essays in Honor of Whitfield J. Bell, Jr. By Randolph SHIPLEY KLEIN]</ref>

In 1998, workmen restoring Franklin's London home dug up the remains of six children and four adults hidden below the home,<ref>[http://benfranklin.tribe.net/thread/510cda6f-3ee8-4ef1-86b4-9525f4ed28c4]</ref> the remains showed signs of dissection, and are believed to be related to medical research of the time, performed on illegally acquired cadavers.<ref>[http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0998/0998gaz5.html Bones in the Basement of Franklin's London Digs]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==Benjamin Franklin's Writings Online==
*[http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/ Yale edition of complete works of Benjamin Franklin]
*[http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/fellows/bob_morse_04/ The Electrical Writings of Benjamin Franklin] Collected by Robert A. Morse, 2004.
*[http://sln.fi.edu/franklin/family/lastwill.html Franklin's Last Will & Testament] Transcription.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Franklin, Benjamin}}
[[category:political people]]

Talk:Benjamin Franklin

2007-06-04T21:22:47Z

Harmil: The occult

==Deist vs. Christian==

One dictionary definition of "Christian" is "One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus."

In 1792, in the letter he wrote to Ezra Stiles, he expresses "doubt as to his Divinity," further suggested by his referring to Jesus as "Jesus of Nazareth" rather than as "Jesus Christ." In adulthood he was never a member of any organized denomination. In the letter to Stiles it is clear that he admires the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus, and that he is not ''opposed'' to Christianity... nor to any sect which embodies "the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion" as he describes them.

He clearly does not meet definition #1. He might just possibly be considered to meet definition #2.

When he says that that the religion of Jesus "has received many corrupting Changes" this is surely distancing himself from the organized religious denominations that label themselves as Christian. I can't help seeing a wry lifted eyebrow when he says "I see no harm in its being believed, if that belief has good consequences, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed." The same is surely true when he says "I do not observe that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers in his Government of the world with any Marks of his displeasure." In other words, live and let live. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:38, 28 January 2007 (EST)

The quote from his letter to Ezra Stiles, pretty clearly shows that he himself was not a christian, but believed it usefull for the public to be christians, because they would follow christian morals. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:49, 28 January 2007 (EST)

I think that this page is focused too much on the religion of Ben Franklin instead of his life and accomplishments. We should have maybe 1-2 paragraphs on his religion. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:59, 28 January 2007 (EST)

*Given the interest in the topic here, I don't think it should be shortened, but perhaps it should be a separate section. Currently the story is told ''mostly'' in Franklin's own words, which is a Good Thing. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 29 January 2007 (EST)

*Exactly. I think that We could maybe have a debate page: "What was Benjamin Franklin's Religion," but I think that the page on Benjamin Franklin should not be almost completely devoted to his religion. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 08:52, 29 January 2007 (EST)

*One dictionary definition of deism is:
::The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
::I think I have to agree that Franklin didn't fit this definition, since he believes in "Providence." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:11, 29 January 2007 (EST)

:'''REPLY''' Part of Conservapedia's value is in debunking distortions and misperceptions. The claim that Benjamin Franklin was a deist is incorrect and worth debunking by clearing stating Franklin's beliefs in his own words. I'm going to see what Wikipedia says about this now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:17, 29 January 2007 (EST)

:'''Reply''' Benjamin Franklin ''Was'' a Deist. The evidence also shows that he changed his mind later in life. We cannot deny that he was a deist. what we can say that other sources will usually not say is that he gave it up later. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 09:22, 29 January 2007 (EST)

'''What is being debated here?''' Franklin was clearly '''not''' a christian. He clearly '''was''' a deist at one point, and he clearly gave up this deism. What is in question, the degree of his deism?

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:45, 29 January 2007 (EST)

I am not totaly convinced that Franklin ever did give up Deism. Just because he believed in providence. Looking at several different sources, some say that providence is against deism, while others say that deists can either believe or deny the existence of providence. all of Franklin's other beliefs were clearly deist. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:51, 29 January 2007 (EST)

"Mr. President [George Washington] ... I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men."

This quote seems to indicate that Franklin believed that God involves himself in affairs on the earth -- a belief that ''does'' seem to go against deism.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:06, 29 January 2007 (EST)

: Ben, under your reasoning, St. Paul was not a Christian. Should we say that? Of course not. Benjamin Franklin considered, accepted and THEN REJECTED deism.
: Thanks, by the way, to Dpbsmith for his further information below on this interesting issue. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:49, 29 January 2007 (EST)

:Since deism isn't an organized denomination, there isn't any really definitive statement of what deism is or is not. But, just for laughs, suppose we construct a scale with "Christian" at 10 and "deist" at 0. Put the dictionary definition I quoted at 0. Put Thomas Paine (who rejected revelation and the divinity of Jesus) at 0. Put the Nicene Creed at 10. Where would Franklin fall? I'd personally say about a 2... and I'd put modern-day Unitarian Universalists at about the same place. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:30, 29 January 2007 (EST)

:The Columbia Encyclopedia says, by the way:
::d´sts) (KEY) , term commonly applied to those thinkers in the 17th and 18th cent. who held that the course of nature sufficiently demonstrates the existence of God. For them formal religion was superfluous, and they scorned as spurious claims of supernatural revelation. Their tenets stemmed from the rationalism of the period, and though the term is not now generally used, the tenor of their belief persists. The term freethinkers is almost synonymous. Voltaire and J. J. Rousseau were deists, as were Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington.[http://www.bartleby.com/65/de/deists.html]
:This is a broader definition of "deist" than the dictionary definition I cited. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:33, 29 January 2007 (EST)

:Encyclopaedia Britannica has some interesting things to say [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109477/Deism here]. Apparently you can read the whole article, but you need to page through it... In particular:
::At times in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the word Deism was used theologically in contradistinction to theism, the belief in an immanent God who actively intervenes in the affairs of men. In this sense Deism was represented as the view of those who reduced the role of God to a mere act of creation in accordance with rational laws discoverable by man and held that, after the original act, God virtually withdrew and refrained from interfering in the processes of nature and the ways of man. So stark an interpretation of the relations of God and man, however, was accepted by very few Deists during the flowering of the doctrine, though their religious antagonists often attempted to force them into this difficult position....
:It identifies deism closely with "Edward Herbert (later 1st Baron Herbert of Cherbury) in the first half of the 17th century" and says that
::By the end of the 18th century, Deism had become a dominant religious attitude among intellectual and upper class Americans. Benjamin Franklin, the great sage of the Colonies and then of the new republic, summarized in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale College, a personal creed that almost literally reproduced Herbert's five fundamental beliefs. The first three presidents of the United States also held Deistic convictions, as is amply evidenced in their correspondence. “The ten commandments and the sermon on the mount contain my religion,” John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1816. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:41, 29 January 2007 (EST)

:The ''1911'' Encyclopaedia Britannica has a long article which I've no time to digest now, available online at http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Deism . This is an interesting source because the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, while not exactly Christian, had a typical mainstream Victorian point of view, i.e. Church of England. It doesn't say anything specific about any Founding Fathers. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:46, 29 January 2007 (EST)

The founder of Deism was [[Lord Herbert of Cherbury]]. <ref>http://www.theologicalstudies.org/what_is_deism.html</ref> He came up with 5 esentials of Deism which are "(1) a belief in the existence of the Deity, (2) the obligation to reverence such a power, (3) the identification of worship with practical morality, (4) the obligation to repent of sin and to abandon it, and, (5) divine recompense in this world and the next"<ref>http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/deismeng.htm</ref> Recompence means: To award compensation for; make a return for. <ref>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/recompense</ref> "Recompense in this world" would then imply that God does display some amount of control over the earth. Franklin's belief in Providence, therefore is not contradictory with the beliefs of deism, and along with his other beliefs almost exactly matches Cherbury's 5 statements. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:10, 29 January 2007 (EST)

*Looking for common ground... anyone seriously disagree with any of the following statements?
**Benjamin Franklin did not subscribe to the Nicene Creed.
**Benjamin Franklin was not a member of any Christian denomination or any "organized religion."
**Benjamin Franklin believed in a judgement and an afterlife, and a God that "governs by Providence."
**Benjamin Franklin praised "Jesus of Nazareth" and "the Christian religion."
**Benjamin Franklin at one time held beliefs that he described as "deist."
**Benjamin Franklin was not an atheist.
**Benjamin Franklin was not an agnostic.
::: [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:43, 29 January 2007 (EST)

I agree, and would add the following
**Benjamin Franklin was not a Christian.
**Benjamin Franklin Held beliefs consistant with or very close to deism for most of his life.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:49, 29 January 2007 (EST)

==Too Much mention of religion==
This page should not read like a debate on Franklin's religion. I would propose significantly cutting down the section on his religion, and expanding the section on the rest of his life. Any objections? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:37, 4 March 2007 (EST)
:We're this not the Conservapedia I would be inclined to agree with you. However, in this place, the only information of consequence is clearly how Ben Franklin, a man who describes himself as a Deist who has doubts as to Christ's divinity, is a Christian. If we cant decide what his religion is and correlate it to every facet of his life, then whats the point of talking about him at all? </smarm>
:Seriously people, it would kill you to tone down the Religious commentary just a bit? Or if not, can I ask you to re-read his "passionate plea?" Reads to me more like he's just acknowledging the power of belief among the masses and how he believes that prayer isn't a bad thing, which doesn't contradict Deism at all.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The dispute over Franklin's religious position is crucial to the matter of "debunking the founding". Let's not discourage development of this aspect of the article. If it needs to be a spin-off, we can create [[Religion of Ben Franklin]] (or something).

::Remember, there are home-schooled kids here. They would like to contribute, if we let them. Let's not make this project hostile to Christian or Conservative ideas. Water the plants, give them sunshine, and watch them grow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:27, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::If growth requires that we let them claim Ben Franklin wasn't a Deist when he himself says that he was, is that something that really ought to be encouraged? If it means endorsing the selective quoting of passages where he acknowledges the social value of religions and moral systems, Christianity in particular, to endorse the idea that he was a practicing Christian himself, that should just be allowed without comment? Growth means we allow the distorted suggestion that Franklin worshipped Jesus when not only did he doubt Christ's divinity, but also believed that Christ Himself was a Deist? We should encourage this?

That's not what I meant. We should allow contributors to cite arguments for and against any view of Benjamin's Franklin's religious outlook.

A typical argument of biased liberals is to claim that no one disagrees with them. If that doesn't hold water, they say no one worth listening disagrees, etc.

A balanced treatment would simply note all expressed viewpoints and let the reader decide which are more credible. For example, suppose all you knew about global warming was 4 statements: two by politicians, one by a scientists speaking for himself, and one by an international panel convened by the United Nations:
#Former VP: warming is caused by humans and we must stop it
#Senator: that's a hoax, and we should ignore it
#Scientist: [[Anthropogenic global warming]] is not a matter of scientific consensus, and proponents of immediate action exaggerate the risks of further warming
#IPCC: warming is caused by humans and we must stop it

On this basis alone, how would you choose?

: "The Earth is flat." "No it isn't, it's round." "Is." "Isn't." "Is." "Isn't." "Is." "Isn't." "Is." "Isn't." "IS!!!!!" "Well, I'm convinced!" --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 17:52, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

== Relevance of Deism ==

Although the topic of Benjamin Franklin's religious views is certainly worthy of merit in an article about him, it should not dominate the article. This article reads like a debate about Franklin's religion that assumes the reader to have prior knowledge about Franklin. An encyclopedia article about a topic should first lay out as many relevant, unbiased facts as possible, before delving into controversial topics. The introductory paragraph of Wikipedia's entry has more factual information about Franklin than this entire article, which uses most of its length to "prove" that Franklin was not a deist using a couple quotes. For God's sake, this article doesn't even mention the date (beyond year) or place of Franklin's birth! If you want people to use Conservapedia over Wikipedia, it has to become a source of actual information instead of a site for people to post the conservative side of a debate about some topic relating to the article. -[[User:Gogyra|Gogyra]]

:A rather sensible idea. This should be on a policy page somewhere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:02, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Above, there's a comment, "We should allow contributors to cite arguments..." I wanted to point that comment out because I agree with it. What I think is being missed here, is that this article is not citing an argument, but engaging in one. There's a fundamental question here: should Conservapedia be a home to essays which attempt to argue points in order to draw their own conclusions? One other thing. This article is about one of the most important framers of the fundamental ideas that shaped the founding of the United States. It mentions the word "deist" or "deism" 12 times. I think that's a massive over-emphasis on his religion. I'm not saying we should remove those details, but consolidating and summarizing might make sense. It would certainly make the need for further detail on the rest of his life more apparent. -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 12:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Agree completely. I'm much more interested in his contributions to the [[Framing]]. I'd also like to hear more about his moral life (work on your virtues every day); his work on the post office, library, [[Franklin stove]], etc.; his diplomatic initiatives abroad. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:09, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::Partly my fault. At one point, Andrew Schlafly was working some point--which he put on the main page--can't find it, main page being template based. I'll possibly caricature it as "liberals say the Founding Fathers were deists, but in fact none of them were" or something like that. I don't remember all the back-and-forth, but: Franklin was a deist; no, he wasn't because he promoted public prayer; yes, he was, because he said so in his autobiography; no, he wasn't, because all he said was that he had ''been'' a deist briefly in his flaming youth, and he retracted it later; yes, he was, because of what he said in his letter to Stiles (see article); no, he wasn't because those beliefs don't match the definition of deism (a God who created the world but took no further role); yes, he was, because there's more than one definition of "deism" and he credo actually matches pretty well with Lord Herbert's, etc.

::So the result was to inflate the part of the article dealing with his religious beliefs.

::I like the current paragraph--yours, I think--beginning with "He was called a Deist because..." If people can stick to that, the rest can be trimmed. Although I do think his "creed" is highly relevant, because it's in its own words and it speaks for itself.

::I think this is going to be an issue with all of the articles about the Founding Fathers. Last time I looked at [[George Washington]] it made what I suspect is an overly strong a case for his being a "Christian." Haven't researched it, so I could be wrong, and don't care much about it, but I thought Washington was sort of a "social churchgoer" who didn't say much about religion in his public role. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::It sounds, my historically-minded friend, like the dispute is over the '''degree''' of religiosity amoung the founders; and over the extent to which the Founding was a Christian phenomenon or a secular one.
:::*Was the [[first amendment]] intented to help religious people practice their religion? Or primarily to '''restrict''' religious practice and exalt secularism? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== "He was not really a deist as liberals claim." ==

This is an outright lie. You can argue that his beliefs throughout his life encompassed more than the Deism he professed to, and that he saw the value of religion in society (as well as the forceful presence it had) but to say he never was one is a lie. Whoever put that on the front page is, to borrow a phrase, bearing false witness, and I'm fairly sure that whoever it is would also claim to believe that such is something he/she ought not to do, by dint of being punished for it severely. I would ask that this be corrected, but that would mean I risk being banned for pointing out that the CPedia, once again, conflicts with established facts.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:Updated I see, and Thank you Ed, though I can't help but wonder how long it will take to be reversioned to the form more suited to the narrative this entire site wishes to tell. --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 10:52, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::Why so gloomy? With the exception of ToE, I have been able to get any idea into any article I choose. Work with me, okay? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:58, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well Ed, if you'll check the article right now, you'll see "why so gloomy." ASchlafly has decided only today that the objective, impartial statement of fact that was up there for the better part of three weeks was "liberally biased." Which is actually funny, because it would mean that your statement was coming from said "liberal bias" and I think both of know that isn't the case. AS won't allow anything in an artcle that does not conform to the narrative he wishes to convey. Please realize that. This isnt a community-based encyclopedia, its not an exchange of ideas to better understand and explore them, and above all else, its not a place where the king tolerates dissent. This is Aschlafly's soapbox to say whatever he wants the truth to be. If he wants Ben Franklin to be a devout christian, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary (such as saying he had doubts as to the divinity of Jesus) then gol-derning con-sarning dag-blammit, Ben Franklin is going to be a devout christian whether he was or not.
:--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 10:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I made a few changes to the quote, since it was not exactly as the source the author cited--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 13:56, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:Good on you for providing explanatory context for the "Creed" section. I'm guessing you can look forward to Aschlafly reversioning it and threatening to ban you within the hour.--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 15:37, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, I hope that does not happen. But as a scholar of Franklin, he does fall more toward deism than anything else. A proper parsing of the quote should show that.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 15:42, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I hope I get to edit this piece in the future. That "Ben and Me" thing has got to go.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 15:44, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:I object. What's your reason for removing it? And why did you remove a section of the article without providing an edit comment? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:14, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I'll work some more on this tommorrow--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 17:07, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Was there a good reason why you eliminated those sourced facts, SharonS? ==

Only that it seems to me you removed the objective facts that would dispute the site's preferred (false) narrative that says that Franklin, who professed to deism, was not a deist at all, ever. Do your actions have any basis in fact, or are you merely trying to manipulate history to suit you? Not that the latter would bar you from participation her of course, hey it would probably get you promoted to sysop if you weren one already.--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 13:44, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not interested in B. Franklin or his supposed deism, but [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] changed in many places the text of the letter that [[User:1048247|1048247]] posted. Which one is the correct text, or are there more versions of the same letter? [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:58, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:Huh? What did she do other than bring capitalization into conformance with modern usage? That's not my preference but it is a perfectly justifiable thing to do. Was the meaning altered?

:Even if you prefer the archaism, it's a little dishonest to throw around terms like "changed the text" without explaining what changes she made. Many would consider them harmless.

:Lewis Carroll was very insistent on spelling the words ''won't,'' ''can't'', and ''shan't'' as ''wo'n't,'' ''ca'n't,'' and ''sha'n't'' and the original editions and some modern ones honor his preference, but many modern editions just change them to the customary form without comment. Very few people think there's anything terrible about that.

:If all Sharon did was change capitalization it's not very honest to use phrases like "changed the text" and "which is the correct text," as if she had made a substantive change that altered the meaning.

:[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:05, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well, she not only capitalized, but changed at least three words. No big deal, but why change them? Benjamin Franklin's english is perfectly intelligible. So better to cite the original. And I was curious if they are arbitrary changes or if there exist two versions of the same letter, maybe a contemporary and a modern adaptation. As I said, I'm not interested in Franklin or his deism. And please don't call me dishonest. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 15:03, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::My apologies. In the context—posted under [[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]]'s remarks—I misinterpreted your point. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:09, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:::No problem. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 15:47, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I changed a few of the words in Franklin's letter to Ezra Stiles to make it conform to the cited text. There were a few minor diffrences. If one cites a source, you should try to be precise as possible, using "..." for omitted text and [] for changed or altered text. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 14:15, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think you're right, and I do this myself. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:11, 9 May 2007 (EDT) P. S. How do you handle the case of text that uses that funny script s with a half-crossbar that makes it look like an ''f'' to modern eyes? It's actually a different letter from a lower-case s, isn't it? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:12, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, I write it as an "s," becuase that has become the convention. I read a lot of material from that period and now I just sort of automatically make the adjustment. Usaully I can i.d. it from contect. BTW, I addressed the "Ben and Me" question below. Let me know what you think.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 15:53, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==It all depends how you define deism.==
There is an oversimplified narrative... let's call it a fable... that says "Columbus thought the world was round when everyone else thought it was flat."

Similarly, there is an oversimplified liberal fable that says "The Founding Fathers were deists."

One reason why this is inaccurate when someone says it today is that it will be understood to mean deism as it is defined e.g. in dictionaries today: "The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation."

Franklin doesn't fit that definition, as shown by his creed. He clearly favored public prayer, of the sort of generic variety that would now be called "nondenominational." He clearly praised Christianity, but not so much because he thought it was true, as because he thought that it led to virtuous behavior.

On the other hand, in Franklin's time, he might have been "a deist" because his views are in good harmony with the views of Lord Herbert of Cherbury, who originated the concept.

A succinct way to clarify the article is to qualify the word "deism" to say "deism as defined today." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I think we can say Franklin was a deist because he identified himself as one. He respected Christianity, but did not embrace it, as shown in his "creed," written a month before his death.

I think we can say Franklin was a deist because he identified himself as one. He respected Christianity, but did not embrace it, as shown in his "creed," written a month before his death.

:First, I believe he identified himself as ''having been'' a deist for a short period in his youth. Have you got a source for him self-identifying as a deist later in life?

:Second, his self-identification isn't relevant if the word meant something different to him than it does today. It would be very misleading to say "Professor Ormsby Macnight Mitchell was a computer," even though there's a source that says "for some time he worked as a computer at one of the Royal Observatory desks."[http://books.google.com/books?id=1AsAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA133&dq=%22worked+as+a+computer%22&as_brr=1]. Today the word computer means a machine that performs calculations, not a human being that performs them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:07, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

His self-identification is important. Franklin notes that he read anti-deism works in his youth, so he formulated some sort of idea as to what it was. Second, a careful reading of his creed reveals his deist leanings. He thinks that there is a god, but he does not identify who or what this god may be. Franklin, as I indicate does approve of Christianty, but does not seem to be one, refrenceing the second part of his creed and his converstions with George Whitefield.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 15:42, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:And, I repeat... this is not a rhetorical question, I did some superficial due diligence some weeks ago but have no expertise in Franklin... where did he call himself "a deist" in mature adult life? As with Christianity, my (superficial) impression is that he approves of many things in deism, but it's not clear to me that he was a deist as the term was used then.

:And you haven't addressed the terminology question. Is it fair to call him a deist, or even to say "he called himself a 'deist'" without qualification, if he wasn't a deist as the term is used today? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:13, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::Let's add this to our [[debate topics]]: [[Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:09, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

=="Ben and Me"==
This portion of the article is about a children's book. Perhaps it could be included as a link to an article regrading children's literature about the founders? It does not belong here. This is supposed to be an academic article. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 15:45, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:Ah. I think I see the problem. Why do you say it is "supposed to be an academic article?" I'm not sure that Conservapedia's mission has ever been well articulated, but part of it is to serve as a resource for homeschooled students. Think "World Book," not "Encyclopædia Britannica." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:07, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm...Do you think it should stay? I could see the cartoon itself as a way of introducing small children to Franklin, but I don't think most encyclopedias, even those for children, would include such a piece.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 16:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:Let's see what others think. I'm not disinterested: I added it. It did it mostly because of a complaint that the article seemed to be mostly about Franklin's religious views, and it seemed to me to be a) relevant content, that b) certainly had nothing to do with his religious views.

:The cartoon is awful, by the way, but the book is great. The book is ''not'' for small children; in fact it's one of those books that appeals to adults just as much as kids. It sounds as if you haven't read it... I certainly wouldn't object to making it a separate article with a "See also" from this one (mentioning that it is fictional). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:46, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: I think it should be kept. "Ben and Me" is often a student's first introduction to Franklin. If it is not kept in this particular article, it should at least have it's own article with a link here - it is a nicely-written piece. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 13:59, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== The occult ==

Some of the information on the occult was rather confused. Franklin is not known to have been a member of the Hellfire Club, though he did investigate and report on it at one point. He ''was'' associated with its founder, and thus we may suppose that he might have become a member, but stating that he ''was'' a member is not supported by the evidence. I've expanded that statement substantially, and indicated these points.

As for the bodies in his house, it's important to understand that the crime that he's suspected of is grave-robbing, which anyone involved in anatomical research in London at the time was guilty of (dissection of human cadavers was illegal). There was never an implication that I'm aware of that these bodies were involved in anything even hinting at the occult. I've also expanded on, and provided citations for that section, though if someone can find better citations with more detail about the investigation, that would be great. -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 17:22, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Benjamin Franklin

2007-06-04T21:17:18Z

Harmil: /* Occult Activities */ Changed section name and expanded information on both the Hellfire Club and the dissected cadavers found in 1998

[[Image:Benjamin.jpg|thumb|right]]
'''Benjamin Franklin''' (January 17, 1706 – April 17, 1790), printer, scientist, inventor, philosopher, and diplomat, was born in [[Boston]], [[Massachusetts]], to a tallow-maker.

Early in life, Franklin developed a love of reading. As he recalled in his autobiography, ''"From a child I was fond of reading, and all the little money that came into my hands was ever laid out in books. Pleased with the Pilgrim's Progress, my first collection was of John Bunyan's works in separate little volumes. My old favorite author, Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress ... has been translated into most of the languages of Europe, and suppose it has been more generally read than any other book, except perhaps the Bible."''

As a youth, Franklin was apprenticed to his older brother James, as a printer. Using several different pen names, Benjamin contributed many articles to Jame's newspaper. However, Benjamin felt his brother mistreated him and in 1723, he ran away to Philadelphia, then the largest city in British North America.

In Philadelphia, Franklin began publishing the ''Pennsylvania Gazette'', which was the longest lived and most successful of colonial newspapers. He published his ''Poor Richard's Almanack'' for twenty-five years; it was filled with witty sayings penned by Franklin and others. Franklin often borrowed material and rewrote it as he saw fit.

Franklin became one of Philadelphia's leading citizens, founding a sanitation department, a fire brigade, the American Philosophical Society, and the first circulating library in British North America.

In a draft autobiography written mostly in 1771, nearly 20 years prior to his death, Franklin described how he came to deism in his youth.<ref>A year after Benjamin Franklin's death, his unfinished draft autobiography, entitled "Memoires De La Vie Privee," was published in Paris in March of 1791. [http://www.earlyamerica.com/lives/franklin/] </ref> He recalled that his ''"parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."'' <ref>http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Fra2Aut.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, p.57</ref>

Franklin remained a deist until the end of his life. In a letter dated March 9, 1790, a little more than a month before his death, Franklin outlined his beliefs to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale:

:''"Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its conduct in in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

:''"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and His Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubt as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I need not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. I see no harm in its being believed, if that belief has the good Consequence, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers in his Government of the world with any peculiar Marks of his Displeasure."'' <ref>http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/franklin-stiles.html</ref>

This quote reflects Franklin’s leanings toward deism. In the first paragraph, Franklin professes a belief in a god, but does not name that deity. In the second paragraph, Franklin acknowledges that Jesus Christ existed, but he doubts he is the son of God. While he recognizes the value of Christ’s moral teachings, he thinks they may have been corrupted over time.

As Franklin grew older, he recognized that Christianity had positive effects on colonial society, yet he never became a Christian himself. Franklin befriended George Whitefield, the best known of the Great Awakening evangelicals. The two also had a business relationship, with Franklin printing nearly all of Whitefield’s North American sermons. After one of Whitefield's sermons, Franklin noted the ''"wonderful...change soon made in the manners of our inhabitants. From being thoughtless or indifferent about religion, it seem'd as if all the world were growing religious, so that one could not walk thro' the town in an evening without hearing psalms sung in different families of every street."''<ref>The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, p.104-108</ref><ref>At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Franklin proposed a prayer for divine intervention to aid the troubled proceedings.</ref>

By age 42, Franklin was wealthy enough to retire from news papering, and devoted most of his time to his scientific pursuits. Franklin invented bi-focal lenses, a heat efficient stove, and the swivel chair. His famous experiment with a kite won him membership in the prestigious Royal Society, but it also had a practical effect. It also led to Franklin’s invention of the lighting rod, and increased his fortune when he was contracted to outfit all the ships in the Royal Navy with lighting rods. By 1750, Franklin was easily the most famous of the King’s North American subjects.

While Franklin thought of himself as a loyal subject, he did question some of the Crown’s actions. In 1754, he proposed the Albany Plan of Union, which would have united the colonies (and the Iroquois League as well) under a Royal governor, and given the colonies the power to tax themselves. Many of the colonies did not send representatives to Albany, and nothing came of the plan.

Franklin put his prestige on the line to assist the expedition of British general Edward Braddock to capture Fort Duquesne (present day Pittsburgh) from the French. Pennsylvania’s Quaker dominated legislature refused to help provide supplies for the expedition, so Franklin made an appeal for colonists to provide provisions, horses, and wagons for Braddock’s army. In his autobiography, Franklin recalled questioning Braddock about the expedition’s chances of success. Braddock assured him he would easily capture the fort. After the disaster that Braddock met on the Monongahela, Franklin was less sanguine about accepting professional military opinion.

In 1757, Franklin went to London to represent Pennsylvania in its quarrel with William Penn’s heirs (Pennsylvania was the last of the propriety colonies). He remained abroad for eighteen years, not returning to American until 1775.

During Franklin’s tenure in England, he also represented several other colonies and became a regular observer, and unofficial representative of the colonies. In 1765, he assured British politicians that Americans would accept the Stamp Act, but news of colonial protest caused him to back away from that position. Afterwards, Franklin regularly opposed English attempts to tax the colonies.

Returning from England in 1775, Franklin surprised some by coming out in favor of independence. For Franklin, this stance carried a personal price. His son William, the Royal Governor of New Jersey, remained loyal to the Crown, and father and son never reconciled.

Until the end of the American Revolution, he was easily the most famous American in the world. He was one of the most prominent of the [[Founding Fathers]], early political figures and statesmen of the [[United States]].

He served as the Continental Congress [[ambassador]] to [[France]], where where he was instrumental in obtaining military and economic support for the struggle against England. In Paris, Franklin attracted attention by attending many of the salons and downplayed his status as Dr. Franklin. Instead, he sometimes cultivated the image of a rustic American, sometimes wearing a coonskin cap. Franklin's popularity helped in securing monetary and later military support from the Frence.

Franklin is one of the few non-presidents whose likeness appears on U.S. currency. Franklin graces the $100 bill while Alexander Hamilton appears on the $10 bill.

Franklin is responsible for the nomenclature of "positive" and "negative" charge. He believed he could tell the direction in which electricity traveled by observing sparks. Unfortunately he was wrong; the electrons, which are the particles carrying ordinary electricity, move in the opposite of the direction he thought they did. As a result, when electrons were discovered, according to Franklin's designation they had to be considered as having a negative charge — creating a minor headache for scientists and engineers.

However, Franklin realized the value of Christianity in public life, making the following motion for prayers to be said at the [[Constitutional Convention]]:<ref>http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/3rd_floor/god/2_convention.html</ref>

:''"Mr. President ([George Washington]) ... I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that 'Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.

:''"I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed, in this political building, no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and by-word down to future ages. And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

:''"I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service."''

Benjamin Franklin guided the establishment of the University of Pennsylvania, which was chartered as nonsectarian. According to the University, it was "a new type of learning institution, that unlike other American Colonial colleges, would not focus on education for the clergy, but would instead prepare students for lives of business and public service. The proposed program of study would become the nation's first modern liberal arts curriculum."[http://www.upenn.edu/about/heritage.php] In ''Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pensilvania [sic]'', (1749) he outlines an essentially secular curriculum. Religion is to be taught under the rubric of History; Franklin, however, makes a point of saying that
:"History ''will also afford frequent Opportunities of showing the Necessity of a ''Publick Religion,'' from its Usefulness to the Publick; the advantage of a Religious Character among private Persons; the Mischiefs of Superstition, &c. and the Excellency of the CHRISTIAN RELIGION above all others, antient and modern."''

Before the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin was a frequent visitor to [[England]]. He was a member of the [[Lunar Society]] based in [[Birmingham]], creators of the Industrial Revolution, and also the [[Hellfire Club]] of Sir Francis Dashwood.

Franklin believed strongly in the importance of political freedom to the American experiment. As such, he remarked, ''"those who would give up a little liberty, to gain a little security, deserve neither, and will lose both,"'' a stern warning applicable especially in today's world.

==In fiction and popular culture==
===''Ben and Me''===
Robert Lawson's 1939 book, ''Ben and Me: An Astonishing Life of Benjamin Franklin by His Good Mouse Amos,'' is a children's classic continuously in print since publication. It is written at level suitable for ages 10 and up, but is also enjoyed by adults. As the title indicates, the narrator is a mouse. Amos is not very respectful toward Franklin. He see Franklin as absent-minded, lacking in common sense, and barely able to take care of himself. According to Amos, it is Amos himself who inspired, and should be credited with most of Franklin's great inventions. Amos has nothing but scorn for Franklin's "Poor Richard" maxims:
:"'Early to bed, early to rise, makes a healthy, wealthy and wise!' ''Bah!'' When have you been ever been to bed early, or risen early, except when you've had insomnia? Yet you're healthy and wealthy."
:"Perhaps if I lived by the maxim I should also be—wise," he suggested, meekly.
:"That I doubt," I said. "it would require more than a maxim. A miracle, like."

In 1953, Walt Disney made a 20-minute animated short film from the book with Sterling Holloway as Amos, but it failed to capture the spirit of the story and did not even attempt to be faithful to the style of Lawson's illustrations.

In 2006, ''Ben and Me'' was selected for the annual "One Book, One Philadelphia" project, in honor of Franklin's 300th birthday.

== Occult and Illegal Activities ==

Benjamin Franklin was a [[Freemason]]. His investigation of the [[Hellfire Club]]<ref>[http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_02-06/031_leibniz_halle_rev.html Leibniz, Halle, and The American Revolution by Edward Spannaus]</ref> – a secret society that engaged in mockeries of religious ceremonies and debauchery<ref>[http://www.victorianweb.org/history/pms/hellfire.html The 'Hell Fire Club' Marjie Bloy Ph.D.</ref> – may or may not have lead to his becoming a member.<ref>[http://www.infowars.com/articles/occult/hellfire.htm Benjamin Franklin, the Occult and The Elite]</ref> Certainly, his ongoing association with its notorious founder, [[Sir Francis Dashwood]], has been established.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=vAkNAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=%22francis+dashwood%22+%22benjamin+franklin%22+*.org&source=web&ots=_DGAo2Lht3&sig=V6iHSWafbaISr32cdmUTZviz2qI Science and Society in Early America: Essays in Honor of Whitfield J. Bell, Jr. By Randolph SHIPLEY KLEIN]</ref>

In 1998, workmen restoring Franklin's London home dug up the remains of six children and four adults hidden below the home,<ref>[http://benfranklin.tribe.net/thread/510cda6f-3ee8-4ef1-86b4-9525f4ed28c4]</ref> the remains showed signs of dissection, and are believed to be related to medical research of the time, performed on illegally acquired cadavers.<ref>[http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0998/0998gaz5.html Bones in the Basement of Franklin's London Digs]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==Benjamin Franklin's Writings Online==
*[http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/ Yale edition of complete works of Benjamin Franklin]
*[http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/fellows/bob_morse_04/ The Electrical Writings of Benjamin Franklin] Collected by Robert A. Morse, 2004.
*[http://sln.fi.edu/franklin/family/lastwill.html Franklin's Last Will & Testament] Transcription.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Franklin, Benjamin}}
[[category:political people]]

Talk:Joseph Stalin

2007-05-02T16:25:05Z

Harmil: Odd conclusion

"forced women to work in factories just like men" - Is the intent of this to say that women should not be working in factories and/or holding jobs that men hold? I would think that idea is somewhat ''passe'' now. The fragment should be removed from the article.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:22, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: The statement is factual and I see no reason to delete. The reader can decide for himself whether forcing women to work in factories just like men is a good thing. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:24, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:: I would think that anyone would agree that coercing anyone to work isn't a good thing. But the "just like men" part is opinion, not fact. That is what should be removed.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)

==Stalin's death==
''Following a stroke on 1 March 1953, Stalin died ''

Stalin may have actually been assassinated by other members of the Politburo who feared another 1938 style-purge growing out of the Doctor's Plot. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:49, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Odd conclusion==
The article says,

:''Most of this, however, was pure propaganda ... Soviet growth was impressive. Between 1929 and 1937, 8,000 factories were constructed, average GDP growth was around 10%''

Which of those two statements is true? Was it "pure propaganda," or a successful campaign of industrial development? -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 12:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Benjamin Franklin

2007-03-29T16:05:45Z

Harmil: /* Too Much mention of religion */

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-14T18:29:11Z

Harmil: /* Liberal Wikipedians as compared to conservative Wikipedians */

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]

== Additional criticism just added concerning "Anglophilia" ==

Having read the Henry Liddell article, I fail to see the Anglophilia in this case. For example, noting the degree type isn't any different than noting what sort of degree the person got in the American system. Am I missing something here? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:12, 11 February 2007 (EST)

The term "double first degree" is meaningless to most Wikipedia readers. Only an Anglophile knows or care what that means. And did you see all the obscure titles of royality in that entry??? That entry is 95% Anglophile trivia and only 5% content.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:49, 11 February 2007 (EST)

: Ok, first of all, I agree that many readers(not sure "most", since the term is used in many English speaking countries such as India) would not know what "double first degree" is. That's why its wikilinked. So you can click on it to learn what it is. The assertion that "only an Anglophile" would "care" what the term means is hard for me to credit. Are you asserting that one must be an anglophile to care what degrees someone has? As to the last point, "obscure titles of royality" (I will presume you meant, "royalty" although I think you actually mean peerage or the more general British honours system) I'm not deeply familiar with the rules for how to describe people per the Wikipedia manual of style for titles, but my minimal knowledge makes most of the article seem to follow the basic rule although some of them do not. I am going to go through and remove the titles that should obviously not be present under the Wikipedia style guidelines. I fail to see how an article which is about a member of a prominent 19th century British family (and thus, has many relevant titles) demonstrates anglophila by mentioning those titles. Furthermore, given the fact that the Manual of Style says that some of those titles should not be present, it is hard to see how it demonstrates a bias on Wikipedia that an article would not correspond to the manual of style (if anything, that just goes more to the general inconsistency of Wikipedia). It isn't clear to me what you mean by "Anglophile trivia" and therefore cannot respond to it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:02, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: I looked at the "wikilinked" explanation for "double first degree." That link sent me to a massive explanation of the British educational system! I tried to find an explanation for "double first degree" but was unsuccessful. Apparently the term can have multiple meanings, none of which are particularly significant. So what if Henry Liddell was in the top ten percent of his college class??? Many entries about Englishmen on Wikipedia are stuffed with this silly information, as though we're all Anglophiles who worship this stuff. This junk obscures the real contributions of the subjects of the entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:21, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: I don't think it matters, Wikipedia has alot of stuff that most people don't care about. I think that your claim of "anglophilia" is hard to prove. I think that the problem is that Wikipidia is so big that it is getting impossible for anyone to keep it under control, so that people can add their own favorite facts, and there is so much of it that it cannot be stopped. it isn't bias just too much information. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 00:29, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::: It is bias towards a particular type of information. We don't have too much information about English socialism, racism, imperialism, religious persecution, etc. We don't have too much information about Irish complaints about England, or complaints by other people. We '''do''' have too much information about obscure English royal titles and nearly arbitrary college distinctions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:36, 12 February 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia doesn't have "anglophilia." What Wikipedia has a very significant proportion of British contributors. Who, incidentally, are constantly pointing out valid problems with "U.S.-centric" entries.

: '''REPLY''' The contributions by English editors is fine; the obsession of some of them with obscure British royalty and silly, unexplained college distinctions does reflect an Anglophile bias worth highlighting. Is there more editing on Wikipedia by English editors than American ones? Seems like it based on my observation of so many British spellings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:37, 12 February 2007 (EST)

en.wikipedia.org is the English-''language'' Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia.

(And I'd add that 99% of people looking up Henry Liddell are probably researching Lewis Carroll, whose fictional and nonfictional work is so liberally laced with Victorian British terms, assumptions, mindset, point-of-view, etc. that it's probably not a bad idea for anyone reading him, or reading about him to be open to picking up little bits of Victorian trivia....) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 12 February 2007 (EST)

: '''REPLY''': It's hard to see the Alice connection on Liddell's (biased) entry on Wikipedia, so many of the 99% of users could be disappointed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:37, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: Ok, once again, this was something that could be easily fixed. However, I don't see what the grammatical issue is. I would appreciate if you would point it out to me. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:58, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::: Isolated bias is easily fixed, but pervasive bias is not. The Wikipedia contributors care more about an obscure royal lineage than presenting facts (and good grammar) in a clear manner. Do you know what percentage of Wikipedia administrators are English, and what their perspective is?

::: The grammar error is easy to fix, but the bias is not. "Henry George Liddell (February 6, 1811 – January 18, 1898) was Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford [WHEN????], headmaster (1846–55) of Westminster School[1] author of A History of Rome (1857); and co-author (with Robert Scott) of the monumental work A Greek-English Lexicon ((1843; 8th ed., 1897; revised by H.S. Jones and others, 1940; abridged, 1957; intermediate, 1959 [ABSURD LIST OF DETAIL THERE)[2], which is still use ["USED", NOT "USE"] by students of Greek."

::: Please give credit to Conservapedia when correcting the series of errors in Wikipedia. Thank you! --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:03, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::: Instead of claiming these simple errors as bias, why don't you just fix them when you find them. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 20:04, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:::: It would take me all year, and then some, to "fix" the bias in Wikipedia. I'm simply giving examples here. Fixing an example does not fix the problem.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 12 February 2007 (EST)
:::: I am not saying to fix all of the bias, I am saying you should fix the simple grammatical errors, and things like the lack of a date when you come across them.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 21:05, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:::::In order to jump-start Wikipedia, many articles, particularly on older topics, were directly copied from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. Most of them are tagged "This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain." They're included in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_the_1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica this category]. For example, the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahab Ahab]. Most of these don't just "incorporate" text, they've just plain "copied" it. Compare [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Ahab Ahab] in the online 1911 Britannica, for example.

:::::I wonder how many of the "Anglophilic" articles you've noticed are, in fact, 1911 Britannica material?

:::::Henry Liddell is '''not''' one of these. However, the 1911 Britannica does contain the exact sentence "Gaining a double first in 1833, Liddell became a college tutor, and was ordained in 1838." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:29, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:::::: Yeah, this is a good point. There was a project at one point to clean up all these articles but it seems to have fallen by the wayside. One occasionally runs into very out of date things, like I recently ran into an article that referred to "mohammeedans" and one runs into similar problems. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:36, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:::::P. S. I can't resist pointing out... Aschlafly complains that "gossip and hundreds of thousands of entries about pop songs or celebrities are pervasive on Wikipedia." However, articles such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikachu Pikachu] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Timberlake Justin Timberlake] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_King The Lion King] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffyverse Buffyverse] are ''virtually free'' of Anglophilia or British spellings. So, either pop culture is pervasive on Wikipedia, or Anglophilia is pervasive on Wikipedia, but I don't see how both can be. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:41, 12 February 2007 (EST)

I lost this conversation the moment it started. I think we went a lil too far, dont you Mr.Schlafly? I guess it doesnt matter what i think anyway.:) [[Will N.]]

: '''REPLY:''' You make a good point, Will. It does matter what you think. However, note that we all learned something from this debate: Wikipedia has copied material verbatim from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. I didn't know that before this discussion. That explains some of the obscure and pecularly English descriptions in many entries. Also, it shows that Wikipedia is not completely original.

: By the way, Dpbsmith, with all due respect I do think that conflicting attributes can be pervasive at the same time. Oil and water are opposites in many ways, but both can be pervasive in the same solution. E.g., [[Exxon Valdez]] oil spill. You wouldn't say that either water or oil was pervasive there, but not both, would you? :-)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:06, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::Indeed. And in mayonnaise, too. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 13 February 2007 (EST)

I just went on Wikipedia and clicked on random article about 35-40 times, and did not find any examples of "anglophilia"--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:21, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: Um, I don't think Wikipedia ever claimed to be "completely original." Wikipedia incorporates a lot of material that is in the public domain (either by release or by expiration) as well as material under the GFDL and many of the creative commons liscences. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:26, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::: There's an important point here, though. A lot of our "answers" to Aschlafly take the form "but everyone ought to know thus-and-such" about Wikipedia. Aschlafly often seems to me to berate Wikipedia quite unfairly for not matching his expectations of what he ''assumes'' Wikipedia is or thinks Wikipedia ought to be.

::: The question is, what does the average reader or user, who does not contribute, has not read the policy pages, doesn't have pages on a watchlist and understand how editing works, doesn't fix casual vandalism, doesn't glance at the History, etc. etc. think Wikipedia is?

::: Is Wikipedia ''in effect'' misrepresenting itself? Is there a ''large'' discrepancy between what [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] and I and even a casual contributor know Wikipedia to be and what the average reader assumes it to be? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:58, 13 February 2007 (EST)

== "Debate" about reliability and disclosure ==

I don't know what is meant by [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&curid=2896&diff=13761&oldid=13689]. I don't think Wikipedia ever hid this and if you read almost anything put out by Wikipedia discussing its early history it mentions it. This seems to imply that people were trying to cover it up or something. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:23, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:Where is this disclosed by Wikipedia? I've followed and contributed occasionally to Wikipedia for a decade and was unaware of such copying. In the much-publicized debate between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica in late 2005, no one at Wikipedia acknowledged that it copied from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

:What's lawful (copying from expired copyrighted material) does not excuse lack of attribution or credit. Wikipedia should have a strict policy of requiring attribution. Does it? Apparently not. It should.

:This relates to several points about bias as Wikipedia often denies credit to Christianity also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: You appear to be conflating a variety of different issues. First, this is disclosed anywhere, including for example on almost every article that is primarily based on the 1911 (they say at the bottom that they use it), as well as discussed at a variety of other locations such [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:1911 here]. So all relevant attribution is given. As to your claim that "In the much-publicized debate between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica in late 2005, no one at Wikipedia acknowledged that it copied from the Encyclopedia Britannica" first there was no such debate as far as Wikipedia was concerned. Although Britannica spent a fair bit of time attacking the Nature study and has continued to spend time and effort attacking Wikipedia, James Wales has repeatedly stated that Wikipedia is not attempting to compare itself to Britannica nor supplant it. Given that there was no "debate" and that Wikipedia had used public domain work from a variety of early encyclopedias in a very small fraction of its articles which were marked as such, it is hard for me to see what else you wanted Wikipedia to do? You might have come claim about issues of intellectual honesty if Wikipeda were attempting to "debate" the relative merits, but again, Wikipedia was not attempting to do so and always stated that it was about using and sharing free encyclopedia content. (Incidentally, the 1911 edition also has nothing to do with the modern versions of Britannica since subsequent editions (I believe one of the ones from the mid 1960s) were complete or nearly complete rewrites, so any notion that Wikipedia was somehow copying from Encyclopedia Britannica as it stands now is inaccurate (irrelevant, but still inaccurate)). Now to your final comment, that this somehow "elates to several points about bias as Wikipedia often denies credit to Christianity" - I'm afraid I don't see the connection at all. One is a claimed bias that Wikipedia doesn't acknowledge the contributions of Christianity to Western culture and such, the other is a claim that that Wikipedia has not sufficiently acknowledged what sources it uses. What one has to do with the other is beyond me. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:42, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::*The articles copied from the 1911 Britannica are supposed to be attributed, and as far as I know most of them are. The Henry Liddell article was not copied from the 1911 Britannica, although I must say it ''looks'' to my eye as if it has been lifted piecemeal from more than one source and not attributed.
::*Checking Wikipedia for details (!), the 1974 Britannica 3 (Propaedia/Micropaedia/Macropaedia) was a complete rewrite. As recently as the 1960s there were still some articles entirely or partly based on the 1911 edition. The one that sticks in my mind was their article on Beethoven, which contained the lovely sentence "The immense changes he brought about in the range of music have their most obvious effect in the possibilities of emotional expression; and so any outbreak of vulgarity or sentimentality can with impunity claim descent from Beethoven, though its ancestry may be no higher than Meyerbeer."
::*Copying without attribution is a perpetual problem in an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit," and cutting and pasting particularly from websites occurs all the time. Like casual vandalism, I believe most (but not all!) of it is caught and removed pretty quickly. It is made as clear as possible to contributors that they're not supposed to do this. Copyright violations are watched for ''pretty'' carefully, and enforced ''quite'' vigorously. A "copyvio" is one of the few forms of material on Wikipedia on which an admin is supposed to shoot first and ask questions afterwords; i.e. delete as soon as noticed, and restore afterwards in those vary rare cases where the contributor proves there actually was permission to release the material under the GFDL. (A much more common case occurs when someone thinks that Wikipedia copied something from another website, but on examination it turns out that the other website copied from Wikipedia without attribution!) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 13 February 2007 (EST)
::*Which is not to say there are not problems with saying something is "policy" when there is no command-and-control chain of responsibility! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:18, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::: All your comments above are well-taken. I do see now that many thousands of pages on Wikipedia are copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica '''with''' attribution. That's a revelation to me.

::: That said, I still find an unsettling lack of attribution in Wikipedia's policy. Is there a policy that requires attribution to sources like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica? The Wikipedia supporters who claimed that Wikipedia is as good as the Encyclopedia Britannica in the Nature study debate (including those who did the study) should have acknowledged the copying. I'm not blaming Jimmy Wales, but Wikipedia is no more synonymous with Jimmy Wales at this point than the U.S. Constitution is synonymous with George Washington.

::: The sentence in Henry Liddell's entry was obviously copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Does that violate any Wikipedia policy? It should. I'm going to ensure that Conservapedia's policy requires this.

::: Note that B.C./A.D. v. [[CE]] debate is about proper attribution also, and Wikipedia policy fails there also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::: I'm not aware of any specific policy stating that public domain works should be acknowledged but in practice they generally are acknowledged. As to your claim that "The Wikipedia supporters who claimed that Wikipedia is as good as the Encyclopedia Britannica in the Nature study debate (including those who did the study) should have acknowledged the copying" - this is not in any way a fault of Wikipedia but a fault of the researchers in question if it is a fault at all. Furthermore, since the Nature study looked at a specific subset of Wikipedia articles none of which contained 1911 material, I don't see why discussing that matter would be at all relevant. As to the BC/AD v. CE/BCE matter, I still don't see the connection. One is an issue of where a system came from, the other is where Wikipedia sources came from. You seem to be confusing content and meta-content issues. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:38, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::I'm not sure anyone understands how Wikipedia functions. In a broad sort of way, Wikipedia policy ''and practice'' is strongly opposed to copyright violation. This is expressed by a conspicuous warning "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted," by the reality that sysops and experienced users really do watch for suspicious material, and really do take quick and effective action when it is spotted.

::::''On the other hand,'' this only applies to material that is under copyright. As an offshoot of the Open Source movement, Wikipedia tends to ''favor'' re-use (copying!) of material that is not under copyright, and, conversely, welcomes the re-use of Wikipedia material by others. That's what the GFDL is all about.

::::Is everyone here aware that it would be ''perfectly OK'' as far as Wikipedia is concerned to copy a Wikipedia article into Conservapedia... either exactly as is, or edited so as to season it to conservative Christian taste... as long as you follow [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content these rules.] (Which include giving notice that others may re-use the content copied from Wikipedia). (I'm ''not'' suggesting Conservapedia do this).

::::With regard to attribution, this is covered by Wikipedia's policy on citing sources.

::::'''But...''' what does it mean for something to be "policy" on Wikipedia? This is one of these words that probably means something different to Wikipedians than to the world at large.

::::Wikipedia has enormous numbers of contributors. Contributions are ''not'' vetted or preapproved. It's all "ready, fire, aim." Wikipedia tries to ''influence'' contributors, but it relies on the good intentions of the majority of contributors. And there are nowhere near enough administrators to "enforce" policy. Even if the people with admin privileges all agreed on how to interpret policy, which they definitely do not.

::::And, don't forget--policy pages are just like any other Wikipedia page, and you or anyone else can go in and edit them at any time! Furthermore, it is acknowledged that policy pages are more of an attempt to report or articulate what experienced Wikipedians actually do than to control what they, or anybody else, does.

::::Now, anyone who's ever been in a large organization knows that the written policy often bears only a loose relationship to what actually happens. It may be that Wikipedia is not all ''that'' different from the other large organizations, but the paradoxes and complexities of large-scale human interaction are explicitly on display.

::::Aschlafly, I trust that '''didn't''' answer your question! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:37, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::: Thanks, Dpbsmith, for your informative posting. Given all that you said, I guess it comes down to this: the personal views and preferences of the Wikipedia admins. There is no attempt by Wikipedia for balance in ideology or outlook by these admins. As a result, it is inevitable that certain philosophies will gain control and the place becomes dominated by certain views. This happens in any group environment, or any organization, if there is no attempt to stop it (e.g., U.S. Constitution). Is there a way to poll the views of Wikipedia admins? As I've said before, it's pretty clear what their views are simply by watching what they post and delete. But perhaps a poll would end any pretense that the Wikipedia admins are balanced as a group.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::::: That's interesting because that doesn't sound at all like what Dpb said above. Now to be clear, if an admin pushes a certain viewpoint or acts in a matter biased towards one group other admins will step in. Since not everyone cares about the same issues, one will always have some completely uninvolved admins and other editors able to help out with neutrality issues. If admins act in a particularly POV way then they will get desysopped or put on some sort of probation. This has happened to admins in the past over a variety of issues. And again, the admins aren't in charge of content, that's a general editorial thing. All admins do is block problematic users, delete when there is a consensus to delete and protect when there is a strong need to protect. None of these concern direct content issues and admins are specifically disallowed from using their admin tools in content disputes. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:24, 13 February 2007 (EST)

==Wikipedia on AAPS==
I'm not sure how much water I want to carry for Conservapedia, and I certainly don't want to be Conservapedia's pet Wikipedia-fixer, so I've left a note on Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons#Neutrality_issues.3F discussion page for the AAPS article] but have not edited the article itself. It might be appropriate to place a <nowiki>{{npov}}</nowiki> tag on the article itself, but I don't want to go that far yet, at least not until I see whether there's any response on the Talk page. (I expect to be chided for not fixing the article myself...)

It looks to me like the article is on balance negative toward AAPS, but that most of the comments and criticism are properly sourced.

The usual best approach to adjusting balance problems in Wikipedia articles is not to remove material on the overrepresented side if it's well-sourced, but to add well-sourced material on the opposing side, e.g. the fact that AAPS is (according to the New York Times) drawn from AMA membership and that (at least one) AAPS member has been the president of the AMA... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:21, 13 February 2007 (EST)

: Your edit to the Example of bias here is an improvement. However, I think your comment that the Wikipedia article is merely "on balance negative towards AAPS" is quite a bit understated. (Disclosure: I do work for AAPS.)

: The bulk of the entry about AAPS itself (not including its journal) is a rant by a British television journalist. Why isn't that high degree of bias prohibited, and why shouldn't the contributor be warned about a violation of a policy? --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:: High degrees of bias are prohibited by the neutrality policy. However, the policy is not exercised instantaneously or with much precision. That paragraph strikes me as the Wikipedian equivalent of driving 80 mph on a interstate highway posted 65. It's against the law but it would be naive to expect to see flashing blue and red lights behind you the instant the needle crosses 65. Thousands of drivers can ''habitually'' rive 80 for ''long'' periods of time without seeing them.

:: P. S. I see the article as slightly biased, you see it as very biased... no surprises there. Disclosure: I have nothing whatsoever to do with the AAPS! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:43, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:: P. P. S. [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], in response to the note I left on the Talk page, one editor who's been active on this page recently cut the Brian Deer material down to about half its previous size and moved it into the section on "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons." I don't expect you to be satisfied, but I think you'll agree that it's better than it was. (See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the article]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:14, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::: I'm at least not happy with it still. DPB, where did the NYT mention that a member had been a past president of the AMA? That would seem to be a pretty relevant detail. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:18, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::: The shift is a slight improvement. But why are Brian Deer's intemperate comments even on AAPS's entry? How long do you think a similar rant against Brian Deer, if posted on his entry, would survive Wikipedia admin review? There is no justification for posting Brian Deer's rant on AAPS's entry. Note, by the way, that Brian Deer went off the deep end in response to criticism in England by someone other than AAPS of Brian Deer's own work, but that was not included.

:::: Also note that the date "2005" for Time's description about AAPS is wrong, and off by nearly 40 years. The Time remark is from 1967, when Time might have described Ronald Reagan the same way. Oh what a difference 40 years makes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::: I've corrected the date to 1967. As discussed on the talk page for that article, Deer is an award winning journalist specializing in medical issues. Therefore, it is reasonable to include his opinion. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:48, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::::: Citing something that is 40 years old to describe an active organization is silly at best, and obviously biased in this case. Time is editorializing rather than presenting something factual, and it's 40 years out of date. This is rank prejudice.

:::::: Allowing Deer's baseless opinion is even sillier and more biased. He has no personal knowledge of AAPS and cites no basis for his polemic, which was prompted by someone else's (not AAPS's) criticism of Deer's own work. Deer, an English journalist, has no expertise for commenting on an American organization anyway. Allowing Deer's diatribe to remain violates the NPOV that Wikipedia apparently only applies to censor conservative comments, not liberal ones.

:::::: As long as Deer's rant remains, this beautifully illustrates Wikipedia's bias. I'm moving this illustration up higher in the list here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:51, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::::: I'm going to disagree in part and agree in part. I agree that there may be a problem having a 40 year old comment in (although whether the piece is an editorial doesn't alter much whether or not it is relevant). The Deer assertion however seems to lack a strong basis- it isn't clear to me why an English journalist cannot comment on an American organization (it isn't like this is the 1700s and someone in Britain has almost no access to details about what is happening to organizations in the US) and regardless of what prompted the matter Deer is a qualified journalist in the relevant field. Citing a qualified journalist in the relevant field who gives his opinion does not seem biased to me. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:05, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::: OK, you've made yourself clear and I've updated the content page accordingly. I feel this ranks #3 in illustrating bias on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 13 February 2007 (EST)

== Bell Trade act ==

First note that the article has a neutrality disputed tag on top, so neutrality problems are a) not surprising b) don't reflect that poorly on Wikipedia as a whole. Also note that the quote about father capitalism was "wrath of Father Capitalism and Mother Nature" which is hard to see as actually anti-capitalist. It appears to be more of an attempt by a poor writer trying to use flowerly language to say that their were both economic and environmental problems. Also note that that phrase was in any event removed a while ago. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:10, 13 February 2007 (EST)

== Robert McHenry ==
...is quoted in point 23 as saying:
:One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined.

Well, yes. And that is why, at least since 2003 and I believe '''well''' before that, WIkipedia has had a policy page, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT What Wikipedia is not], saying:
:Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding.
So McHenry's remark is beside the point, and doesn't illustrate much except that McHenry doesn't [[grok]] Wikipedia in fullness. Was this the same essay in which he likened Wikipedia to a public toilet?

[http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html No, it was a different one]:
:The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him.
I like that remark better. At least it's funny. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:53, 18 February 2007 (EST)

::That is a funny remark. But Wikipedia does claim to be an "encyclopedia", and it does operate with any guiding principles that check and minimize the problems with democracy (e.g., U.S. Constitution). Page deletions (such as conservapedia) are done without any explanation other than (perhaps) majority vote. McHenry's observation fits Wikipedia to the tee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 18 February 2007 (EST)

The deletion of the page on conservapedia was not unexplained; the article was clearly against wikipedia's notability standards. You can complain that they selectivly enforce these standards (they do) but you cannot say that there were no legitimate grounds to delete the article. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 18:24, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:'''REPLY:''' Not true. The admin who deleted the conservapedia entry on Wikipedia did NOT explain his action. Some said it was because most (not all) of the comments favored deletion. But then defenders of Wikipedia claim it is not majority-rule. So which is it? Majority rule or reasoned basis for actions? For it to be a reasoned basis for action, the reason must be given by the person taking the action.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

== "Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors?" ==

Rising to the bait as usual... reaching for the rope for which to hang myself... since Aschlafly keeps asking, I'm going to guess at an answer.

Wikipedia doesn't survey these editors because I don't know, and I doubt anyone else does, ''how'' you would survey these editors. Aschlafly seems to labor under the impression that Wikipedia is like most traditional organizations, with reasonably well-structured organization charts and chains of command and so forth. It isn't.

Aschlafly or Jimbo or anyone else could ''ask'' editors to respond to a survey. There _is_ a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits List of Wikipedians by number of edits] that would enable anyone to identify the high-volume editors. One could go down that list and leave notes on all of their Talk pages asking them to fill in a survey. But what then? There's no way to compel them to answer. There's certainly no way to compel them to answer truthfully. Not as thing stand. (I can only imagine what would happen if Jimbo decreed that anyone not answering the survey would be blocked).

And Wikipedians tend to be rather antiauthoritarian and resistant to such requests. I don't know what the usual response rate is to online survey requests but I'll bet it would be about 0.2%. Make that 1% if it were clearly a personal, sincere request from Jimbo himself.

I'm afraid that the composition of WIkipedia's active editors must be guesswork based on observation of actual behavior.

One of the few factoids I am aware of is [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_age List of WIkimedians by age]. A tiny voluntary sampling. Is it representative? Who knows? But it looks like a young crowd to me.

There ''is'' a category [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with 202 members and a category [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians] with 68 members. Make of it what you will. (And I'm sure you will!) (And that includes Will N!) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:06, 18 February 2007 (EST)

P. S. What do we know about the political composition of Encyclopaedia Britannica editors? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 18 February 2007 (EST)

== Mathematics ==

I do not understand point 16 in the list, about mathematics (I am a mathematician). I am all in favor of having an unbiased encyclopedia, but what does this entry have to do with being anti-American or anti-Christian? Wikipedia does not have an entry on elementary proofs, but it does have an entry on "Proof". It is not a mathematical textbook, so you cannot expect all proofs to be completely written out, I think.

:If no one objects, I will remove this point. --[[User:Twoflower|Twoflower]] 02:57, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:::'''REPLY:''' Unfortunately, "reverts" do not seem to have a comment section for explanations. I'm sorry for not seeing your comments here until last night, when I attempted to respond immediately. (By the way, I also have something of a mathematical background)

::: The concept of "elementary proof" was important for most of the 20th century. A Fields medal was given for an elementary proof; Paul Erdos swore by this approach; Math World recognizes it; and mathematicians who emphasize rigor appreciate the concept also. Why pretend it doesn't exist? It certainly does. Complex analysis has some inherent assumptions, and the concept of "elementary proof" recognizes as much. Why pretend otherwise?

::: Wikipedia (unlike Math World) refuses to recognize the concept of "elementary proof," and Wikipedia even omits any reference to the concept in its long-winded treatment of "proof" that you cite above. This reflects bias. Math may be less vulnerable to bias than other fields, but no field is completely immune from bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I agree that elementary proof is a very important concept. However, I think that this does not so much show bias as just the fact that Wikipedia is incomplete: probably nobody thought about adding an entry for this concept. BTW, I just noticed that Wikipedia does have an entry for Elementary proof now (since February 5), it was no doubt created as a result of this list. I updated the list accordingly.

I would be interested to see your reply to my other point, about Wikipedia not being a textbook. Do you intend to have only formal and rigorous proofs in Conservapedia?

::'''REPLY:''' The new entry in Wikipedia topic looks good, and must have been in response to the criticism here. Thanks for updating the entry here to reflect that.

:: That said, this was no oversight. Some mathematicians do falsely pretend there is no such thing as an "elementary proof," and some liberal blogs have ridiculed me for claiming otherwise. Rigor is vulnerable to bias, and this is an issue concerning rigor.

:: I wouldn't require only elementary proofs, but it essential to be aware of the concept and departures from elementary proofs. Denial of this important concept is worth criticizing, as we did.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 1 March 2007 (EST)

This is very interesting, I never heard about mathematicians who denied the existence of elementary proofs. Could you give me some examples/quotes? Seems like a very strange position to have.--[[User:Twoflower|Twoflower]] 14:20, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: Andrew, I think you exxagerate. Elementary proofs are only important in number theory, and only then mainly for aesthetic or philosophical reasons. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:56, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:: Thank you, Joshua, for denying or downplaying the significance of the elementary proofs in response to Twoflower's statement.

:: Yes, of course there are mathematicians today who deny significance to the concept of the elementary proof. The mathematicians who have inserted thousands of entries in Wikipedia for ten years without ever mentioning elementary proof, either as its own entry or as part of a comprehensive entry on proofs, further illustrate my point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::: Um, speaking as someone who has published papers in number theory where the notion of elementary proof first came to be somewhat relevant- should Wikipedia have had an article about it? Yes. Is it such a terrible thing to not have one? Not really. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:39, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::: OK, that's the opinion of JoshuaZ, and that confirms my statement that some mathematicians downplay or deny the significance of the elementary proof. Needless to say, other mathematicians haven't agreed. A Fields medal was even given for an elementary proof once. Some mathematicians devoted their careers to the pursuit of elementary proofs. And there are obvious logical reasons for preferring elementary proofs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 1 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Obvious logical reasons? Really? Such as? There are reasons a logician might be interested in the matter, but that's not logical reasoning, and again in any event, this isn't a bias of Wikipedia but an ommision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:52, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I favor dropping the item on ''elementary proof''. I don't think that the concept is either well-defined or important. Yes, MathWorld gives a definition, but I do not believe that definition is accepted or used among mathematicians.
The point of this item seems to be that an elementary proof is somehow more rigorous or desirable than a non-elementary proof. However, I do not think that is true. If some mathematician has that view, then who is it? I think that it would be a minority view. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:50, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== We need to decide what this list is ==

Is this a list of examples of biases in Wikipedia or an example of problems with Wikipedia or a list of examples of foul-ups of Wikipedia or some combination? I see all three in this, all listed as examples of bias. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:52, 28 February 2007 (EST)

:Perhaps the list should be categorized; separate sections for bias, errors, omissions and whatever else. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:38, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::Bias underlies many "foul-ups" and "errors". I don't separating them into categories helps.

::One of the complaints about Wikipedia is how long-winded everything is. An encyclopedia should be concise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:28, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::''Some'' encyclopedias are not concise. For what it's worth... the Encyclopædia[sic--their spelling] Britannica 11th Edition (1911)'s article on the Bible runs from page to 849 to 894. That's forty-six pages. And an Encyclopædia Britannica page is several ordinary book pages (and many computer screens). I estimated once that the article would be about 1 megabyte of ASCII text. And then it's followed by "Bible, English" from pages 894 to 905. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:34, 2 March 2007 (EST)

While '''''some''''' foul-ups and errors may have underlying bias, most do not. In fact, I don't think that any of the errors pointed out in this page reflect bias; we should reove them completely. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:54, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The following entry strikes me as wrong or misleading -

::"Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[1] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[2] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public".

:Just because those editors identify themselves as liberal does not, in fact, suggest that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public. It depends whether they are allowing their political views into their articles, whether the articles in question are capable of being politicised and whether the entire American population is made up of only liberals and conservatives. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:47, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:I am also a bit Challenged by the concept that something could be "six times more liberal" than something else. I wonder if Noam Chomsky is six times more liberal than Phyllis Schlafly? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:56, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::Horace makes a valid point. I thought about that "six times more liberal" ratio myself quite a bit, both before and after writing it. But what other number would make sense? Liberal by a 3:1 margin is many times more liberal than something that is conservative by a 2:1 margin. How many more times? Well, if the ratio went from 1:1 to 2:1 then we would say twice as many. When the ratio goes from 1:2 to 3:1 then six times as much seems appropriate. I welcome other suggestions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 2 March 2007 (EST)

I suggest that you remove the sentence-- I don't think that 'degrees of liberal' can be expressed accruately with a ratio.

Furthermore, I think that while we should strive to point out the liberalism of wikipedia, we should '''''not''''' by any means suggest that they be just as consevative/liberal as the general public. This (I hope) would be hypocrisy! We are trying to be as far to the right of the general public as possible.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:41, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:::Can't resist:

::::Alice was puzzled. "In ''our'' country," she remarked, "there's only one day at a time."

::::The Red Queen said, "That's a poor thin way of doing things. Now ''here'', we mostly have days and nights two or three at a time, and sometimes in the winter we take as many as five nights together—for warmth, you know."

::::"Are five nights warmer than one night, then?" Alice ventured to ask.

::::"Five times as warm, of course."

::::"But they should be five times as ''cold,'' by the same rule--"

::::"Just so!" cried the Red Queen. "Five times as warm, ''and'' five times as cold—just as I'm five times as rich as you are, ''and'' five times as clever!"

:::Oh, a concrete suggestion: once you've said 'twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative"' it seems to me the point is made. Do you really need to say anything more? Readers can draw their own conclusions, numerically if they're so inclined. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:47, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::Dpbsmith, I am not sure why you removed the following post of mine, but I thought it was relevant-

::::Actually, my maths isn't great, but I think six times is not right. If I had say 12 people drawn from the general population (and assuming everyone is either conservative or liberal), on your figures I would expect four of them to be liberals. If I had 12 Wikipedia editors I would expect nine of them to be liberals. That is not a sixfold increase.

::::I emphasise that I am not a mathematician.

::::Perhaps you should just say that liberals are grossly overrepresented as editors of Wikipedia.

:::Perhaps you removed it by accident. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:59, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::I wasn't aware of removing anything. Sorry. I agree with your math by the way.

:::Is everyone aware that the lists Aschafly cites are not polls, interviews, samples, or anything like that? It is the number of Wikipedians who are aware that these categories exist (they're not advertised, you're not encouraged to add one when you create an account or anything) and have decided they want people to know their views. It is reasonably analogous to driving through a medium city and counting 201 lawn signs for Democrats and 68 for Republicans, or counting bumper stickers on cars as they drive by on a highway. It probably means ''something'' but I'm not sure I'd care to do math on it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:07, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::'''REPLY:''' I agree that there is some merit to the above comments. But where is the flaw in the math? Polls ''do'' show that the conservative-to-liberal ration is 2:1 among the American public. That alone is useful. I didn't know that before. Did you?

:::I don't know that I know it now. I'd like to know a lot more about that poll. How can the American public be 2/3 conservative and yet vote very close to 1/2 Democratic (e.g. popular vote in last two elections?) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:37, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::::The American public is ''not'' 2/3 conservative; in the poll ASchlafly cites, the single largest group are the moderates, with 40% of the respondents. Compare to the list of moderate wikipedians, who number all of 22, and you begin to get the idea that these comparisons just aren't meaningful. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:22, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::The liberal-to-conservative ratio of 3:1 based on how many signed up for the corresponding Wikipedia pages is like yard signs, as Dpbsmith says. But a ratio in yard signs ''is'' indicative of a region's views. In some ways this is better than phoning people, because this reflects strength of conviction, and willingness to speak out. And thanks to Dpbsmith for the observation in the first place!

::The only suspect part of my analysis is to conclude that Wikipedia is 6 times as liberal as the American public. I thought more about this today. Don't we draw the same conclusion about relative concentrations in solution in chemistry? And don't we say something is "twice as hot" on the stove, or "twice as sweet" in candy? If anyone can explain a flaw in this, then I'd like to see and discuss it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:40, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:::The error in the math becomes apparent if you treat the ratios as percentages (and again assume everyone is either liberal or conservative). In the general population 33.3% of people identify themselves as liberal (at the 2:1 ratio). At Wikipedia 75% identify themselves as liberal (at the 1:3 ratio). An increase from 33.3% to 75% is not a sixfold increase. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:50, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:::To Aschlafly--Oh, well. Since you ask.

:::No, I don't think we say something is "twice as hot" on the stove. ''My'' stove just says "wm, low, med, med hi, hi." I can't imagine someone saying "make it twice as hot" when they mean "turn it up from medium to high." The oven says "WM, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, BROIL," but those aren't degrees Kelvin, and 400 is not "twice as hot" as 200. For example, if a recipe says to cook something for one hour at 400° it would not work to cook it for two hours at 200°.

:::I don't know about sweetness, but spice heat is (or formerly was) measured in Scoville units, which in turn represent the relative amount of dilution that produces the same sensation of spice heat. In other words, if habanero sauce diluted 10:1 tastes as hot as tabasco sauce, then habanero sauce is ten times as hot.

:::Now, applying this methodology to Wikipedia and to America, the question is: how much would we have to dilute Wikipedia by adding conservatives in order to make it match America? This is a nice little algebra word problem for your high-schoolers. Call the total Wikipedian population W. We're saying 3/4 of W is liberal. We want to dilute Wikipedia until it is 1/3 liberal, same as America. So, we're going to pour conservatives into Wikipedia, stirring gently, until it reaches a size X·W where it is now 1/3 liberal. At that point, we will say Wikipedia is X times as liberal as the America (because we had to had to make it X times bigger in order to get the proportion of conservatives the same as America).
:::Let the number of liberals in Wikipedia, before and after dilution, be L.
::::L = W·(3/4)
:::We want
::::L / (W·X) = 1/3
:::Substituting,
:::: (W·(3/4)) / (W·X) = 1/3
:::: (3/4) / X = (1/3)
:::: X = (3/4) / (1/3) = 9/4 = 2.25.

:::So, Wikipedia is 2.25 times as liberal as America.

:::Checking, if WIkipedia had 100 people, it would have 75 liberals. If we multiply it by 2.25, it would have 225 people and 75 liberals, so it would have 225 - 75 = 150 conservatives, or a 2:1 ratio.

:::But this is just a game... I'm sure there are other ways to frame the question that will yield other numbers. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:18, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:::Oh. Easier way to get the same number: 75% / 33.333% = 2.25. If you have 12 people and they are Wikipedians, 9 of them are liberal. If you have 12 people and they are Americans, 4 of them are liberal. 9 = 2.25 × 4.

:::Of course... if you have 12 people and they are Wikipedians, 3 of them are conservative. If you have 12 people and they are Americans, 8 of them are conservatives. So Wikipedia is 3/8 as conservative which make America 2.67 times as conservative as Wikipedia, which seemingly would make Wikipedia 2.67 time as liberal as America. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:32, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::'''REPLY:''' I don't think the above analysis compares the "concentrations" of liberals in the two "solutions".

:: How about drawing an analogy to a pH scale? Call conservative low pH and liberal high pH, so that we can find a ration. 2 parts conservative and one part liberal would yield a low pH. 3 parts liberal and 1 part conservative would yield another pH. I wonder what the ratio would be?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:53, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::::Well, pH is ''approximately'' minus the natural logarithm of the concentration of hydrogen ions in a solution. Since litmus turns Democratic blue in an alkaline solution and Republican red in an acid solution, I guess hydrogen ions (acid) correspond to conservatives. The, uh... uh-oh... pC... of the American public would be -log10(2/3) = 0.176, and the pC of Wikipedia would be -log10(1/4) = 0.602. (Higher pH numbers mean less acidic, and higher pC numbers mean less conservative... so I guess pC works out after all!)

::::I am not going to do anything at all with regard to comparing 0.176 and 0.602. Here are two numbers. I calculated them and I showed how I calculated them. Ain't gonna say nothing more. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:16, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::: The ratios imply that WP has 6 times as many liberals as you would expect from the number of conservatives. Or the number of conservatives would have to be increased by a factor of 6 in order to match the American public. But it doesn't follow that WP is 6x as liberal as the public. If WP really functioned properly, you would only need at least one conservative editor and one liberal editor on each article. As long as they reached a consensus, then the article should be balanced, even if the number of editors is uneven. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::::: Instead of using all of these hypothetical analogies, why don't we work with what we have. there are about 3.75 million wikipedia editors so at 3:1 that would make 2,812,500 Liberals. there are about 300 million people in the U.S. so at 2:1 that would make 100 million Liberals. 300 million/3.75 million = 80. so multiply the liberal Wikipedians by 80 to aproximate the US population to get 225 million or '''2.25''' times as many liberals. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:30, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::::::: Your math is flawed because it doesn't recognize that all the people who are neither liberal or conservative. The simple way to see this is as follows: what fraction of the liberals on Wikipedia now would give it the same balance as the American public? 1/6th. Hence Wikipedia is currently 6 times more liberal than the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:33, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::: You are automatically assuming that when you adjust the the numbers that the number of conservatives does not change. To do it properly you have to raise the number of conservatives as well as lower the number of liberals. The percentage of "unbiased" (for lack of a better word) people should stay the same. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:52, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Indeed. Amplifying a bit, as long as there's one conservative editor who is capable of adding conservative material that accords with Wikipedia's policies (particularly source citation and "facts about opinion, not opinions"), and one liberal editor similarly capable of adding liberal material, and provided the effective pool of active editors in the article really support Wikipedia's policies and are ''reasonably'' able to judge material objectively against policy... the article should stay balanced.

:::::Thus, the number that matters is not the relative number of liberal and conservative editors. It is the percentage of edits that are made by editors who are truly committed to the neutrality and verifiability policies. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:23, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::: Right, it would be easy for Wikipedia to restore balance in such a manner. In fact, this is how the media ensures balance on certain shows (e.g., Crossfire) and many debates. But Wikipedia does not do this. Rather, it behaves in the same manner as a lynch mob. There is nothing neutral about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:26, 4 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Fascinating, one thing I couldn't stand about Crossfire was that it felt a need to break everything down into liberal v. conservative, make sure to label who was on which side and then let them scream each other. Not every issue is simply liberal v. conservative, and I'd have to say that if Crossfire is the ideal, I'd rather be non-ideal. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:40, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::::: Something about Wikis acts as a positive-feedback loop that amplifies bad behavior. It can be infuriating to have an edit reverted or deleted. Wikipedia regularly does show "lynch-mob-like" behavior, but the lynch mobs are small, dissolve quickly, and have relatively little affect on the overall content of Wikipedia, other than to get some people so totally alienated as to never be able to think straight about WIkipedia ever again. Wikipedia to some extent is part of the USENET "flamewar" culture, and I think its [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_age age composition] may be more of a problem than its political composition.

:::::: With nobody in authority to make final decisions on policy (no, admins do ''not'' effectively have the ability to do this), borderlines are fuzzy, and everything on the border is resolved by border disputes, with inconsistent outcomes. Really notable things don't get deleted. True vanity articles always get deleted. But your Conservapedias and obscure Norwegian politicians (Aasulv Olsen Bryggesaa, Minister of Education and Church Affairs 1913-1915) and articles about middle schools are on the borderline. AFD discussions about borderline articles tend to show WIkipedia at its very worst. However, you might be surprised at how often one of these discussions starts with "piling on" in the delete direction, with curt comments, and ends with a reversal ''if'' people find and quote good sources or improve the article mid-discussion.

:::::: There are certain Wikipedia characteristics that may be properly criticized, but that do ''not'' add up to consistent, systematic liberal bias. For example, the neutrality policy in operation leads to a tendency to ''include unflattering information.'' Wikipedia biographies are never respectful puff pieces, and you may be absolutely sure that an article on Ted Kennedy will mention Chappaquiddick (let me check: yep); that an article on Barney Frank will mention his affair with whozis (let me check: yep, and the name I was trying to remember was "Steve Gobie"), and similarly for Gerry Studds (check), Gary Hart (check), etc. I don't even remember whether Wilbur Mills was a Republican or a Democrat, but I certainly remember his being found wandering drunk in the Tidal Basis (whatever that is!) with a stripper, and I expect the WIkipedia article to remember it, too. (Check: "Mills is perhaps best known for a drunken incident on October 7, 1974, with an Argentine stripper known as Fanne Foxe." And he was a Democrat). Tabloid-like? Maybe. Politically biassed? No.

:::::: Poor Wilbur Mills! All that time in Congress, and his legacy is "best known for a drunken incident... with an Argentine stripper known as Fanne Foxe." But isn't it accurate? Without looking at Wikipedia's article (or anyone else's), can you remember any other single concrete thing about him? In my case... I have a vague notion that he was really important, so much so that I mistakenly thought he was a Senator, not a Representative But I can't think of a ''specific'' thing he did apart from the Tidal Basin incident. Can you?

:::::: By the way, although the liberal blogs have had a lot of fun with Conservapedia's objection to British spellings, I have to say I at least see Aschlafly's point. To a newcomer to Wikipedia, redirects seem like magic. I can see how typing in "phonograph record" and getting "Gramophone record" could feel as if Wikipedia were saying "No, dummy, you're wrong, it's ''gramophone.''" No handy little explanation pops up to explain that Wikipedia is deliberately inconsistent and is not endorsing one term over the other. I don't know if its ever gotten to the point of a U. S. kid telling a teacher, "No, that's the wrong spelling, Wikipedia says..." but I can imagine it happening. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:04, 4 March 2007 (EST)

This "six times more liberal" thing is comparing an anonymous poll to non-anonymous affiliations that people choose to put on their user pages, right? It could mean that liberals are just more enthusiastic about announcing their beliefs, or less certain of them when polled anonymously. The numbers can't be compared directly. --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== Presence of an article about Conservapedia on Wikipedia. ==
I don't know how much attention anyone here was paying attention to matters, but pursuant to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_25 this Deletion Review discussion] the article has been recreated since there are now many [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Reliable_sources|reliable sources]], and the article can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia here]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)

: I am wonder who added a comment in the WP article on CP saying that CP has been criticized because the CP article on the Democrat Party includes a sentence describing a harsh view from a critic. It is criticism of the criticism of the criticism, and I am criticizing it here! Somebody needs to tell WP editors that it is not necessary to document every criticism. When an article gets to be more than half criticism, then it probably has too much. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:38, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::That sentence certainly looks tendentious, rather than factual, to ''me.'' (Of course, I think the article [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] is precisely 6.23 Scoville units ''more'' tendentious...)

:::As with Conservapedia, the entire history of the article is open to examination. The comment was added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&diff=next&oldid=112296143 here] by user Kronix1986. I am ''not'' going to act as some kind of human gateway between Conservapedia and Wikipedia and want to ''try'' to stay out of the incestuous business of editing each Wiki's article on each other. I'd suggest that ''if'' you wanted this comment removed, your best approach would be to say something about it on the article's Talk page, because when you're closely involved in an article sometimes keeping a little distance is better than direct editing. It's easier to present cogent comments on a Talk page than in an edit comment, for example.

:::The argument ''I'' would use is that the statement isn't supported by the cited source. The [http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2024434,00.html cited source] uses the passage ''as an example of the difference'' between the two sites. It does not criticize Conservapedia for this passage, nor does it say that Conservapedia has been criticized for this passage. Furthermore the phrase "seemingly pejorative" is a good example of weasel terms, which Wikipedia has a guideline against. In other words, the statement is clearly editorializing, ''not'' reporting something published elsewhere.

:::(This could, of course, be remedied by rewording the passage to say "One passage, used by a Guardian Unlimited writer to exemplify the different approaches of the two sites, is...") [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:23, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:: Good luck dealing with folks who are six times more liberal than the American public! There isn't any chance that Wikipedia will have a fair or reasonably unbiased entry about Conservapedia.

:: That's OK, because this is great fodder for illustrating Wikipedia's bias. I've added a point (around #5, I think) in our list of Examples here. Watch Wikipedia's editors change its entry about Conservapedia as I point out its biased errors here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::::Which would, of course, be a Bad Thing? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:49, 5 March 2007 (EST)

::: Point, if you look at the talk page for the Conservapedia there was additional criticism that didn't go in because it was decided that it would be problematic. Furthermore, attempts were made to find more reliable sources that were positive. Attempts were unsuccesful. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:46, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== Regarding American versus English spelling policy ==

I think Conservapedia should merely '''slightly favor''' American spelling of words since most users would probably be American. Specifically, I think that only titles of articles should favor the American spelling and we should have redirects using the British spellings. I think that people from Britain and the commonwealth (who probably use British spellings) can make valuable contributions to Conservapedia. I see no reason to alienate these individuals by majoring on the minors. I see no problem with using British spellings and for Brits and others to change the various words spelling to British spellings since they likely believe the "American spelling" is incorrectly spelled. They might in many cases not even know there was an American spelling to various words. In short, I see no reason why Conservapedia should be associated with being a "Ugly American" organization. I think such a policy outlined here would insure that Conservapedia has more of a global impact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

It's interesting because America somewhere along the line changed the spelling of these words. In fact most of the English world (I'm from Australia) views the American spelling as the strange version. It seems to me that this insistence on spelling everything the American way is just another example of American arrogance. I thought the reference to the European ruling family was espicially silly. I personally have no problem with Wikipedia using the proper English spelling for words. [[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
:I just wanted to add that I am an American and was born in America. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

I would like to add a "here, here," to the remarks by Conservative. Furthermore, it seems that Conservapedia is in conflict with itself. When it comes to dates Conservapedia wishes to favor the "historical" anno Domini system in contrast to the newly developed Common Era system. But when it comes to spelling, Conservapedia decides that the historical spelling system should be discouraged and the newly developed American spelling should be used. The foundations for British spelling were published in 1755 as compared to the foundations for American spelling which were published in 1828 (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_and_British_English_spelling_differences&oldid=113116955] for more information). Does Conservapedia have an actual system for determining what it prefers or is this all merely the opinions of a small group of individuals?
--[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 03:47, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==LIBERAL BIAS==

We should change the name of this page to "Examples of Lliberal Bias in Wikipedia".

We don't care about (in fact some of us welcome) conservative bias. The above name would not seem hypocritical. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:38, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Who said any of us here actually welcome conservative bias? This wiki was advertised as having a conservative ''perspective,'' not a conservative bias. And this difference is really rather important. A conservative perspective would merely show people how conservatives view the different things happening in the world. A conservative bias would be presenting information with the conservative perspective but instead of presenting it as the way conservatives view things it would be presented as the way things are. I hope that made sense :)
I am not a conservative, I am a liberal. That said, seeing the conservative perspective is, in fact, really intriguing and helpful to me. Conservative bias, just like liberal bias, is not in my best interests and would definitely '''not''' be welcome by some members who are curious liberals. If this is in fact an attempt to convert people throwing in bias is not going to help.
--[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 03:55, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:You may find this debate interesting... [[How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]] --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:09, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Re #32 ==

With regards to criticism #32 this can, and will, happen to any information source. Any system that involves humans is going to have errors. I assume that no member of conservapedia would be so bold as to say there is not one error within the articles. The ''Daily News'' or whatever the paper was are largely to blame as well. Any news source that publishes material based on only one source deserves to feel the slap of public humiliation.
Finally, I would like to ask, as I honestly do not know, how this is an example of bias (as the article title indicates it is)? Is it some form of Pro-Ivy-League-Rutgerian bias?
--[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 04:02, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: It reflects a lack of accountability which is a by-product of the systematic bias. It also demonstrates that the distortions in Wikipedia do matter, as newspapers and others are relying on them and repeating them. Why any system has some errors, you're not likely to find this kind of error in a real encyclopedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:57, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== On the definition of pseudoscience ==

One of the arguments presented is "It currently offers a article on the topic listed under the category "Pseudoscience". What reputable encyclopedia uses such an unencyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism?" The definition given for this is "Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method." There are indeed people who claim that [Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|creation is scientific]. As it stands Creationism and Intelligent Design do not make testable theories nor is it falsifiable and thus it is not scientific.

It is unfortunate that this falls into a similar category as people making claims about astrology, ghosts, and crop circles. If this is not attempted to be presented as scientific fact and stayed as a religious belief, one would assume that it would not be categorized as pseudoscience.

This is a poor critique of wikipedia that weakens other arguments. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:02, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:You disappoint me, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]. On what grounds do you declare that creation science does not follow the scientific method? For example: did you know that a number of geologists have already shown that current models of [[radiometric dating]] do not correlate well with one another in dating various objects, and indeed often produce inconsistent dates for the same object? These geologists have shown--''by the scientific method''--that those methods have their basis on improper assumptions and sometimes on [[circular reasoning]].

:They have since determined, after exhaustive reviews and their own data-gathering, that the uniformitarian assumptions behind most of the dating models are totally untenable--and that radioactive decay was in fact ''accelerated'' at a key moment in early earth history.

:Testable theories, sir. Even falsifiable theories.

:The worthies at [[Wikipedia]] have never shown a willingness to examine the hypotheses that leading creation scientists have formulated and tested. They have simply concluded that the world and mankind ''cannot'' have been created, and ''must'' have formed out of nothing, and that "we just don't understand yet how it happened." Now ''that'' is pseudoscience.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:If you think the term "pseudoscience" reflects a "sensitive tone" then I suggest telling a scientist that his work is "pseudoscience". I would also suggest that the scientific method was invented by Francis Bacon who likely believed in creationism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
:: Bacon's was a creationist - one quote of his is "I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind". He also encouraged experimentation and the use of induction to discover more about the world. Unfortunately, Francis Bacon died a century before the voyage of HMS Beagle and thus had no observations to the contrary. Can you suggest an alternate name for what to call something that calls itself science without using the scientific method? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::You have no warrant whatsoever to claim that Sir Francis Bacon would have recanted his statement after a meeting with Darwin post-''Beagle''. That would have been an interesting conversation, to be sure. However--you want another name? I'll cite you several. Try Michael Behe. Or Larry Vardiman and Stephen A. Austin of the RATE ('''R'''adioisotopes and the '''A'''ge of '''T'''he '''E'''arth) Group.

:::Cargo cult science? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:43, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::Thats not quite appropriate. The Cargo Cult involves copying without understanding. Cargo cult science would involve copying significant portions of other experiments because "thats the way it is done" rather than understanding the reason behind it. It would still be invoking the scientific method including falsifiability. With peer review, cargo cult science tends to get smacked down quite hard. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:55, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== Jimmy Wales and atheism/passionate adherent of Ayn Rand's Objectivism ==

Should we include that "Wales has been a passionate adherent of Ayn Rand's Objectivism" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_wales] in this article in relation to Wikipedia's material on Christianity and creationism/evolution? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:08, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
: Does the founder's philosophy of personal liberty and individual rights constitute a bias in the organization against Christianity? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:21, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Is that all that Ayn Rand's Objectivism espouses? Does objectivism have any relation to atheism and have all societies which have officially embraced atheism persecuted Christians? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:34, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: Check out the article on [[Objectivism]] that I expanded recently. I know this subject because I was once an adherent of Objectivism before I, for lack of a better term, "got saved" and "came to know [[God|The Lord]]." I also know where some of the bodies are buried...--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:55, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: Ayn Rand's philosophy is atheistic. But I don't know how much of an issue to make of Jimmy Wales' personal views. His editors are making the numerous biased decisions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:46, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::Asclhafly, who controls the editors at Wikipedia? In short, who picks the admins at Wikipedia and more importantly who decides to discipline the Wikipedia admins for inappropriate conduct? I am asking these questions because I am not very knowledgeable about the power structure at Wikipedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:03, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:::: We have Wiki admins here who can answer this better than I. But my understanding is that Wiki admins are picked from the "ground up", by nomination and acclamation, rather than by selection by Jimmy Wales. I doubt that Jimmy Wales' personal beliefs have anything to do with the bias on Wikipedia. The real problem is the lack of meaningful principles which results in mob rule, and the mob has become a liberal one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:19, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::: I'm not going to address the mob issues and such since I doubt I will change anyone's opinions, but to comment: admins are choosen by community consensus (as Andrew put it from the "ground up"). Jimbo only steps in under very limited circumstances and then has not stepped in any any political issue in my memory. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Please note that this is still a relatively small(but growing) website compared to Wikipedia. Jimbo may not step in anymore, but is it possible that, when Wikipedia was small site, he did? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::At Wikipedia, anybody can nominate an admin. In fact, anyone can nominate ''themselves'' as an admin. There is then a discussion in which people express support/oppose/neutral. The decision-making process is: "At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. The numbers of people supporting, opposing, or expressing another opinion on a candidacy are a significant factor in determining consensus (few RfAs succeed with less than 75% support), but a request for adminship is not a ballot." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::::: Thanks for Joshua's and Dpbsmith's insights. But David R makes an excellent point also. If Jimmy Wales embraces Ayn Rand (which is an atheistic philosophy), then that could set the tone and have an effect. He doesn't have to intervene often. The fact that he is enormously respected, as Dpbsmith says, only *increases* the influence of his belief system on the project. So I'm OK with referring to his Ayn Rand philosophy, but let's make sure it is well-supported (preferably by quotes) and done in a tasteful manner. Truth be told, I respect Jimmy Wales also and have emphasized this with reporters. I loved Wikipedia in the old days and I lament how it has gone down the wrong path.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:13, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::::: I doubt that most editors even know what Jimbo's personal religous and political views are. Heck, I'd go further and suggest that I'd be surprised if more than half the admins knew that a) Jimbo was an objectivist and b) knew that objectivism was atheistic in nature. Now, if people don't know what opinions Jimbo has, it is hard for respect for him to influence things much. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:22, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::::JoshuaZ, I know you are a Wikipedia Admin and I was hoping you could answer the question, "Who decides when to discipline the Wikipedia Admins for inappropriate conduct? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
:::::::::Admins can be disciplined by Jimbo or the Arbitration Committee, generally someone has to complain first. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::::: To be clear, admins are very rarely disciplined, and when they are the discipline is generally for abuse of the admin tools, not for anything else. Indeed, if one looks at the prominent examples of admins being disciplined they have almost nothing to do with politics or religion. For example, there was a group of admins who got into a wheel war over deleting/restoring the article on Daniel Brandt and one of them was desyopped as a result. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Disciplining admins is ''very'' rare. I don't know exactly how admins have had their admin status revoked but I'll bet it's on the order of one a year, or less. "Banning" users (permanent blocks) are very rare, too, and it only happens after more discussion online that you could possibly believe. (A "wheel war" is analogous to an edit war and occurs when two sysops alternatively undo and redo some action). There are currently 849 active admins on Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:51, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Two more points to be made. First off, the feeling of "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" up to this suggestion seem to be things that could be rectified. This one is doubtful if it could be rectified if it is indeed an issue. Secondly, if it was the case that this is a valid criticism, then a likewise valid criticism of conservapedia is that it was founded by a Christian conservative. This is not to say that either Christian conservative or objectivist is a bad thing, but if one is a valid criticism, then the other is likely too. As this is not part of the criticisms section of wikipedia (for good reason) to include it here would reduce any moral high ground that is had. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:49, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::JoshuaZ, Jimbo and the Arbitration Committee decide when to discipline Admins. Who decides who is on the Arbitration Committee? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:54, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
::: Each year, some of the arbitration commitee spots go up for election. Users with at least a certain number of edits and certain amount of time on the project can then bullet for or against a candidate. Each candidates total votes (number of support-number of oppose) is then tallied. Of those with very high approval ratings (what percentage this is has I think varied from election to election) Jimbo selects to be on the commitee. In practice, Jimbo picks almost all as the ones with the most votes, although this has not always been the case. Summarizing how ArbCom is elected is a bit complicated since we keep changing the voting procedure and how much input Jimbo has. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:07, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::JoshuaZ, you wrote: In practice, Jimbo picks almost all as the ones with the most votes, '''although this has not always been the case.''' Why hasn't it always been the case? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
::::: I have no idea, you'll have to ask Jimbo his reasoning. In at least one case (that of Jayjg) there were a number of other candidates with more votes (I don't remember precisely how many, I think 3 or 4). That was 2 or three years ago, I don't think Jimbo has done it since. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion and breast cancer ==

The article claims that:

"Wikipedia's entry on abortion reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.[6] Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.[7]."

, while this is plainly not true. Wikipedia has an entire article (50 kilobytes long!!) about it, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis here] Please, someone who has sufficient priveleges, change the article to admit this information. {{unsigned|GofG}}

: Your link is not to the Wikipedia entry on "abortion", which is what most people will access. Also, please sign your comments by clicking the signature button above. Thanks and welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:42, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Fine. Here is the link to the section on breast cancer in the abortion article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Breast_cancer], which contains a link to the aforementioned article. And I did sign my comment; there was an edit conflict and I had to retype it all out and I forgot to resign it. [[User:GofG|GofG]] 21:52, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I just checked that link on Wikipedia. It is extraordinarily biased, ending with statements about the views of organizations that do not conduct any research and have obvious liberal biases.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:: Andrew, it is linked in the article right where you would expect it to be, under the summary section dealing with ABC. I'd also be curious as to what you mean by "organizations that do not conduct any research and have obvious liberal biases" [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:10, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: Whether or not it's biased is not the question. The article says that wikipedia "omits" it. They do not omit it, they just have a biased article about it. There is a difference. Why not put:

::::"Wikipedia denies that the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies is notable."

:::Or something like that that exposes the bias but does not lie. [[User:GofG|GofG]] 22:12, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:That sounds good. Why not put that? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 18:07, 10 March 2007 (EST)

I couldn't find this in Wikipedia, or anything like, and hence the statement is correct that Wikipedia omits this: "Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion"--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:22, 10 March 2007 (EST)

==Wikipedia six times more liberal than public?==

Someone needs to check their math on this one. If twice as many people identify themselves as conservative as liberal, then 1/3 of the public identifies themselves as liberal. If 3 times as many Wikipedia editors identify themselves as liberal instead of conservative, then 3/4 of Wikipedia editors identify themselves as liberal. 3/4 divided by 1/3 is 9/4, or 2.25. Therefore, "six times" is just incorrect math, and 2.25 times is the correct answer.

: Please sign your entries using the signature button above. Your math is flawed: many people do not identify themselves as either liberal or conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: Fine then, let's group everyone into the categories liberal, conservative, and moderate. Let L1 be the fraction of liberal members of the public, L2 be the fraction of liberal members at Wikipedia, M1 be the fraction of moderate members of the public, M2 be the fraction of moderate members on Wikipedia, C1 be the fraction of conservatives in the public, and C2 be the fraction of conservatives on Wikipedia. By your own statistics, C1 = 2*L1, and 3*C2 = L2. Also, by definition, C1+L1+M1 = 1 and C2+L2+M2 = 1. Combining these equations, 2*L1+L1+M1 = 3L1 + M1 = 1, and L2+L2/3+M2 = (4/3)L2 + M2 = 1. Equating the two 1's, 3L1 + M1 = 1 = (4/3)L2 + M2. Shuffling things around, L2 = (3/4)*(3L1 + M1 - M2) = (9/4)L1 + (3/4)(M1-M2) = 2.25*L1 + 0.75*(M1-M2). L2/L1 = 2.25 + 0.75*(M1-M2)/L1 = 2.25 + 2.25*(M1-M2)/(1-M1) = 2.25*(1-M1+M1-M2)/(1-M1) = 2.25*(1-M2)/(1-M1). If the percentages of moderates in the public and Wikipedia are equal, then L2 = 2.25*L1, as I stated. If the number of moderates is higher in the public than on Wikipedia, then L2 is more than 2.25L1. If the number of moderates is lower in the public than on Wikipedia, then L2 is less than 2.25L1. What is the exact value? It depends on the explicit value of M1 and M2. You cannot say with any certainty that it is 6. In fact, it is most likely to be in the range from 2 to 2.5--[[User:Manchot|Manchot]] 22:27, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Here is what the currently entry states at: [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]

::"Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[4] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[5] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public."

::Next I have not read footnote #4 yet but I am guessing that people identify themselves as liberal, moderate, or conservative. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:09, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:::Here is what footnote #4 states: "On a decade-by-decade basis, Conservatives grew modestly from 32% in the 1970s to 36% in the 1980s, and 38% in the 1990s. So far in the 2000s they comprise 34% of adults. Liberals have remained constant at 18% and moderates have held the lead with 40% or 41% in each decade."[http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:::: Is it not impossible for liberal editors to edit neutrally. Just because the editors are liberal doesn't mean the content is liberal; they are working for neutrality. It might be better worded as "Wikipedia ''editors'' six times more liberal than public." [[User:GofG|GofG]] 22:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::The content of Wikipedia is more liberal than most encyclopedias and I think my recent addition to the list was very telling: "In the mid-20th century, one of the few "authorities" to assert that Jesus as a myth was a Soviet Encyclopedia.[1] Wikipedia currently writes in its article on Jesus the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."[2] Now it is certainly true that a small amount of scholars assert this matter but it is also true that it is a minuscule amount of scholars and none of them are historians which Wikipedia fails to mention. And what does Wikipedia offer in regards to a mythological Jesus that never existed? It offers a article entitled "Jesus as myth" which has a section titled "Specific arguments of the theory" and has had a long history of having warnings like "This section may contain original research or unattributed claims."[3] Why does the article in question have a long history of warning to its readers and why doesn't Wikipedia seem to want to do anything about it? In addition, Wikipedia would be hard pressed to cite a current reputable encyclopedia which prominently cites in its Jesus article a statement like "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus." in its first two paragraphs. What current encyclopedia other than Wikipedia spends time on the proposition that Jesus never existed and does such a unscholarly job of presenting this matter?" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::::::It might be that the majority of other encyclopedias are conservative biased. I'm not saying this is true, it's just a possibility. Why does the article have a long history of warnings? Because they don't want the readers to be mislead into believing the information, as it is not verified. What exactly is wrong with that? Removing the information entirely would be denying its notability and existance, which is also unencyclopedic. Do you have any other articles to cite? [[User:GofG|GofG]] 22:34, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::::I was being generous in what I wrote. Wikipedia has had the same warning for ages. Every time I look at the article it has had that warning. Why doesn't someone clean up the mess? I believe it is because they are reticent to delete unsourced liberal material and Wikpedia just doesn't care about "unsourced junk" written about Jesus that denies he existed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:49, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:::: According to your data, then, M1 = 0.4 or 0.41. Plugging into my equation, L2/L1 = 2.25*(1-M2)/(1-0.41) = 3.81356 * (1-M2). M2, the fraction of Wikipediaers who are moderates, can (by definition) only range from 0 to 1. Therefore, the '''very maximum''' is 3.81 (assuming that no Wikipediaers are moderates, which is unlikely to be true). Six is incorrect.--[[User:Manchot|Manchot]] 22:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Look at this way: How many more conservatives would we need on Wikipedia such its balance reflected the American public? Wikipedia is 3:1 liberal, so we need six times as many conservatives. Six is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:23, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Then what you should be saying is that Wikipedia is six times less conservative, not six times more liberal. As you pointed out yesterday, there is a major difference. Plus, if you're going to make extraordinary claims, you need to back them up with actual numbers, not a hand-waving argument. If you do the appropriate substitutions into the equation above, you'll find that C1/C2 = 1.573/(1-M2). For this to be equal to 6 would require that M2=0.73, i.e., about 3/4ths of Wikipedians would have to be moderates.--[[User:Manchot|Manchot]] 22:21, 10 March 2007 (EST)

This calculation is indeed deeply flawed. If you keep it like this you run the risk that liberal will view it as confirmation that conservatives can't do math. You compare a representative poll with the areas of interests of Wikipedians. The results of the poll are that 18% of Americans are liberal, 34 % conservatives, and 40% moderates. The Wikipedia numbers are that of 3.7 million Wikipedians, 204 are interested in liberal themes and 77 in conservative themes. This means that less than 0.0075 % of all Wikipedians are either conservative or liberal (or both). And the chances that this miniscule self selected sample is representative is next to nothing. You can't do statistics with this sample. You simply compare apples with next to nothing. I'd suggest to remove this entry altogether. Otherwise you just confirm the liberal idea that conservatives fudge numbers as they please. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:44, 11 March 2007 (AEST)

: Folks, the math is correct, and no one credibly disputes that Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Those who do dispute it only serve to illustrate the deception of Wikipedians pretending not to be biased. Be up-front about your point-of-view. Are you liberal yourselves? Don't be bashful, disclose your point-of-view as we do here, and then we can have a more meaningful dialog. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Sorry, the math is really incorrect. It doesn't serve you well to label everybody who points to wrong math as ''liberal''. A valid point (bias in Wikipedia) is tainted by invalid math, especially when combined with calling names to settle a mathematical dispute. This point is just a red herring, and will do nothing than give people an opportunity to ridicule Conservapedia and its editors. There is nothing wrong with droppoing this point, since everybody knows that Wikipedia has a liberal bias. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:55, 12 March 2007 (AEST)

::: Exactly. If someone who agrees with my political philosophy is using obviously incorrect logic to prove their point, that makes me look worse by comparison. The math is incorrect, and saying that is isn't make it so.

Based on the above stated information, the Wikipedia survey is not representative as the basic assumption for statistical validity (random selection, or precise stratification) is violated. However, let us assume it is valid and forget about the math, then next question arising will be:
what is the point?
It is common knowledge that Americans tend to be more conservative than the average world citizen. But why should the American public be particularly relevant to Wikipedia, which extends far beyond America?
The idea that it is a bias if Wikipedia's authors do not mirror the American public, seems to reveal a narrow and ethnocentric scope of the authors behind "Conservapedia". A bias which Wikipedia (thank God) does not seem to have.

==Item 12==

This is not an example of bias, but rather a simple convention. The English spelling of the word is the proper spelling, the American spelling is a branch spelling and not appropriate for some topics. This is why the US Courts still use Anglo-English spellings.
--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]]

: Thanks for your comment, but I can assure you that US Courts use American spellings of words. I don't know where your comment here comes from: "The English spelling of the word is the proper spelling." I respectfully disagree. But I hope you can contribute edits here, and in your case we'll be mindful of your preference for English spellings!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm a legal major and have read many a court file and the use of English terms is actually quite common, however, it is in a sense traditional. Also, many international courts use the English spelling.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't think that this should be included as an example of bias. The British spelling is no inherently better or worse than the American spelling, and it is ludicrous to pretend otherwise. The bias list has some good points, but they are being weakened by silly points like number 12.--[[User:Manchot|Manchot]] 23:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::: There seems to be an anti-American undercurrent to the spelling issue, just as there is an anti-Christian motive to erasing "A.D." We have vandals on this site going around changing American to British spellings. No joke. The same must be occurring on Wikipedia because non-American spellings turn up in the oddest of places. When most users are Americans and the system was started in America, doesn't that strike you as a bit odd??? American-bashing seems to have become quite a sport around the world, and this is part of it. American spelling is more economical, by the way. "Color", not "Colour". The "u" need not be there. Americans love the British, by the way, and every four years we elect a British descendent as president.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Out of curiosity, how is American English "more economical"? Also, have all the presidents really been British decendents? Are you sure no one's been of a German, French, etc line? And thirdly, I keep seeing people talk about how most wikipedia users are American, do you have proof of this or is it an assumption. I would imagine there are more users/speakers of the Queen's English in the world than the American version. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::...who says most users are Americans? The site is frequented by users from the entire world. If you trust [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=wikipedia.org/ Alexa], 21.3% of its users are from the US, but 54% of all users go to en.wikipedia. That means that less than half the people on the English Wikipedia are from the US.
::::Of course, there are a few weak points with this argument (and with yours). We both currently assume that every visitor/editor contributes an equal share to Wikipedia, and we both assume that Alexa is halfway accurate to measure site statistics (which I personally doubt, but I accept it as the best approximation we can get). Then there is the question what kind of English is taught in the other countries (and what the individual editor ends up using - for example, I learned English in school, but later basically switched to American), but there is no practical way to answer this question on a site like Wikipedia - it's simply too large.
::::As such, I'd just go with the most intuitive explanation: Editors use what they are used to, and often enough, it's not American. It's not about being anti-American or bashing the US. It's just what they personally find intuitive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Additional problems with Wikipedia==
* Blatant double standard as to what constitutes "reliable sources". Wikipedia is supposed to pride itself on its Neutral Point of View policy and sourcing articles to reliable, neutral, third party sources which are not partisan and not self-published. Yet there is a clique of administrators who insist that self-published material from such extremist, partisan groups as the Southern Poverty Law Center and Political Research Associates meets the reliable sources criteria. In particular attack articles from the SPLC have been linkspammed to a large number of articles to attack the subjects of those articles, especially people involved in immigration issues. The SPLC's ritual defamation tactic of labeling any group they don't like a "hate group" is given sanction by Wikipedia editors who add the "SPLC has designated this group a hate group" label to articles.
* Bias in favor of postmodernism and postmodernist notions. Wikipedia is littered with articles like "Gender roles", "Anti-bias curriculum", "Oppression" and so on which promote the notions that reality is a social construct; "gender roles" is written of as if it is a real thing instead of a postmodernist neologism to describe what are actually gender ''traits''; racism and sexism are instutionalized "systems" of oppression inherent in Western culture rather than prejudices held by individuals; etc. I could dig up hundreds of such articles and put together a "worst of Wikipedia" list if I had the time to do so.
* Rampant political correctness. The Wikipedia article on political correctness is skeptical and gives too much credence to the notion that there is no such thing as PC, yet at the same time Wikipedia is cluttered with thousands of articles promoting the POV every would-be "systemically oppressed" group imaginable. Wikipedia is full of Aspergers Syndrome-cruft, illegal alien advocacy cruft including multiple articles on every pro-illegal immigration protest in recent months, articles that smack of being elaborate jokes or just plain absurd like "Anti-racist mathematics" and "Neurodiversity", etc.
* Systemic bias against guns and private firearms ownership. Two different articles with the anti-Second Amendment neologism "gun violence" in the title, a "Category:Deaths by Firearm", etc. All attempts at deleting or renaming these biased names have failed.
* The Wikiproject on "countering systemic bias" is itself extremely systemically biased, as most of the subject areas in that project smack of whiny political correctness.

[[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 10:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: Wow! Your points are superb. With specific examples and citations I could add them to the content page here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks - here are just a few off the top of my head:
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role] - "A 'gender role' is a set of behavioral norms associated particularly with males or females, in a given social group or system. It can be a form of division of labour by gender. It is a focus of analysis in the social sciences and humanities. Gender is one component of the gender/sex system, which refers to "The set of arrangements by which a society transforms biological sexuality into products of human activity, and in which these transformed needs are satisfied" (Reiter 1975: 159). Most societies have a gender/sex system, although the components and workings of this system vary widely from society to society.[citation needed] Some see "gender roles" as oppressive stereotypical expectations imposed by society."
::(The "gender/sex system" by the way refers to a belief that gender and ones physical sex are not the same thing, that somebody can be born a woman but be a man inside, or vise versa.)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-bias_curriculum] - these two articles speak for themselves.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression] - "The term oppression is primarily used to describe how a certain group is being kept down by unjust use of force, authority, or societal norms. When this is institutionalized formally or informally in a society, it is referred to as "systematic oppression"."
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._English] - 2/3 of the article is criticism of the group.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-only_movement] - Uses the left-wing's term for the movement instead of the term "Official English" preferred by the movement itself.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodiversity] - another absurdity. Autism, Parkinsons, and Tourettes are not diseases that need a cure, but should be accepted as an integral part of "who they are".
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theory] - "This binary may itself be a false dichotomy, as discourse shapes our understanding of what is natural and what is cultural shapes discourse-- but it still is a useful starting point for exploring these debates. Constructivists counter that there is no natural, that all meaning is constructed through discourse and there is no other subject other than the creation of meaning for social theory. In a Constructivist perspective it is not proper to take gay or lesbian as subjects with objective reality; but rather they must be understood in terms of their social context, in how genealogy creates these terms through history."
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Countering_systemic_bias] - Claims Wikipedia has a "systemic bias" against topics related to non-English speaking people, the third world, women, non-Judeo-Christian religions, etc.
::That's just a start. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 15:27, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Fantastic! I added a new point 2 on your stuff. Will add more also. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I have to object to some of this. While I agree that some of these discuss ideas or topics that are absurd (Anti-racist mathematics is one that particularly annoys me) they are legitimate topics of articles and Wikipedia would be remiss not to have articles on these topics. Similarly, Wikipedia has articles on flat-earthism, white power, black power, and phrenology, not out of endorsement for their ideas but because they are encyclopedic topics. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:58, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::These articles - most of them - go well beyond just reporting that these topics exist, to making blanket statements and assumptions in support of them. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 06:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Redirect ==
Is there a reason the Wikipedia entry redirects to the Example of Bias page? I could have sworn there were two separate articles yesterday. And if this is done for a reason, it might be helpful to remove the links within the Bias page that link to itself through the wikipedia page. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:08, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:The entry got deleted, redirected and protected a few hours ago. I'll just quote from [[User_Talk:Aschlafly|Aschlafly's Talk page]], where I asked about this:
<div style="border: 1px dashed rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 5px;">We don't need two separate entries about Wikipedia and its bias. The protection was required because people were putting in false statements like non-Americans are more intelligent and Conservapedia should be criticized (for its free speech?). The entry became a place for Wikipedians to spread more falsehoods.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)</div>
:There is much I want to say in reply to this, but at best, it wouldn't change his mind, and at worst, it would get me banned. Let's just smile and nod, it takes less energy than fighting a lost fight. *shrugs* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Thanks for pointing that out. But in response to [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s reason, couldn't the wikipedia article be an article about wikipedia, not it's bias? like starting date, multiple languages, etc and the Bias page be used for the bias info? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: OK, that's a good idea. I'll reopen the page for factual information like what you suggest. We could all benefit from that. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Renaissance's Inspiration? ==

I would like to dispute item 4 on the list of examples of bias. It is stated that the Renaissance was primarily inspired by Christianity. This is not the case, however; the Renaissance was a return to the values, ideas, and artistic style of pre-Christian times, specifically those of classical Greece.

== My response ==

I'm just listing what I think of these.

# So? If you were a Jew, would you be offended for people not using the Hebrew calendar? And how does wikipedia not give credit to christianity 
# How is this bias? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia... having an entry on it isnt bias. It does not support or oppose anti-racist mathematics.
# Again, how is this bias? It says specifically that a small number of people believe this, and is cited well. And saying that 'no credible historian makes such a claim' is both false and biased.
# There are alot of Renaissances. Look at wikipedia's article on 'Italian Renaissance'. Christianity is credited on that article.
# Why is this still here? I think its been discussed on the talk page.
# How does it read 'like a brochure for the abortion industry'?
#
# Wikipedia, like most encyclopedias, does not include articles that are insignificant. Conservapedia only recently became famous; therefore, in response to publicity, the entry was created. It makes sense. And although wikipedia's article may include 'obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements', I could say the same for this article as well. And even if it does have out-of-date citations, why are you using them in all of the 'Wikipedia later removed this error' examples?
#
# There is no point of view. It states the opinions of others; it does not say 'JPandS is an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical.'
# 'Out of date.'
# Using 'foreign' spellings is not bias.
# The article on Benjamin Franklin says 'A few years later, Franklin repudiated his 1725 pamphlet as an embarrassing "erratum".' Another out of date citation?
# How can you distort and omit facts at the same time? And if those are true, then that would be an error, not bias.
# How is that gossip? A famous person becoming injured isnt gossip. Would you consider Dick Cheney shooting somebody with a shotgun gossip?

Ill stop here. Feel free to respond ><

== Toronto Evening Star and Statistics ==
The Toronto evening star apparently liked the statement that wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public. Mathematically flawed arguments in the ''bias article'' are like giving freebies to the liberals. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 22:00 (AEST)

== Liberal Wikipedians as compared to conservative Wikipedians ==

The referenced links only represent an extremely small percentage of Wikipedia's total membership. This really invalidates it, and I would remove that particular point if I didn't fear the consequences. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Fear not, you couldn't remove it anyway: The article is protected. And this issue has been mentioned a few times by now, with the most prominent one (in my eyes) being in [[#We need to decide what this list is|We need to decide what this list is]]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Folks, all polls or sample sizes are "an extremely small percentage" of the population. That does not make it invalid.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: It does. The Harris poll was contained from a statistical significant sample of 6,000 people, and the results were weighted for sex, education, age, etc to have the outcome match the general population. Also, it had 3 possible answers: conservative, moderate, liberal.

:::The wikipedia numbers are based on a selfselected sample of about 300 people who felt like putting political orientation into their profile. This sample is unlikely to be representative for the 3.8 million wikipedians. Even if your guts tell you that a rate 3 to 1 liberal is close to reality. Its your guts that say this, because these numbers don't prove anything. These numbers are not corrected for age, sex, education. And there are only two choices: liberal, and conservative (in contrast to 3). And the way you compute with fractions is even fundamentally flawed, even if the numbers were right and significant, but that a different issue altogether.

:::: No, the sample is not merely 300 people in the Wikipedia. It's thousands, or millions, of which well over 300 people responded. It is MORE reliable than a poll that only contacts a few hundred people. The Wikipedia survey is like an election, where people have the option of voting or not voting. That is MORE accurate than a telephone poll that does not expressly give people that option.

:::::: So, thousands particpated in this polls, at least? If not millions? Cool, say it is 1000. Then, according to the wikipedia numbers about 20% of all editors are liberal, which is within the margin of error of the Harris poll, which states that 18% of all Americans are liberal. If it were possible to do statistics with these numbers. --[[User:Order|Order]] 19:03, 14 March 2007 (AEST)

:::::''What survey?'' Nowhere on Wikipedia does ANYBODY go all "Hey, if you like, you can add these silly labels to your userpage!". Few people know of this category, fewer people are Americans who these labels apply to, even fewer people care enough about them. Jimmy Wales himself said that he discourages these things, so EVEN fewer people will slap one of those things onto their pages. Your "survey" is like me setting up a poll on a site somewhere and then not advertising it. My sample size automatically becomes "All users of the Internet", and that makes it a valid survey. If just ten people reply, it won't matter since millions of people participated - they just chose not to take the poll.
:::::Look, I know you're very proud of this claim, but let it go. You have no basis for stating that Wikipedia is more of ANYTHING. These things are no poll, no survey, no anything. You've had your fun, the press in one or two countries at least made fun of it, but that's it. Keeping it in will only show that you're stubborn even in the face of people openly mocking it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:07, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Since this is the only '''bold''' statement in the entire article on bias in Wikipedia, it better be right. However, it is wrong on so many levels. The only thing that speaks for it that it coincides with your gut feeling. It is a gift to any liberal who wants to ridicule Conservapedia and its editors. Its like starting a football match and giving away penalty kicks to the opponents. --[[User:Order|Order]] 10:03, 14 March 2007 (AEST)

:::: This debate illustrates how the problem is more than the fact that Wikipedia is liberal. It is that Wikipedians won't admit they are liberal. That's what makes Conservapedia so much better. We're up-front about our point-of-view. Liberal Wikipedians pretend they are not liberal, when they are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: Sorry to be so blunt, but this is just a weasel statement, because you won't admit that you used bad statistics combined with poor fractional math. If wikipedia is so secretive to not provide any good numbers, then don't use their numbers. There are many good points you could make, but this is not one of them. Its a godsend for the liberals. --[[User:Order|Order]] 15:03, 14 March 2007 (AEST)

:::::: Agreed. This is a real black-eye on Conservapedia on several fronts: 1) the "poll" of Wikipedians is self-selected... in the business of polling, that discounts it as useless up-front 2) this is an informal element of Wikipedia, which [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Wikipedians_by_Politics_I Wikipedia itself is attempting to remove] (and such removal efforts have continued in various forms for years) because of its divisiveness 3) there's no correlation drawn between this self-selected data and the actual extent to which people contribute to Wikipedia... it's entirely possible that there's weighting here that renders the ''implication'' incorrect, even if the data were correct. There are some good criticisms on this list, and it really doesn't need this one that makes the rest look bad. -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 14:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== How are we supposed to contribute? ==

You say to contribute to the page, yet how, if it is locked to prevent editing?
:Post here and a mod will add it.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:33, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If you're talking about the kangaroo page, I locked it because an edit war with some guy who kept posting that creationism was stupid was tying my hands up. I didn't have time to explain it at the time. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely locking a page for reasons other than vandalism is detrimental to the whole point of wiki software. --[[User:Dezza91|Dezza91]] 03:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:18 USC § 1030

2007-03-14T17:52:13Z

Harmil: Misuse?

==Misuse?==
On the front page, we're saying that this statute can be used to prosecute anyone who vandalizes Conservapedia.

This is ... not entirely true. Certainly someone who broke into the servers and replaced the MediaWiki engine with a vulgar site (just an over-the-top example) would run afoul of this law if interpreted broadly enough (though the fact that it's neither a government nor financial system casts some doubt on that), but the "without authorization" provisos of this statute pretty much exclude the activities of any registered user to the site. Such vandalism certainly might not be what we had in mind, but is at best a lapse in judgment and at worst an abuse of granted privileges. It's NOT unauthorized access, however. Threatening someone with a law that doesn't actually apply doesn't really improve Conservapedia's reputation any, I would imagine, so I'd suggest striking that section of the MainPage blurb, unless someone can produce a lawyer (I'm not one) who can explain how this law would apply. -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 13:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

18 USC § 1030

2007-03-14T17:43:34Z

Harmil: +cat

'''18 USCS § 1030''': Fraud and related activity in connection with computers

(a) Whoever--
:(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y.[(y)] of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 [42 USCS § 2014(y)], with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;
:(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
::(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);
::(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or
::(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;
:(3) intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;
:(4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $ 5,000 in any 1-year period;
:(5) (A) (i) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
:::(ii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or
:::(iii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage; and
::(B) by conduct described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A), caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused)--
:::(i) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $ 5,000 in value;
:::(ii) the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;
:::(iii) physical injury to any person;
:::(iv) a threat to public health or safety; or
:::(v) damage affecting a computer system used by or for a government entity in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security;
:(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029 [18 USCS § 1029]) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if--
::(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or
::(B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States; [or]
:(7) with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to cause damage to a protected computer;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

(b) Whoever attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

(c) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) or (b) of this section is--
:(1) (A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under sub-section (a)(1) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and
::(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section; or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
:(2) (A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(5)(A)(iii), or (a)(6) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
::(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph, if--
:::(i) the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
:::(ii) the offense was committed in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State; or
:::(iii) the value of the information obtained exceeds $ 5,000; and
::(C) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under sub-section (a)(2), (a)(3) or (a)(6) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
:(3) (A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(4) or (a)(7) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and
::(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under sub-section (a)(4), (a)(5)(A)(iii), or (a)(7) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this section;
:(4) (A) except as provided in paragraph (5), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under that subsection;
::(B) a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(5)(A)(ii), or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under that subsection;
::(C) except as provided in paragraph (5), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(5)(A)(i) or (a)(5)(A)(ii), or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under either subsection, that occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section; and
:(5) (A) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause serious bodily injury from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both; and
::(B) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both.

(d)
:(1) The United States Secret Service shall, in addition to any other agency having such authority, have the authority to investigate offenses under this section.
:(2) The Federal Bureau of Investigation shall have primary authority to investigate offenses under subsection (a)(1) for any cases involving espionage, foreign counterintelligence, information protected against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or Restricted Data (as that term is defined in section 11y of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)), except for offenses affecting the duties of the United States Secret Service pursuant to section 3056(a) of this title [18 USCS § 3056(a)].
: (3) Such authority shall be exercised in accordance with an agreement which shall be entered into by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General.

(e) As used in this section--
: (1) the term "computer" means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device, but such term does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, a portable hand held calculator, or other similar device;
: (2) the term "protected computer" means a computer--
:: (A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
:: (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;
: (3) the term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other common-wealth, possession or territory of the United States;
: (4) the term "financial institution" means--
:: (A) an institution, with deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;
:: (B) the Federal Reserve or a member of the Federal Reserve including any Federal Reserve Bank;
:: (C) a credit union with accounts insured by the National Credit Union Administration;
:: (D) a member of the Federal home loan bank system and any home loan bank;
:: (E) any institution of the Farm Credit System under the Farm Credit Act of 1971;
:: (F) a broker-dealer registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 USCS § 78o];
:: (G) the Securities Investor Protection Corporation;
:: (H) a branch or agency of a foreign bank (as such terms are defined in paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978 [12 USCS § 3101(1) and (3)]); and
:: (I) an organization operating under section 25 or section 25(a) of the Federal Reserve Act;
: (5) the term "financial record" means information derived from any record held by a financial institution pertaining to a customer's relationship with the financial institution;
: (6) the term "exceeds authorized access" means to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter;
: (7) the term "department of the United States" means the legislative or judicial branch of the Government or one of the executive department enumerated in section 101 of title 5;
: (8) the term "damage" means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information;
: (9) the term "government entity" includes the Government of the United States, any State or political subdivision of the United States, any foreign country, and any state, province, municipality, or other political subdivision of a foreign country;
: (10) the term "conviction" shall include a conviction under the law of any State for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, an element of which is unauthorized access, or exceeding authorized access, to a computer;
: (11) the term "loss" means any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of responding to an offense, conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data, program, system, or information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of service; and
: (12) the term "person" means any individual, firm, corporation, educational institution, financial institution, govern-mental entity, or legal or other entity.

(f) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.

(g) Any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of this section may maintain a civil action against the violator to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief. A civil action for a violation of this section may be brought only if the conduct involves 1 of the factors set forth in clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of subsection (a)(5)(B). Damages for a violation involving only conduct described in subsection (a)(5)(B)(i) are limited to economic damages. No action may be brought under this subsection unless such action is begun within 2 years of the date of the act complained of or the date of the discovery of the damage. No action may be brought under this subsection for the negligent design or manufacture of computer hardware, computer software, or firmware.

(h) The Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the Congress annually, during the first 3 years following the date of the enactment of this subsection [enacted Sept. 13, 1994], concerning investigations and prosecutions under subsection (a)(5).

[[Category:United States law]]

18 USC § 1030

2007-03-14T17:42:54Z

Harmil: more formatting

18 USC § 1030

2007-03-14T17:41:39Z

Harmil: formatting

18 USCS § 1030

§ 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers

(a) Whoever--
:(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y.[(y)] of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 [42 USCS § 2014(y)], with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;
:(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
::(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);
::(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or
::(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;
:(3) intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;
:(4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $ 5,000 in any 1-year period;
:(5) (A) (i) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
:::(ii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or
:::(iii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage; and
::(B) by conduct described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A), caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused)--
:::(i) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $ 5,000 in value;
:::(ii) the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;
:::(iii) physical injury to any person;
:::(iv) a threat to public health or safety; or
:::(v) damage affecting a computer system used by or for a government entity in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security;
:(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029 [18 USCS § 1029]) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if--
::(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or
::(B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States; [or]
:(7) with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to cause damage to a protected computer;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

(b) Whoever attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

(c) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) or (b) of this section is--
:(1) (A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under sub-section (a)(1) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and
::(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section; or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
:(2) (A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(5)(A)(iii), or (a)(6) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
::(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph, if--
:::(i) the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
:::(ii) the offense was committed in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State; or
:::(iii) the value of the information obtained exceeds $ 5,000; and
::(C) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under sub-section (a)(2), (a)(3) or (a)(6) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
:(3) (A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(4) or (a)(7) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and
::(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under sub-section (a)(4), (a)(5)(A)(iii), or (a)(7) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this section;
:(4) (A) except as provided in paragraph (5), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under that subsection;
::(B) a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(5)(A)(ii), or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under that subsection;
::(C) except as provided in paragraph (5), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(5)(A)(i) or (a)(5)(A)(ii), or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under either subsection, that occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section; and
:(5) (A) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause serious bodily injury from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both; and
::(B) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both.

(d)
:(1) The United States Secret Service shall, in addition to any other agency having such authority, have the authority to investigate offenses under this section.
:(2) The Federal Bureau of Investigation shall have primary authority to investigate offenses under subsection (a)(1) for any cases involving espionage, foreign counterintelligence, information protected against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or Restricted Data (as that term is defined in section 11y of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)), except for offenses affecting the duties of the United States Secret Service pursuant to section 3056(a) of this title [18 USCS § 3056(a)].
: (3) Such authority shall be exercised in accordance with an agreement which shall be entered into by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General.

(e) As used in this section--
: (1) the term "computer" means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device, but such term does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, a portable hand held calculator, or other similar device;
: (2) the term "protected computer" means a computer--
:: (A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
:: (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;
: (3) the term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other common-wealth, possession or territory of the United States;
: (4) the term "financial institution" means--
:: (A) an institution, with deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;
:: (B) the Federal Reserve or a member of the Federal Reserve including any Federal Reserve Bank;
:: (C) a credit union with accounts insured by the National Credit Union Administration;
:: (D) a member of the Federal home loan bank system and any home loan bank;
:: (E) any institution of the Farm Credit System under the Farm Credit Act of 1971;
:: (F) a broker-dealer registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 USCS § 78o];
:: (G) the Securities Investor Protection Corporation;
:: (H) a branch or agency of a foreign bank (as such terms are defined in paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978 [12 USCS § 3101(1) and (3)]); and
:: (I) an organization operating under section 25 or section 25(a) of the Federal Reserve Act;
: (5) the term "financial record" means information derived from any record held by a financial institution pertaining to a customer's relationship with the financial institution;
: (6) the term "exceeds authorized access" means to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter;
: (7) the term "department of the United States" means the legislative or judicial branch of the Government or one of the executive department enumerated in section 101 of title 5;
: (8) the term "damage" means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information;
: (9) the term "government entity" includes the Government of the United States, any State or political subdivision of the United States, any foreign country, and any state, province, municipality, or other political subdivision of a foreign country;
: (10) the term "conviction" shall include a conviction under the law of any State for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, an element of which is unauthorized access, or exceeding authorized access, to a computer;
: (11) the term "loss" means any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of responding to an offense, conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data, program, system, or information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of service; and
: (12) the term "person" means any individual, firm, corporation, educational institution, financial institution, govern-mental entity, or legal or other entity.

(f) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.

(g) Any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of this section may maintain a civil action against the violator to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief. A civil action for a violation of this section may be brought only if the conduct involves 1 of the factors set forth in clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of subsection (a)(5)(B). Damages for a violation involving only conduct described in subsection (a)(5)(B)(i) are limited to economic damages. No action may be brought under this subsection unless such action is begun within 2 years of the date of the act complained of or the date of the discovery of the damage. No action may be brought under this subsection for the negligent design or manufacture of computer hardware, computer software, or firmware.

(h) The Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the Congress annually, during the first 3 years following the date of the enactment of this subsection [enacted Sept. 13, 1994], concerning investigations and prosecutions under subsection (a)(5).

User:Harmil

2007-03-12T20:49:20Z

Harmil: Initial page

'''Harmil''' is an active contributor to both Conservapedia and Wikipedia, hoping to improve both sites. I do not have a party affiliation, and try to edit both sites from a strictly factual standpoint.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Harmil Harmil on Wikipedia]

Atheism

2007-03-12T17:02:57Z

Harmil: /* The Problem of Evil */ Replaced the horribly opinionated and unsourced "response" with something a bit more grounded in fact. An article on The Problem of Evil would be good.

Atheism is disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a [[God|god]] or gods, or any supernatural entity.

Atheism is closely tied with [[Secular Humanism]]. Popularly-known Atheists and Secular Humanists include [[Stephen Hawking]], [[Albert Einstein]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Carl Sagan]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[William Borden]] and [[Sam Harris]]. Other famous atheists include [[Pol Pot]], [[Emilio Altieri]] and [[Stalin]].

== Atheist morality ==

Many atheists base their [[moral code]] upon [[emotion]], [[experience]] and empirically derived ethics, such as those promoted by secular humanism. Atheists hold that neither the [[Bible]], nor the [[Koran]], nor the [[Torah]], nor any religious text can be our only source of morality. This claim is made as all religious texts contain, and often ascribe to God, extremely immoral acts such as the Israelites driving out heathen nations from Canaan (i.e. [[ethnic cleansing]]), the stoning of homosexuals and adulterers to death, and the institution of slavery.

Atheists often subscribe to the secular humanist idea that it is far more ethical to do what is right because you believe that it is right, rather than because you fear divine punishment or desire divine reward. One example is illustrated in the following quote from [[Albert Einstein]]:

:“A man’s ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death”.

A modern example is the absurdity with which we view Islamist suicide bombers acting on a desire for 72 virgins in the afterlife. Atheism condemns this desire, along with other religious desires for exclusive reward (and the punishment of others) such as are found in all religious texts.

== Origins ==

It is difficult to trace the origins of atheism as a result of the incomplete historic record. It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. The materialist world view was essentially mathematical and had no room for gods{{fact}}.

== The Problem of Evil==

A central argument against religious belief in all powerful entities ('gods') is the problem of evil. First identified by the philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), this problem points out the difficulty created by the mere existence of evil:

:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
:Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent.
:Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
:Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

A number of responses to this logical paradox have been put forth including those which assert human ignorance as the culprit, the concept of free will and the specific writings in some faiths which discuss the co-existence of good and evil (such as the book of Job in the Christian and Jewish faiths).[http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-log.htm]

== Atheism and Agnosticism ==

Atheism and agnosticism are logically distinct concepts. Whilst atheist reject the existence of a god or gods, agnostics do not do so. [[Richard Dawkins]] has contrasted the two positions as follows:

:“There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can’t prove that there aren’t any, so shouldn’t we be agnostic with respect to fairies?”.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]

User talk:Harmil

2007-03-12T17:01:45Z

Harmil:

This ''is'' Conservapedia, and though many of us (myself included) don't take the Bible as pure and wholesome truth, it is treated as the ultimate authority for writing here. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:And yet the note in question a) didn't cite the Bible b) wasn't quoting the Bible and c) didn't make a coherent case. -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Atheism

2007-03-12T16:54:22Z

Harmil: /* The Problem of Evil */ This sentence is purely a statement of opinion and religious belief stated as fact

Atheism is disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a [[God|god]] or gods, or any supernatural entity.

Atheism is closely tied with [[Secular Humanism]]. Popularly-known Atheists and Secular Humanists include [[Stephen Hawking]], [[Albert Einstein]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Carl Sagan]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[William Borden]] and [[Sam Harris]]. Other famous atheists include [[Pol Pot]], [[Emilio Altieri]] and [[Stalin]].

== Atheist morality ==

Many atheists base their [[moral code]] upon [[emotion]], [[experience]] and empirically derived ethics, such as those promoted by secular humanism. Atheists hold that neither the [[Bible]], nor the [[Koran]], nor the [[Torah]], nor any religious text can be our only source of morality. This claim is made as all religious texts contain, and often ascribe to God, extremely immoral acts such as the Israelites driving out heathen nations from Canaan (i.e. [[ethnic cleansing]]), the stoning of homosexuals and adulterers to death, and the institution of slavery.

Atheists often subscribe to the secular humanist idea that it is far more ethical to do what is right because you believe that it is right, rather than because you fear divine punishment or desire divine reward. One example is illustrated in the following quote from [[Albert Einstein]]:

:“A man’s ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death”.

A modern example is the absurdity with which we view Islamist suicide bombers acting on a desire for 72 virgins in the afterlife. Atheism condemns this desire, along with other religious desires for exclusive reward (and the punishment of others) such as are found in all religious texts.

== Origins ==

It is difficult to trace the origins of atheism as a result of the incomplete historic record. It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. The materialist world view was essentially mathematical and had no room for gods{{fact}}.

== The Problem of Evil==

A central argument against religious belief in all powerful entities ('gods') is the problem of evil. First identified by the philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), this problem points out the difficulty created by the mere existence of evil:

:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
:Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent.
:Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
:Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

== Atheism and Agnosticism ==

Atheism and agnosticism are logically distinct concepts. Whilst atheist reject the existence of a god or gods, agnostics do not do so. [[Richard Dawkins]] has contrasted the two positions as follows:

:“There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can’t prove that there aren’t any, so shouldn’t we be agnostic with respect to fairies?”.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]