Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Christopher Columbus

2007-05-12T20:33:38Z

Itsjustme: He was liberal

Columbus sailed from Spain on August 3 1492, and after sailing in unkown waters and not sighting land for three weeks, the sailors began to talk of mutiny. On October 10, Columbus promised that if they did not find land in three days they would turn back. On October 12, they reached an island that Columbus named San Salvador. Columbus did not reach his original destination but he did set the stage for Europian exploration of the New World.

Citations?
Sentence/Paragraph Structure?
Proper Grammar?

Ouch! Reading this article killed brain cells.

== He was liberal ==

Chrisopher Columbus was a liberal whe tried to find new ways. He could also be called a scientist in geography and navigation.
He did not believe in what the conservative world was thinking (the world is flat and that he will fall down its surface at the end of the world).

This should be mentioned in the article. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 16:33, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Atheism

2007-04-28T16:07:44Z

Itsjustme:

'''Atheism''' defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' and the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (one of the foremost philosophy reference works) is the denial of the existence of any God. <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998</ref>

Well-known atheists include [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Ayn Rand]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]] and [[Sam Harris]].

== Definitions of "atheism" used in debate ==

There are ''active'' and ''passive'' senses in which the term "atheism" can be used - because of the nature of the term the active sense is the original and by far the most common. However, in debate the sense in which atheism is defined may shift from "the active denial of the existence of God", to merely "the passive lack of belief in the existence of God". This can be seen as an attempt to shift the burden of proof from the atheist to disprove the existence of God, on to the theist to prove the existence of God.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998</ref> Recently a number of atheists have attempted to redefine the meaning of atheism as a lack of belief in the existence of God because they wish to shift the burden of proof in regards to the question of the existence of God. <ref>http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm</ref>

These ''active'' and ''passive'' senses are ''logically'' equivalent because they both equate to '''"God exists = False"''', but they are ''pragmatically'' distinct, because denying the existence of ''X'', and ''X'' being amongst the things one has never considered the existence of, are different psychological states. The argument for them being different psychological states is that if "''X'' being amongst the things one has never considered the existence of" were psychologically equivalent to the denial of the existence of ''X'', then one would have to hold an infinite number of beliefs in the non-existence of all logically possible ''X''s, but since the human mind is finite, this cannot be the case.

Nevertheless, this distinction is a rhetorical device only, and does not succeed in shifting any burden of proof. This is because not only is the issue of burden of proof still, strictly-speaking, independent of the issue of the sense in which the term "atheism" is used, but it is impossible even to identify oneself as an atheist in the ''passive'' sense described above. Once one has considered the question of the existence of God (which one must do in order to describe ''oneself'' as an atheist), to be an atheist one must actively deny the existence of God. This is because, presuming agreement on the definition of God, a so-called passive atheist would be unable to describe the following sentence as either true or false: "God exists." To answer "True" is theism, to answer "False" is active atheism, and to answer "Neither" is not atheism at all, but agnosticism, and the option of ignoring the question is lost by entering the debate at all.

== Atheist morality ==

Atheists typically hold that no religious text can be our only source of morality, although they may contain useful ideas or principles. As atheists do not believe in any form of deity, books purported to be based upon the revealed words of such deities are not considered to have any more inherent moral authority than books written by people. For instance, it may be claimed that events in the Bible itself even encourage immoral behavior, such as the Israelite expulsion of heathen nations from Canaan, the stoning to death of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm homosexuals], poor treatment of women, and the institution of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html slavery]. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] claim, however, that these objections to the goodness of God are invalid. <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/outrage.html</ref><ref>http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con030.asp</ref><ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2007/0202.asp</ref>

The study of morality outside of a theistic framework falls under the [[Philosophy| Philosophical]] topic of [[Ethics]].

=== Christian View of 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. Materialism is a philosophical position that the material is all that exists. Therefore, it automatically excludes immaterial beings. In addition to materialism the Greeks also considered Spiritualism, in which the material world is an illusion and only spirit exists, as well as dualism, in which both the material and the spiritual exist (e.g. Christianity). It is important to note that while many atheists are strict materialists, some are not. As an example, some philosophical systems generally regarded as religions (i.e. Buddhism) lack deities and thus could be regarded as "atheistic faiths."

The writer of the Book of Psalms knew of atheists and atheism and registered disapproval in Psalm 14: "The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The book of Psalms precedes the 5th century BC by hundreds of years {{fact}}.

== Atheist Population ==

In the [[Great Britain]] 2001 census, 15.5% of the population identify themselves as having no religious beliefs [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293 2001 Census]. This category included [[agnostics]], atheists, [[heathens]] and those who wrote [[Jedi Knight]]. However other articles [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggest] a much higher rate of around 52% in the UK once agnostics have been considered.

More specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggests] that the true proportion of Atheists is 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain and 32% in France. The Christian research organization, the Barna Group, [http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=160 reports] that 12% of Americans are atheist or agnostic. Given that the methodology of the Barna Group study does not distinguish between atheists and agnostics, it is impossible to say if their results support, or contradict, the 4% figure. Estimates of the prevalence in atheism in the United States are, however, almost always much lower than comparable estimates from Europe.

It is important to keep in mind that surveys containing an option for "no religion" are not necessarily identifying solely atheists. Indeed, many individuals may believe strongly in some form of god but not subscribe to any one particular religion, and as a result will enter a response of "no religion" on surveys. As an example, 14.39% of the respondents to the 2004 General Social Survey in the United States claim to have "no religion." Of a subsample (197 respondents) of those persons with no religion who answered a second question on the origins of man, 19.80% believe that God created man while an additional 43.15% believe that God created man by guiding evolution over time. Thus, cumulatively 62.95% of those with "no religion" still believe that God was directly responsible for the creation of man in some fashion. Clearly, then, many of those claiming to have "no religion" are not atheists. These data are available and can be analyzed online [http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss04 GSS Data Online]. Additionally, some atheists consider atheism to be a religion and will not respond that they have "no religion" on surveys, often preferring an "other" option.

== Public Disapproval of Atheists in America ==

Research by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartmann in the American Sociological Review [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2006/00000071/00000002/art00003 indicates] that most Americans would be more willing to vote for a homosexual or Muslim presidential candidate than an atheist. The same study indicates that 47.6% of Americans would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist. More recent [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26611&pg=1 Gallup polls] confirm this finding and indicate that atheists are among the most disliked minorities in the United States. In addition, former President George H.W. Bush has previously [http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm stated] that he does not believe atheists should be considered citizens of the United States.

Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006- Table 1 (Percentage of respondents answering affirmatively):
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society:
! I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) are one contemporary group known to discriminate against atheists. The BSA has been sued several times by Scouts who had been denied the rank of Eagle solely because they were atheists.

== The Problem of Evil==

One argument against belief in all-powerful entities ('gods') is the existence of evil. Philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), wrote:

: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?

[[Theodicy]] is the branch of study in theology and philosophy that defends the goodness of God despite the existence of evil. <ref>http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861719540/theodicy.html</ref> In traditional Christianity and Judaism the book of Job is used to explain the existence of evil. <ref>http://apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/doctrinal_apologetics/bowman-job.html</ref> In recent times [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] often cite [[Alvin Plantinga]]'s free will defense in regards to the existence of evil. <ref>http://www.xenos.org/essays/evilpo.htm</ref><ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/handouts/free_will_defense.html</ref> The work of [[St. Augustine]] is also cited in regards to theodicy. <ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124</ref>

== The Problem of Origins==

Arguments against atheism sometimes invoke the Problem of Origins. This problem can be simply stated as:

:All things that exist have causes.
:The universe exists.
:The universe must have a cause.

Theists often claim that God is the origin of the universe and, thus, that this Problem of Origins is evidence for the existence of God. Atheists use a variety of possible counters to this claim but the simplest is likely that invoking God as "first cause" simply removes the problem one step. So, if the problem of the origin of the universe is solved by attributing it to god, it simply raises the problem of the origin of God. If God can be uncaused then, atheists claim, so can the universe. However, theists claim that the first and second law of thermodyamics argues against an eternal universe. <ref>http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329</ref>

Many leading scientists reject God. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref>[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists assert the [[theory of evolution]] is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth. <ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref>

Creationists also state that the [[origin of life]] is not possible though natural processes and the origin of life is the result of God. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp</ref><ref>http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html</ref>

==External Links==

*[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-harris24dec24,0,3994298.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail 10 Myths and 10 Truths about Atheism]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism Decline of Atheism -CreationWiki]
*[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf European Commission report on Social values, Science and Technology, includes info on Religious beliefs]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-03-20T12:55:27Z

Itsjustme: /* Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors */

==Sources==
If you follow the link to Cecil DeMille's wikipedia entry you'll notice that the trivia section is gone ... you should be careful to use references that are constantly being updated as they might not always prove your point.
Another case of being careful what you quote: here's an article saying 51% believe god created humans, 30% say humans evolved w/ God's help and 15% say we evolved w/o God. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..."
How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"?
(What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The poll cited for belief by the US public in evolution needs to be updated. It's almost a decade old. Harris has one from 2005. [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581] --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry. If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected. Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete. [[User:treeman]] 12:22, 11 March 2007

== "Controversy" ==

This page was unlocked to add ''facts'', not ''alleged bias''. There is an entire article about the alleged bias, it doesn't go in here. The "controversy" section is about bias. Additionally, parts of it apply only to the English Wikipedia, NOTHING is sourced, and the source I consulted right now suggests that the whole "Americans are majority" bit is wrong. Unless there is something incredibly important I'm missing here (say so!), I'll delete the section in a few minutes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm for deleteing it right now. Anything that can be written here can also be written on the bias article that already exists.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: To appease those who insist wikipedia is biased, maybe we should include a link to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] in a "see also" section. Otherwise content like this will just keep reapearing and being deleted. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 16:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Done, and the link had already been added by the time I got there. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::There does not seem to be an article on wikiality.com, as a big proponent of truthiness, and gut thinking, I would consider adding this to the UNBIASED conservapedia.

=="A large percentage" of homosexuals==
C'mon. How many? Out of how many?

Wikipedia has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 3,834,720 registered user accounts, of which 1,147 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges], by the way.

And what does it mean to be a "supporter of homosexuality?" Is a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supporting" homosexuality, for example? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:" and given by example are [[Sodom]] and Gommorah, who having gone after strange flesh, suffered the vengence of eternal fire. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please, ''please'' do not use the story of Sodom and Gommorah as anti-homosexual support, since the story had nothing to do with that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:''Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm''. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Have you ever read the story, Dave? The story '''does''' in fact have to do with homosexuality. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have, extensively. The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is ''anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom,'' or ''the people of the city, the people of Sodom''. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.

::::Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.

::::But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So, does that mean that a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supports" homosexuality? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==What's wrong with using actual numbers?==
I said that

:Of approximately 3 million Wikipedia editors, about 250 of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_Wikipedians] have posted on their user pages statements that they identify themselves as "gay."

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]], I've given the basis for both of these numbers. If you have better sources for the actual numbers, please cite and use them. If not, don't fall back on weasel words like "some" or "a large percentage." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias against homosexuality ==
This article seems to have a very strong bias against homosexuality. The section about "Wikipedia and Homosexuality" is longer than the rest of the article. Furthermore, can anybody tell me why the homosexuality of "Essjay" it is of relevance to this article? --[[User:QuestionMark|QuestionMark]] 13:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::It isn't. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I assume it's the attempt to make Wikipedia look as bad as possible without repeating things from the Bias list. It should also be noted that most of these things most likely only refer to en.wikipedia, but that's not exactly new (see Bias article again) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Check the history and the edit comments. It appears that I am a "liberal gay rights activist" because I wanted a source citation for what critics, specifically, talk about Wikipedia as having a "gay cabal," and because I prefer to say "250 Wikipedia editors" rather than "some" or "a large percentage" identify themselves as gay on their user pages. (Incidentally, just for the record... when I checked I counted 226, which I rounded ''up,'' and 3,834,720, which I rounded ''down.'') [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please don't revert multiple times ==
:This is directed at user [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] Would you please discuss such enormous changes before simply reverting to your pov? [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I like your changes. Too many plants here from Wikipedia. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Like conservipedia" ==

"Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users."

Since Conservipedia is pretty much a rip of Wikipedia, is it in any way honest to use wording that would lead one to believe that conservipedia is a more established wiki than wikipedia? [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==RightWolf2, please back up your statements==
Being Conservapedia doesn't mean that any opinion can be stated just because it's conservative.

With regard to:
:Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.
well, fine, but please cite a source so that any reader can judge for themselves what they think about these "critics," and see whether you've summarized their views fairly.

With regard to:
:The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community
I personally have no idea how one would even ''begin'' to go about finding such a thing. Please give a basis for this statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd leave him be, this article is hilarious! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:RightWolf2, you gave http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ as a citation to back up the statement that "The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community." However, that link goes to a page that contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Please provide a '''specific''' link to the page supporting the statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::This may be the cite he was refering to. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==OK, it is pretty funny==
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Secret Revelations==
:I am a top-level administrator on one of the several non-English versions of Wikipedia. I can confirm that your concerns on severe liberal bias are indeed correct, as they have dogged Wikipedia from the very beginning of the project.

:As a conservative, it felt that it was tougher in getting an admin position. As such, I have dedicated over 80 000 edits in removing all forms of bias against Western and Eastern civilization. Also, I made it easier for people to get to know christianity.

:Several left-wing associations seem to influence on the organization of Wikipedia. Groups of freeware developers, members of the rationalist zetetique, libertarians in general, European socialists and American democrats, even anarchists, communists and freemasons seem to have a greater hold than the average conservative editor.

:To deliver us from the utter control of sects, I am very pleased that you have begun the Conservapedia project. My prayer goes out to your very best success. [[User:Knight|Knight]]

== Dpbsmith ==

This page is very interesting.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dpbsmith Wikipedia Page for this user]

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:This editors comments in this article are also interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia] [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:In response to the change from editor to user, I support using the term "editor." If I look up something on wikipedia, I use it. If I edit something on wikipedia, while I am using, more specifically, I'm editing it. But that's just my two cents. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I decided the most accurate language is "people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts." I just changed it to "Of the people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts, 226 (as of 14th March 2007) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual." Before anyone jumps on top of me, notice that I removed the percentage calculation, which I think is silly, and put the total number of such accounts into the footnote. Here's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36275&oldid=36173 the diff] in case anybody gets confused about who changed what. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::How about, "226 have outed themselves". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Instead of "have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual?" Sounds like an improvement to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Meanwhile... with regard to the statement that
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to Wikipedia Watch,"
::I still would like to know where this material is posted, since the linked page does not contain it. Or should the statement read something like this:
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community, according to comments made in IRC chat groups on the Wikipedia Watch website"
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Nice, I like the change in language. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==

I would propose a mandatory ban of any Wikipedia editors who edit this site and have placed themselves in the homosexual category as these editors are inconsistent with Conservapedia's goals. Allowing them to edit here will bring this project under God's righteous wrath and doom it to failure. I will start a page on suspected homosexual editors infiltrating this site from Wikipedia. They should be banned on sight.

They should be identified and purged, along with all of their edits.

''put away the unrighteous from among thee, for neither liars, nor murderers not fornicators, nor adulterers, nor sodomites shall inherit the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (homosexuals).''

-- from the bible

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 19:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: Is this one of those liberal parodies that is occasionally pointed to? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Maybe we can put pink triangles on their user page while we're at it...God forbid someone out of the mainstream have a POV...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think these are good ideas. It is nice ot have a place on the web not beng infiltrated by the homos**ual agenda.--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 19:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ugh...please try to recognize sarcasm...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If I recall correctly, there have been serious requests to forbid non-conservative editors from editing article content. It gets kinda hard to distinguish parody and serious cases after a while. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is either a good work of sarcasm, or a bad idea. This is Conservapedia. Not anti-gayapedia. While mainstream conservative ideology condemns homosexuality, there are conservative homosexuals. If their edits fit in the commandments and are good edits, why should their sexuality matter? Censorship based on sexuality will just lead to other censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

And several homosexuals I know consider themselves Christian Conservatives. The basis for editing is following [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. I would hate to see the point of a Wiki abolished just to exclude a certain group of people. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I have edited the page, sorry if I have overstepped the mark on my first hour on sysopts, but this comment on Homosexuals in Wikipedia is propganda if nothing else. B
[[User_Talk:Republican|Republican]]

:No worries. I can certainly understand not wanting to offend anyone at Wikipedia, particularly the homosexuals too much. I certainly hope not all of this sites articles are given the same treatment. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 03:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ooops! Hatered against minorities is comming up? .... Paiting triangles to the talk page of people who are different? .... Hmmm... that reminds me to somewhat? Whom was it again who got a star sticked to the chest about 70 year ago? And who were this men doing that? Where they good or evil? Oh, now I remember: It was the Jews. The nazis were putting the Jew-Stars on their Chests. Is Conservapedia going to be a Nazipedia? If so, please tell so. Because then I will have to fullfill my duty as a good son of good and have the website reported to the national authorities. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia

2007-03-20T12:45:59Z

Itsjustme:

'''Wikipedia''' is a free-content online [[encyclopedia]] established on January 15, 2001. It currently has over 6 million articles, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref> on various topics, including over 1,600,000 articles in the English version. Like [[Conservapedia]], it is a [[wiki]] that is written and edited by its users. Under its GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.

==Wikipedia and Bias==
Wikipedia has been accused by Conservapedia of many biased entries. The article detailing these is found here: [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. Wikipedia aims to reperesent a neutral point of view - a neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle - however, there are a few articles that do not represent the neutral point of view. This happens partly due to Wikipedia's open nature, sometimes being accused by Conservapedians of having 'ingrained' liberal bias. Due to the open nature anyone who finds a biased article is encouraged to change the article to a neurtal point of view. This accidental bias differs from the Conservapedia, which defines itself as "a conservative encyclopedia" what means that it has a bias by definition.

==References==
<references />

==External Links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]

[[Category:Wiki]]

Talk:African Americans

2007-03-20T11:57:31Z

Itsjustme: /* some political correctnes is important */

On the [[Main Page]] is says "You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise, clean answers free of "political correctness".

Surely "African American" is an example of "political correctness". Oughtn't this article be called Negroes?
[[User:JC|JC]] 08:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Sure if you want to use a loaded term. Negroes is a term many associate with racism and apartheid. Careful that the conservatism doesn't turn into outright bigotry.
:-Gasmonkey

::So some "political correctness" is OK then? Fair enough, after all, we should love all [[God]]'s children. Even those from the other side of town.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

heh wow. Just love that Christian brotherhood, snide remarks about the other side of town and all. Don't worry, Jesus still loves you.

:::The term ''African-American'' is described as an example of [[Political correctness]] in that very article.
:::"And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;" (Genesis 15:13)
:::[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 07:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== some political correctnes is important ==

There has to be some political correctness.
Imagine if others would just start to tell about conservapedians "Idiots".
Or what do you think about calling creationistst "Ignorants"?
That would not be political correct, I think. But would it be wronger as you would be when calling african americans "Negroes"?
So better you think about, what you are saying before others call you racists, fundamentalists,.... --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 07:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:African Americans

2007-03-20T11:55:57Z

Itsjustme: some political correctnes is important

On the [[Main Page]] is says "You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise, clean answers free of "political correctness".

Surely "African American" is an example of "political correctness". Oughtn't this article be called Negroes?
[[User:JC|JC]] 08:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Sure if you want to use a loaded term. Negroes is a term many associate with racism and apartheid. Careful that the conservatism doesn't turn into outright bigotry.
:-Gasmonkey

::So some "political correctness" is OK then? Fair enough, after all, we should love all [[God]]'s children. Even those from the other side of town.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

heh wow. Just love that Christian brotherhood, snide remarks about the other side of town and all. Don't worry, Jesus still loves you.

:::The term ''African-American'' is described as an example of [[Political correctness]] in that very article.
:::"And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;" (Genesis 15:13)
:::[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 07:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== some political correctnes is important ==

There has to be some political correctness.
Imagine if others would just start to tell about conservapedians "Idiots".
Or about calling creationistst "Ignorants".
That would not be political correct. But would they be more wrong as you would be calling african americans "Negroes".
So better you think about, what you are saying before others call you racists, fundamentalists,.... --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 07:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

John Howard

2007-03-20T11:49:17Z

Itsjustme: Undo revision 51043 by Special:Contributions/Tsumetai (User talk:Tsumetai)

'''John Howard''' is the current prime minister of [[Australia]]. He is a member of the Labor Party and was elected in 1990 after defeating Gough Whitlam of the Liberal Party by a small margin. John Howard is a devout Catholic who is noted for wearing large crosses in parliament. He was born on 30th of April 1945 in the outback town of Bankstown NSW the seventh and youngest child of Peter and Rose Howard. He was educated at Bankstown primary school and then attended Concord high school for his secondary education. Upon graduation from School Howard went to the University of New South Wales (UNSW) where he received his bachelor of sociology. During his time and UNSW Howard became heavily involved in a student group who dedicated their free time on campus discussing [[Marx]]. Upon leaving university Howard joined the Unions where he used his knowledge of the political system to demand better conditions for workers. He was heavily opposed to the IR laws introduced by then [[Australian]] Prime minister [[John Curtin]] in 1966.

== Early Career ==

John Howard's early political career started in 1967 when he joined the ACP (Australian Communist Party). He rose quickly through the ranks, attending anti-government protests and rallies. In 1960 he engineered a coalition between the local anarchist/communist/socialist/unionist groups, to lobby the government, and stage large disruptive protests. He continued this anti-authoritarian stance, until in 1974 when he met his mentor Peter Garret, a musician and activist, whose mild ways, swayed John towards the center of politics and towards the labour party. John Howard joined the labour party in 1976 and was elected leader in 1985.

== Recent Polical Career ==

When a short extra-curricular liaison with Kevin Rudd, a then little-known politician from the conservative Liberal Party of Australia became public knowledge in 2006 resulting from the illegal release of federal police wire-taps and videos, John Howard was threatened with excommunication by the [[Catholic]] Archbishop of Sydney, [[Cardinal]] George Pell. The landmark speech John Howard subsequently made in federal parliament, which became known as the "Renunciation of Ideals Speech", staved off the threat of excommunication and heightened his electoral popularity - particularly amongst the burgeoning alternative lifestyle sector of the Australian population.

Howard currently resides in Sydney with his wife Grace and his three children Ken, Benjamin, and Linda and their two pet kangaroos Kylie and Dannii

Ten Commandments

2007-03-20T11:46:04Z

Itsjustme: /* The Ten Commandments in US law */

The '''Ten Commandments,''' or the ''Decalogue,'' is a set of laws which, according to the [[Bible]], Moses said were given to him by God.

There are two versions, generally similar but somewhat different in wording: Exodus 20:3-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. The version in Deuteronomy adds the detail of Moses saying that God "delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God. (KJV)"

The Bible itself refers to there being "''ten'' commandments" in Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 4:13, but it is not clear how to parcel out the fifteen or sixteen verses into ten commandments, and different religious groups have done this in different ways. For example, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" and "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" (KJV - see below) are sometimes considered to be two different commandments and sometimes as two parts of the same commandment.

[[Protestant]]s assign the Fifth Commandment to "honor thy father and thy mother," but in [[Catholic]] texts this is the Fourth Commandment.<ref>An atheistic website provides an interesting comparison among faiths with respect to the Ten Commandments, and many sources: http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm</ref> The Jewish tradition is to call that requirement the Fifth Commandment.

However, as Jews also recognise, the ''Torah'', or Law (the first five books of the Old Testament) actually contains not ten, but 613 positive and negative commandments. Thus, when Jesus is asked (at Matthew 22:34-36) which is the greatest commandment in the Law, he picks two of the other 603: 'You shall love the Lord thy God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength' (Deuteronomy 6:5) and 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself' (Leviticus 19:18).

== King James Version (KJV) ==

1. I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

6. Thou shalt not kill. [Hebrew ''ratsach'', to kill, slay, murder]

7. Thous shalt not commit [[adultery]].

8. Thou shalt not steal.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

==The Ten Commandments in US law==

In several controversies over the legality of displaying the Ten Commandments on government property, and especially outside courthouses, the influence of the ten commandments on US law becomes relevant as proponents of the displays argue that these commandments form part of the foundation of the US legal system.

1. This is not only unmentioned in US law, but is specifically opposed by the First Amendment to the Constitution itself. Any attempt to impose the belief or non-belief in a particular God by legal means is strictly prohibited.

2. In a similar way, the first amendment, by protecting freedom of speech, explicitly forbids any legal means of enforcing the second commandment - which is itself a restriction on speech.

3. Nothing in current state or federal law specifically prohibits the taking in vain of God's name in general, but it may be in violation of broadcast decency laws if shown on television or radio.

4. Past state laws have enforced the sabbath by forbidding various activities, such as the sale of specific goods, on Sundays. These, however, are all now repealed or struck down. Closure of shops on Sundays is by convention, but not legally enforced.

5. No law enforces this commandment. It is doubtful that it could be enforced.

6. This commandment is very clearly enforced by US law, but in some US-states dead penalty is not prohibited. However, as this prohibition has arisen in many diverse religions and legal system, it is highly probable it would have been included regardless of its mention in the ten commandments.

7. Adultery is not a criminal offense, but it will influence civil divorce proceedings and affect the distribution of assets.

8. As with 6.

9. As with 6. This law is required for any functioning legal system.

10. As a prohibition on a form of thought, this cannot possibly be enforced by legal means.

==The movie==
'''The Ten Commandments''' is also the title of a famous 1956 motion picture, produced and directed by [[Cecil B. DeMille]] and starring [[Charlton Heston]] as Moses. It tells the story of Moses essentially as told in the Book of Exodus, with a few changes.

As publicity for the film, and in conjunction with a project of the [[Fraternal Order of Eagles]], Paramount helped finance the placement of hundreds of stone tablets engraved with the Ten Commandments. These were placed at courthouse squares, at city halls and in public parks, and became a center of controversy, particularly in recent years, as to whether they violate the separation of Church and State<ref>''Ten Commandments Monoliths'', from the March 2002 issue of ''Eagle Magazine''[http://www.foe.com/tencommandments/]mar_2002_ten_commandments.html</ref> In recent years, liberal attorneys and judges have opposed the display of the Ten Commandments on public property by exploiting the judicial system.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-20T10:55:32Z

Itsjustme: /* Downright Untruth */

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]

===Reply (to [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Figured you'd find this interesting|this]])===
Aschafly: Sure, go ahead. Just remember to attribute. And i'm not hiding anything. I am a liberal.

Order: I took that view from looking at the above talk page. Also, you should remember that Wikipedia generally inflates that count since around 70-80% of those accounts are vandalism only by my estimates, even back when I was doing that study when there were only around 800,000 user names.

:: Even if there are only 10%, i.e. 380 000, active wikipedians, a group of 20 self selcted respondants is still insignificant. --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:35 (AEST)

:::There were around 50, and they weren't self selected. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 15:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: How did you get the sample, if I may ask? -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

Others: Feel free to add to the study if you want in any way you'd like. Just remember to attribute the initial research. I took it basically by word of mouth in metapedian areas, that old user name of mine ("I", the real world "I", Andrew Sylvia, has a few more user accounts that still edit actively, including a few admin accounts) had around 10,000 welcomes if I remember correctly.

And "I"(karmafist, not "me") didn't leave that place due to this survey, it was because I fought the tyrant that runs Wikipedia when he bullied an underage minor and sacrificed my reputation with those monsters for it. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Using fun statistics on wikipedia, just turn this site into a joke ==
I just saw that there is an additonal item on the list on bias using yet another fun statistic. You are now also quoting [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion| List of wikipedians by religion]. This has nothing to do with being a responsible serious site anymore. A very bad example for the rest of the editors. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:50 (AEST)

Polls show that America has more than three times higher percentaeg Christians (77% in 2001) http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm than Wikipedia (23% in 2006) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion (higher percentage Christian Wikimedias though 29%)

: Thanks for proving my point. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

I really feel sorry for Christians who are forced by both conservatives and liberals to be grouped with mind-numbing idiots like the people responsible for this site. Yes, a really large majority of Americans are Christians. A majority of Americans are Democrats too. Hmmm... this would indicate that most liberals are Christians too. Okay, so I'll admit that there are probably a greater percentage of conservatives who are Christian than Liberals, but nonetheless, we all are fully aware that this is a country comprised primarily of Christians. You know what kills me? There are a good number of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc., who are very conservative. I wonder how many of them vote Democrat because they're turned off by fundamentalist Christians who dominate the right wing of America? I have many Muslim friends (no, they're not terrorists). They supported the invasion of Afghanistan (as did I--and still do) and by and large are fairly conservative. In fact, I think that in many ways, they'd have a lot in common with conservative Christians, if they weren't marginalized in this country. They'd probably vote Republican if we didn't continually target Muslims with suspicion. Conservative Christians like to pretend that they welcome "good" Muslims, then they start throwing around statistics stating the "overwhelming" number of Christians in this country as justification or explanation for anything they feel necessary. Being a predominately Christian nation does not mean that policy should therefore be Christian. It means that we all get to see Christmas decorations put up every year, we have to wait in line at all the stores during December... in other words, our culture is visibly affected by Christianity in all sorts of ways. That's okay, as far as I'm concerned. It's not okay when we try to make Christianity into the driving force of policy in our secular nation. Conservatives love to quote the second amendment (which I support, incidentally) but love to forget what freedom of religion means. And guess what Christians, when you write articles that are slanted toward a Christian viewpoint, you can no longer claim to be attempting to represent truth. Instead, you're representing your own point of view. While it is true that no one can escape their own point of view when writing an article, approaching the article with the perspective of "I'm right" rather than at least a willingness to attempt to look at the other side dispassionately is patently worthless. If you wish to write an opinion piece, make it an opinion piece. I can take far more out of someone's opinion when they legitimately represent it as such. Oh, by the way, just because you think that your religion is correct doesn't mean that God agrees with your interpretation of the scriptures. So be careful. Who knows, maybe God will condemn you instead of me!

== Ratio (again) ==

This ratio is totally bogus because the words are loaded. The reason that the number of people who say that they are conservative has been increasing for the last two decades is not because America is becoming more conservative, but rather because the conservative movement has made a concerted propaganda effort to demonize the word "liberal" and prop up the word "conservative". The proof is in the pudding: If you instead ask people what their political views are, the evidence suggest that people overwhelmingly entertain liberal positions on most issues. For example:

(1) As of 3/11/2007, 69% of the country feels that the country is "on the wrong track" after 12 years of Republican control of Congress and 6 years of a Republican president.

(2) 59% of Americans have an "unfavorable" opinion of the republican party, compared to only 43% for the democratic party.

(3) 51% of the public respond that they "feel closer" to the democratic party than the republican party, compared to ony 40% for the republican party.

source:
http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070313_pollresults.pdf

Other studies show that most Americans disagree with the republican position on a whole host of issues, including: the international criminal court, global warming, protecting the environment, the Kyoto Treaty, nonproliferation treaty, etc. Interestingly, people who watch Fox News tend to believe that the Bush/Republican position is similar to their own position even though that is not true, which bolsters my suggestion that the conservative propagandists misinform the public. This is all very well documented in the PIPA study about misperceptions in the media, which can be found here:
http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

Why hasn't the statistic displayed been changed, even though it has been ''conclusively'' demonstrated that the math is bad? In addition, I would not define "liberal bias" as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, that is simply anti-intellectual. If they were editing from a liberal POV, instead of an NPOV (the two are different things), ''then'' it might be somewhat reasonable. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I defined "liberal bias" in the only sensible way possible: the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. If you have a different definition, then let's hear it. Based on my definition, the ratio of 6 is plainly correct. Liberal math to try to get a different result for 3 divided by 1/2 doesn't fly here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: No, it's plainly not. If 2:1 is a 200% liberal bias, then that makes 1:1, a completely unbiased ratio, 100% liberal. According to your definition of ratios, the only non-liberal-bias is no liberals at all. So what makes your idea of ratios the "only sensible way possible"? --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 16:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: What? Liberal math? You divide the fraction of liberals in Wikipedia (3/4) by the fraction of liberals in America (1/3), and you get (9/4). Thats 5th grade math, not liberal math. And you graduated from Harvard? [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 16:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Folks, I've asked someone to propose a different definition of liberal bias. My definition makes the most sense because its scale is from 0 to infinity, like the Kelvin temperature scale preferred by scientists. No one has proposed a plausible alternative scale for liberal bias. Based on the obvious definition, my math is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: What kind of argument is this? It scales from 0 to infinity? There are many continuous monotonous functions that have an [0, infinity] range. Actually, there are infinitely many. There are even uncountably many. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 14:00 (AEST)

::::* First, you use raw numbers of a self selected group to come to do your statistics. Any conclusion drawn from it is speculative at best. A no-no in statistics 101.
::::* What raw data can do shows this example: In the harris poll 34% of all people are conservative. Your raw data on Wikipedia gives that 36% are conservative. This means that wikipedia is at least as conservative as the american public.
::::* You assume that articles written by a conservative are automatically convervatively biased, and articles written by liberal liberally biased.
::::* You simple forget about the 40% moderates in the Harris poll. Your stament '''six time more liberal than American public''' compares liberals to the American public as a whole, including moderates, your math however doesn't count moderates.
::::* What you need to compare, if anything, compare the percentages of the overall population. Because with your math it doesn't matter if there are 66% conservatives in a population vs 33% liberals, or 12% vs 6%, or two conservatives vs one liberal.
::::What raw data from a self selected sample, with your approach to fractional math, can do was demonstarted in [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#New_Jersey_bias_in_Wikipedia Wikipedia 87.5% more New Jersyian than America] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Wikipedia_biased_towards_Erd.C5.91s Wikipedia 75 times as biased towards Erdos than average mathematicians]. Talking about fun statistics. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:00 (AEST)

We had an editing conflict, so here my answer to your question on how to define liberal bias.

* You say '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.'''.
* This means you compare Liberals to the American public.
* The American public includes Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives.
* What you need to compare is the percentage of liberals in America vs the percentage of liberally biased articles in Wikipedia. To obtain an estimate for the latter just look at 100 random pages (or better 1000), and count the pages that have a liberal bias. Done. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:10 (AEST)

::So many times since I joined this site I've seen people argue different points about the 6x more liberal line and every time Aschlafly claims that no one has brought it up before. It's almost a lost cause. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark]

And which term do you think people are more familiar with -- Noah's Ark or "Great Flood"? Many civilizations have had a "great flood" story at one point or another, so why cater only to the Christians?

--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 20:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:It gets worse from there. The "Deluge (mythology)" article covers many flood myths, including the Noah one. but here's the start of the Noah section:
{{QuoteBox|Hebrew (Genesis) Further information about the Genesis version can be found at Noah's Ark.}}
:And the "Noah's Ark" bit is actually a link to the article LutherBifteck mentioned. This "bias" entry is more than silly, it's just plain wrong or misinformed. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

REPLY: The Noah's Ark entry on Wikipedia has the same bias, with numerous references to "myth" and "story", and gratuitous claims that it is rejected today. 60% of Americans accept that the Great Flood occurred. You obviously disagree, which is fine, but your view is way out of step with the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:That may very possibly be because I'm not a member of the American public. Not even to mention that Americans aren't the majority of Wikipedia users... (Assuming that you actually meant me... it's hard to tell when your reply comes on the "opening post" level addresses an unnamed "you") --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:All narrative Bible verses are called stories. What word would you like in its place? Dictionary.com defines "myth" as "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation". Noah's Ark is the very definition of a myth.

:What gratuitious claims? Noah's Ark maybe accepted by 60% of Americans (who you seem to think are the sole users of Wikipedia), but don't the 40% of people who ''don't'' believe it count for something? I have not found one thing in that article to the effect "nobody really believes the Great Flood story anymore."--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The term "myth" is actually a neutral term when used anthropologically. Myth only has a negative connotation in popular culture. Myths are the stories that cultures inherit that define them as a culture, including their creation stories. Calling them myths neither validates nor invalidates them, but simply explains that they are the stories by which a culture defines itself. Christianity often objects to this term when it is used in regard to Christianity because they either A) Think that myth=lie or B) Equate myths to outdated pagan beliefs (e.g. Greek mythology) that most people no longer have faith in. However, in order to present a balanced point of view, one cannot refer to the creation stories of one religion as fact and another as falsehood. If the word myth bothers you, then go become an anthropologist and work to get the terminology changed. The simple truth is that when you object to a word like "myth" you show your ignorance and your bias. Ignorance because you're interpreting the word incorrectly, and bias because you clearly only want people to believe as you do, a mentality which has been historically responsible for most of the monstrous deaths throughout all of human history. Incidentally, it really doesn't matter if 5% or 100% of Americans believe in the Great Flood--if 75% of Americans believed in the Easter Bunny that wouldn't make him real--there's no conclusive scientific evidence to prove there was a Great Flood (and I've read the counterarguments so don't bother posting them) so until there is, it must be, in all fairness, framed in terms of what it is--a story in the Bible, which is the main foundation of Judaism and Christianity.

In addition to the arguments above, I'd point out that what the majority of Americans believe has precisely no effect on historical fact, unless you happen to believe that opinion in the present changes the past. To list this as an example of bias is ridiculous. The truth is the truth, no matter what people believe. Bias is deliberately distorting the truth, not reporting fact even where it runs contrary to popular belief. The fact remains that there is little or no evidence to support a world covering flood, and wikipedia does a reasonable job of conveying that fact while still presenting dissenting opinion in a neutral light.

== Palestinian people on Wikipedia ==

The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people Palestinian people] screams with bias. Time and time again have others tried to remove the top photograph of young children, with no avail. Encyclopedic articles on other cultures and groups of people do not try to invoke sympathy and emotions by posting images of cute and innocent children. This is clearly a propaganda piece, and it holds no merit. There should be a note of this on the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] list. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 20:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Boy, you really opened my eyes to Wikipedia's bias here. Not only are children's photographs used there, but it makes no mention of the PLO as a terrorist organization. In fact, it doesn't even define the PLO! Click on the PLO entry, and there is no acknowledgement of its massacre of innocent athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. I'll add this now. Thanks much for pointing this out ... and I hope you can stick around and enter some info here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it's true that the 'Palestinian people' article omits the words "terror" and "terrorism", but the intro to the 'PLO' article contains the following statement:
:::*The PLO was considered "the richest of all [[terrorist organizations]]" with $8-$10 billion in assets and an annual income of $1.5-$2 billion from "[[donation]]s, [[extortion]], payoffs, illegal [[Arms industry|arms dealing]], [[drug trafficking]], [[money laundering]], [[fraud]], etc.", according to a 1993 [[National Criminal Intelligence Service]] report. ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' reported in 1999 that the PLO had $50 billion in secret investments around the world.<ref>Rachel Ehrenfeld, [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_14_54/ai_88990523 And a Thief, Too: Yasser Arafat takes what he likes], ''National Review'', [[July 29]], [[2002]]. Accessed online 5 December 2006.</ref>

::::Not to mention direct European Union subsidies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Uh... actually, there is acknowledgement of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page, and there's a whole section devoted to PLO as a terrorist organization.--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The "acknowledgement" of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page is part of a template, not the article itself. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Why must it be acknowledged in the article itself? "In 1972, a terrorist organization some believe to have been controlled by a faction of the PLO..." If you want to add it in there, go ahead. Just try to keep a neutral tone. --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Besides, the Munich massacre has its own article. Why does an already long article need to state stuff that's extensively covered in other articles already? And yes, I agree that several things on the list fall/fell into the "Well, then just add it!" category. But Conservapedia appears to be more proud of pointing and shouting so that it can praise itself for doing so once somebody edits the article. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::So that it can be immediately shot down and reverted in the name of "fighting vandalism" by some self-appointed administrator? No thanks. The majority of regulars on Wikipedia, who have enough free time to dedicate their lives to editing and monitoring articles, are usually teenagers, unemployed, or both. It is no surprise as to which way they lean on the political spectrum. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: There are many liberals, especially in the US, that are very supportive of Israel. A POV article on Palestinians isn't proof of a liberal bias, its proof that you'll find, since Wikipedia is international, more pro-palestinian and anti-israelian rethoric than Americans (Conservatives and Liberals) are used to. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 1:50 (AEST)

: I'm really starting to think this site is a joke. I mean, you can't really be this... never mind. I don't see anything other than that one picture that indicates that the article is a 'propoganda piece'. And the title of the article is 'Palestinian People'; therefore, the article is about the Palestinian people. NOT the PLO. Palestinian people. The PLO is defined in- you guessed it! - the PLO article! Isn't it starting to come together now? And maybe the same goes for the Munich Massacres! I think we might be on to something! --[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 23:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Three, actually. It is not a matter of posting images of the PLO (how does the PLO keep sneaking into this conversation?), it is a matter of posting images more suitable for an encyclopedia. Perfect examples are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_People Turkish people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_people Greek people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_People Finnish people], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_people Norwegian people]. Is it really that difficult to understand the difference between something encyclopedic and something that invokes emotions, like [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Palestinian_Children_in_Hebron.jpg these], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Palestinian_children_in_Jenin.jpg three], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Palestinian_family_in_Yanoon.jpg images].? [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 11:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So it's the same sort of thing as the inclusion of an image of a fetus in utero on the abortion page here on Conservapedia?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I was referring to Aschlafly's post (second one in this section). Even if the picture does invoke sympathy, it doesnt make the whole article biased. And its been removed now.[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, at least one person at Wikipedia corrected this biased item. It's a start, and I've reflected that change on the content page here. Add a meaningful admission of terrorism in the entry on the Palestinian people (terrorists are people) and I would update the remainder of Point 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: The key to understanding the way bias is handled on conservapedia is the likes of Barnum and Baily not Merriam and Webster. If you realize this is simply a promotional campiagn built on the poisonous ideas of the radical (not conservative) right and hard core fundamental evangelical 'christians' (as opposed to real world loving Christians) and place its editors in the context of impressarios not scholars, it all makes sense. Hate is this family's value. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 09:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks for pointing out that it was an article about the Palestinian people, and not the PLO. What is wrong with you people, that you cannot bear seening a picture of kids from another people? What did Jesus say when he saw childern? Take them away because I cannot bear their sight? Guess not --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 11:40 (ASET).

Hi, I'm "Uncle Ed" from Wikipedia, and I'd like to comment on the 'Palestinian' articles. I spent countless hours brokering agreements on terminology and value statements. I am the original author of 'Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian', which I worked out in collaboration with a pro-Arab contributor.

It's not easy to maintain editorial neutrality, especially on topics which attract a majority of Liberal contributors. But it often can be done, with effort and patience. What's the rush? It took God 6 days to create the universe, and for Him "a day is as a thousand years". If He can be patient, shouldn't we? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Ed, you sound like a terrific editor and you're welcome here anytime. We have many (including myself) who left Wikipedia after tiring of dealing with an overwhelmingly liberal group of editors there. You seem to acknowledge that environment at Wikipedia by referencing "a majority of Liberal contributors."

: But the problem is getting worse on Wikipedia, not better. More time is not the solution. Better rules are the answer, which is what we have here. That enables us to be "neutral" to the facts, not to the political views of a majority. If you would like to post a new, factual entry on the Palestinian people here, we would welcome it. Thanks for your thoughts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Ed! We've never talked, but I know you get great respect over there. The points you cite here are so true. Rather than silence a "sparring partner" we actually can sharpen our own skills and outlook. It's not always a matter of converting another editor, being openminded means an editor should be able to recognize thier own flaws by hearing a well reasoned argument. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Face of Terror: Basque ETA? ==

As is expected, the "safe" and politically-correct path was taken in choosing an image to post on Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Perpetrators terrorism.] Some of the most prominent and widely recognized terrorist groups in today's world include [[Al-Qaeda]], Hamas, and Hezbollah; all of which are compromised of fanatical [[Muslims]]. However, the one and only image used to display an example of terrorists on the article coincidentally happens to be a non-Muslim group: ''Basque Fatherland and Liberty: ETA.'' How pathetically feeble. It is very apparent that Wikipedia is doing its best to be politically correct, as to avoid "offending" certain groups of people. As subtle as these instances of bias are, they make quite an impact with their sheer numbers, combinations, and occurrences. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:And the one and only image used to display an example of terrorism is the World Trade Center. Who exactly is Wikipedia biased against by not showing a Muslim terrorist group? The Basque ETA?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::The attacks on the World Trade Center may or may not be terrorism, after all:
::<blockquote>''"I believe the photograph of the WTC used in this article invokes doctrined points of view without proof or cause. Although the 9/11 acts can very easily be described as 'Acts Of Terrorism', that is an assumption with no solid references."''</blockquote>
::Just because something is done in subtle manner, that does not mean it is not biased. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Again, biased against who?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Do you have a image of any terroristic group that is PD or that you are releasing to PD or any other free licence. Feel free to upload it to wikipedia. The A-Queada image that is used on conservapedia is without any information about copyright. So please do not use that one, as it could be illegal just to copy it. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neutral point of view on the Wikipedia bias ==

Before I point out the views on the bias, I would like to point out that I am neither [[Liberal]] nor [[Conservative]]. There is some plausible bias in what you point out but sometimes that bias is necessary. Don't forget that you can add details to Wikipedia itself if you find it is missing something. (One more thing - I am a Christian, don't label me)

1. Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the CE deception.

''One could add B.C.E. and B.C. both to the timelines. Same with C.E. and A.D. Nevertheless both can be used because there are different point-of-views regarding this.''

2. Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestianian People" omits any mention of terrorism.[1] Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.[2] Israel News Agency reports:[3]

No where will you ever find Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah described as terror organizations by Wikipedia. Wikipedia will quote the US State Department or the United Nations Security Council as saying that they are terror groups, but Wikipedia itself will only describe these organizations as "militants".

''A article called Palestine and terrorism could be added but there is no real need to. Why? Many of the terrorist organizations are based somewhere else and has no complete connection to the actual country. A mentioning of terrorist bases could be mentioned, however.''

3. Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."[4]

''Some people believe different things. They are just pointing out a group of people that think normal math is racist. It is like a group of people who still think the world is flat (They exist).''

4. In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.[5] Wikipedia's entry on Jesus has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."[6] But no credible historian makes such a claim.

''It is a good idea to point that out, even if they are wrong. Why? It is to show that not all scholars believe Jesus existed. It would be biased in itself not to add that.''

5. Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.

''I also think that Christianity should be added as a leading factor but do not forget there were many other factors involved. Inspired by Christianity or not.''

6. Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[7] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[8] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.[9]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more Liberals than Conservatives.''

7. About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]

''Somehow somebody chose to make a connection with some pagan belief. People could try and petition, however, to get Great Flood its own article and have Noah's Ark more based on bible manuscripts and keep all criticisms of that in a separate article.''

8. Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as atheistic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, other."[13]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more atheists than Christians. You cannot forget that there are also Christians who do not have the right idea about Christianity.''

9. 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.[14] Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.[15]. Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"![16]

''There seems to of been some biased users writing this. Sometimes the most controversial articles are not noticed until it is too late. Hopefully somebody will go and make the Neutral-Point-Of-View and No Advertising rules evident in those articles.''

10. The Wikipedia entry for the Voting Rights Act contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.[17] This is a longtime liberal cause prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.

''There are some bad apples in Wikipedia. If you feel that you are being harassed, contact an administrator. There is the Neutral-Point-Of-View rule, so use that in your defense.''

11. Initially a Wikipedia admin named "Nearly Headless Nick" deleted, without explaining his decision, an entry about Conservapedia. Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.[18] For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.

''Contact ANOTHER administrator if you would need to. Like I said, there are some bad apples in Wikipedia. I wish there were more people like me on there...''

12. Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist Edward Teller promotes the liberal attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".[19] In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the Manhattan Project and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.

''Like I said earlier, create a Conservative point of view (In the article itself) and organize it so that there is both the Liberal and the Conservative parts of the story. Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View for anything else.''

13. Wikipedia's entry for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.[20] The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another liberal journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!

''If you feel that that entry has no evidence, mark it with a 'citation needed' mark. This will show that the entry might just be some made-up nonsense. Also use a quote to support the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.''

14. There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalism bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war Bell Trade Act of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."[21] The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.

''Like I said earlier not everybody is American. Be sure to use the Neutral-Point-Of-View on that.''

15. Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation." Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[22] Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

''It is used as a formality. It is not anti-American, even though it looks that way. The language for it is not stated American English but rather just English. Remember, America is not the only that edits Wikipedia.''

16. Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of deism by Benjamin Franklin by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the Constitutional Convention for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,[23] an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of Pilgrim's Progress in his autobiography.

''You should add that then and be sure to have a reference to back that up.''

17. Wikipedia's entry on the Intelligent Design court decision in Dover[24] distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the ACLU's side (not $1 million),[25] (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the ACLU's briefs,[26] and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.[27]

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

18. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer. For example, Wikipedia's entry on Nina Totenberg states, "She married H. David Reines, a trauma physician, in 2000. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming." That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

19. Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple rules are respected to the maximum extent possible.

''Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View in your defense. If there is an article about the creationalist theory, add that link as a 'criticisms of the theory of evolution'.''

20. Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone." [28] Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on Young Earth Creationism? It currently offers am article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience". [29] What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism. [30]

''You should then change it to have a dictionary tone, then. I have seen 8-year olds edit Wikipedia and I am sure they might not know how to give an encyclopedic tone, even if the article is beyond their years.''

21. Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry Criticism of Wikipedia.

''What page, then? Sometimes people add pages as vandalism, so you have to keep an open mind. If you need to, add the political bias in the criticisms by stating that some think... Do not make it look like it actually is because there are people with different point of views.''

22. Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[31] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

''There is a portal to a Wiki that focuses on actually practical articles. People often use Wikipedia as a reference, though, so it would likely be more appropriate to call it a data base rather than an encyclopedia.''

If you are wondering about the remaining responses, it is because I am somewhat running out of energy to do so. There will be more added but until then discuss and try and debunk my neutral point of view. If you feel offended, do not delete. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

One point I would like to add:
About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]
from number 7
Going onto the linked article, I found that the masimum number interviewed mentioned on that article about Americans and religion, was 2306. For a country of your size (~ a few hundred million people), this seems pretty pathetic. Chances are, this research was done in a few select counties in one of the southern states. BINGO! America = Christian fundamentalists through interpretation of dubious statistics.

==Downright Untruth==
Most conservatives would probably consider me a liberal. Truth be told, I'm probably more of a moderate libertarian, but from what I've seen here, you'd all probably consider me a liberal. In any case--

This cite claims that wikipedia won't use the word terrorist. I'm not going to waste my time quoting the Hamas article on wikipedia. Look it up yourself. It uses the word terrorist. Well heck, five seconds into reading conservapedia and you've already lost all credibility in my eyes. Good luck with being delusional.

:: OK, I called your bluff. I looked up Hamas and found, just as the content page says here, Wikipedia does not assign the label "terrorist" but merely cites other groups that use that term. The content page here is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::"Terrorist" is opinion. WIkipedia in this case is avoiding opinion, but is citing facts about opinion. That's an example of neutrality, not bias. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: You forget one thing. This is conservapedia. A highly biased site for extremly conservatives and fundamental christs. Everything that is not fundamental christly or conservative is biased in their opinion. Democracy is called Mobocracy (hope I spelled this word right), NPOV is bias and bias (as long as it is towards conservatism or christianity) is true and neutral. And the most important argument (besides the bible) is the stupidity of Americans. For example when saying "xx% of Americans believe that ..." --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 06:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::"Terrorist" is a loaded word. Hamas would probably tell you they are freedom fighters. Also, they are the majority party of the Palestinian National Authority. Wikipedia is handling the nature of the organization in an neutral way, by telling you who actually calls them terrorists. --[[User:Transfinite|Transfinite]] 21:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I must agree in this regard; even though many terrorists are indeed terrorists (deliberately targeting innocents to forward a radical worldview), they obviously don't consider themselves "terrorists". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::See there's a conspiracy theory beneath all this. Supposedly Wikipedia is baiting in real terrorists by creating a comforatble, friendly editing environment. Then, unbeknownst to the alleged freedom fighter, he is profiled, stalked, identified, outed, harrassed, arrested, detained, sent to Gitmo, interogated, tortured, and finally joins a class action suit. Actually something like this already happened. Terrorists really did in fact take over Stephen Schwartz's page and Schwartz threatened legal action against Wikipedia. The uncensored page is at Wikitruth. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Talk:Uncensored:Stephen_Schwartz#Legal_threats] And there may be lawsuit right now ongoing in Germany over that whole matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

P.S. If Wikipedia is so terrible, why do you use their format? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, my friends.
:Conservapedia's format is from "Wikimedia", which is an open source program used for any wiki. Wikipedia didn't come up with it either.
::Maybe you should check your sources on that. Quoting the MediaWiki homepage:
{{QuoteBox|MediaWiki is a free software wiki package '''originally written for Wikipedia'''. It is now used by several other projects of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation and by many other wikis, including this very website, the home of MediaWiki.}}
::Just pointing it out... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: "originally written for Wikipedia" is not very persuasive. We have many editors here (including myself) who originally wrote entries for Wikipedia too. That doesn't mean Wikipedia can take claim for our work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh Gott, lass Hirn vom Himmel regnen. *facepalms* First of all, "writing entries for Wikipedia" does NOT equal "developing MediaWiki". This is about the software this site uses and how "Wikipedia didn't come up with it". You know? MediaWiki? A WikiMedia project? Like, a project of the foundation Jimmy Wales co-founded?
::::*"In July 2002, a major rewrite of the software powering Wikipedia went live; dubbed "Phase III", it replaced the older "Phase II" version, and became MediaWiki."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia]
::::*"MediaWiki is a free software wiki package originally written for Wikipedia."[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Originally developed to serve the needs of the free content Wikipedia encyclopedia"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia project, that initiated the development of the MediaWikiSoftware."[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction]
::::So please tell me how this is not very persuasive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Please, let's distinguish between the content (the text of the articles, etc.), the medium (the Wiki software), and the "skin" (the visual look and design which is a part of the Wiki software, implemented as a CSS "style sheet," but easily changed.

:::::MediaWIki is open source '''software,''' licensed under a free license. Anyone can use it, including Conservapedia. Using it the way Conservapedia does is perfectly OK, the WikiMedia foundation ''encourages'' it, it's a big win-win.
:::::The MediaWIki development project is so very very closely associated with Wikipedia that it's extremely close to untrue to say "Wikipedia didn't come up with it." MediaWiki is more closely associated with Wikipedia than Jimbo Wales is.
:::::The "look" of Wikipedia, the skin as it's called, is very definitely a part of MediaWiki. It is called the "monobook" skin. Wikipedia used to have a very plain "1995-ish" look, and developing the new look was a big part of the revisions that went into MediaWiki 3.0.
:::::Conservapedia used to use the Monobook skin absolutely unchanged, which gave it a look that was so similar to Wikipedia as to be downright confusing. Recent tweaks and the addition of the logo have now made it visually distinct.
:::::While it is correct to say that Conservapedia doesn't use '''content''' from Wikipedia (by the way:
::::::'''it is absolutely CHURLISH''' not to acknowledge that "Wikipedia" or more strictly the Wikimedia Foundation has not made Conservapedia (and most other WIki-based sites) a great and generous '''gift''' in the form of the Mediawiki software.
:::::Fair is fair. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==CE is not an example of bias==
I fail to see why CE should be listed as an example of bias. Why should it be maintained that using the term "common era" is to deny the dating system is based on the birth of Christ? It is merely a recognition that many people object to using a phrase meaning "year of our lord", when quite obviously they do not wish to recognize Jesus Christ as their lord. I don't see any denials at all, just pragmatism.

Further to the above point, this site fails to establish a link between Jesus and God. I do not dispute that a person such as Jesus exists, but the actual date of his birth is an estimate. If you do your calendar research, you will know that nobody started tick marks on a wall the day he was allegedly born. However, there is no definitive evidence on the existence of God, and thus there can be no proof of a link to Jesus. CE is an attempt at an international standard, and is an attempt to eliminate bias. BC and AD are a bias in favour of Christianity/Catholicism. QED.

Having though about the subject a little further, it occurs to me that since the stated aim of Conservapedia is to avoid all forms of bias, wouldn't it be better to switch to a less controversial dating system yourselves? I'd suggest the widely recognised and implemented Unix Epoch, 1st January 1970. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 00:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Mathematics==
Actually, if the person responsible for the entry on Wikipedia's liberal bias on Anti-racist mathematics knew anything about sociological theory, they would understand that education in general is biased in favour of the white middle to upper class. It has to do with the language used in the home versus in school. The language used in a lower class household, and the frame of reference for the students is vastly different than the upper class. However, the Wikipedia article does not do an effective job of explaining the overall concept. For instance, an inner-city youth might do better if word problems reflected situations more relevant to their station in life, rather than an upper class youth. (Example to follow in the next 24 hours, I just have to find it). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-20T10:53:49Z

Itsjustme: /* Downright Untruth */

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]

===Reply (to [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Figured you'd find this interesting|this]])===
Aschafly: Sure, go ahead. Just remember to attribute. And i'm not hiding anything. I am a liberal.

Order: I took that view from looking at the above talk page. Also, you should remember that Wikipedia generally inflates that count since around 70-80% of those accounts are vandalism only by my estimates, even back when I was doing that study when there were only around 800,000 user names.

:: Even if there are only 10%, i.e. 380 000, active wikipedians, a group of 20 self selcted respondants is still insignificant. --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:35 (AEST)

:::There were around 50, and they weren't self selected. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 15:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: How did you get the sample, if I may ask? -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

Others: Feel free to add to the study if you want in any way you'd like. Just remember to attribute the initial research. I took it basically by word of mouth in metapedian areas, that old user name of mine ("I", the real world "I", Andrew Sylvia, has a few more user accounts that still edit actively, including a few admin accounts) had around 10,000 welcomes if I remember correctly.

And "I"(karmafist, not "me") didn't leave that place due to this survey, it was because I fought the tyrant that runs Wikipedia when he bullied an underage minor and sacrificed my reputation with those monsters for it. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Using fun statistics on wikipedia, just turn this site into a joke ==
I just saw that there is an additonal item on the list on bias using yet another fun statistic. You are now also quoting [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion| List of wikipedians by religion]. This has nothing to do with being a responsible serious site anymore. A very bad example for the rest of the editors. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:50 (AEST)

Polls show that America has more than three times higher percentaeg Christians (77% in 2001) http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm than Wikipedia (23% in 2006) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion (higher percentage Christian Wikimedias though 29%)

: Thanks for proving my point. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

I really feel sorry for Christians who are forced by both conservatives and liberals to be grouped with mind-numbing idiots like the people responsible for this site. Yes, a really large majority of Americans are Christians. A majority of Americans are Democrats too. Hmmm... this would indicate that most liberals are Christians too. Okay, so I'll admit that there are probably a greater percentage of conservatives who are Christian than Liberals, but nonetheless, we all are fully aware that this is a country comprised primarily of Christians. You know what kills me? There are a good number of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc., who are very conservative. I wonder how many of them vote Democrat because they're turned off by fundamentalist Christians who dominate the right wing of America? I have many Muslim friends (no, they're not terrorists). They supported the invasion of Afghanistan (as did I--and still do) and by and large are fairly conservative. In fact, I think that in many ways, they'd have a lot in common with conservative Christians, if they weren't marginalized in this country. They'd probably vote Republican if we didn't continually target Muslims with suspicion. Conservative Christians like to pretend that they welcome "good" Muslims, then they start throwing around statistics stating the "overwhelming" number of Christians in this country as justification or explanation for anything they feel necessary. Being a predominately Christian nation does not mean that policy should therefore be Christian. It means that we all get to see Christmas decorations put up every year, we have to wait in line at all the stores during December... in other words, our culture is visibly affected by Christianity in all sorts of ways. That's okay, as far as I'm concerned. It's not okay when we try to make Christianity into the driving force of policy in our secular nation. Conservatives love to quote the second amendment (which I support, incidentally) but love to forget what freedom of religion means. And guess what Christians, when you write articles that are slanted toward a Christian viewpoint, you can no longer claim to be attempting to represent truth. Instead, you're representing your own point of view. While it is true that no one can escape their own point of view when writing an article, approaching the article with the perspective of "I'm right" rather than at least a willingness to attempt to look at the other side dispassionately is patently worthless. If you wish to write an opinion piece, make it an opinion piece. I can take far more out of someone's opinion when they legitimately represent it as such. Oh, by the way, just because you think that your religion is correct doesn't mean that God agrees with your interpretation of the scriptures. So be careful. Who knows, maybe God will condemn you instead of me!

== Ratio (again) ==

This ratio is totally bogus because the words are loaded. The reason that the number of people who say that they are conservative has been increasing for the last two decades is not because America is becoming more conservative, but rather because the conservative movement has made a concerted propaganda effort to demonize the word "liberal" and prop up the word "conservative". The proof is in the pudding: If you instead ask people what their political views are, the evidence suggest that people overwhelmingly entertain liberal positions on most issues. For example:

(1) As of 3/11/2007, 69% of the country feels that the country is "on the wrong track" after 12 years of Republican control of Congress and 6 years of a Republican president.

(2) 59% of Americans have an "unfavorable" opinion of the republican party, compared to only 43% for the democratic party.

(3) 51% of the public respond that they "feel closer" to the democratic party than the republican party, compared to ony 40% for the republican party.

source:
http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070313_pollresults.pdf

Other studies show that most Americans disagree with the republican position on a whole host of issues, including: the international criminal court, global warming, protecting the environment, the Kyoto Treaty, nonproliferation treaty, etc. Interestingly, people who watch Fox News tend to believe that the Bush/Republican position is similar to their own position even though that is not true, which bolsters my suggestion that the conservative propagandists misinform the public. This is all very well documented in the PIPA study about misperceptions in the media, which can be found here:
http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

Why hasn't the statistic displayed been changed, even though it has been ''conclusively'' demonstrated that the math is bad? In addition, I would not define "liberal bias" as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, that is simply anti-intellectual. If they were editing from a liberal POV, instead of an NPOV (the two are different things), ''then'' it might be somewhat reasonable. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I defined "liberal bias" in the only sensible way possible: the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. If you have a different definition, then let's hear it. Based on my definition, the ratio of 6 is plainly correct. Liberal math to try to get a different result for 3 divided by 1/2 doesn't fly here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: No, it's plainly not. If 2:1 is a 200% liberal bias, then that makes 1:1, a completely unbiased ratio, 100% liberal. According to your definition of ratios, the only non-liberal-bias is no liberals at all. So what makes your idea of ratios the "only sensible way possible"? --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 16:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: What? Liberal math? You divide the fraction of liberals in Wikipedia (3/4) by the fraction of liberals in America (1/3), and you get (9/4). Thats 5th grade math, not liberal math. And you graduated from Harvard? [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 16:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Folks, I've asked someone to propose a different definition of liberal bias. My definition makes the most sense because its scale is from 0 to infinity, like the Kelvin temperature scale preferred by scientists. No one has proposed a plausible alternative scale for liberal bias. Based on the obvious definition, my math is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: What kind of argument is this? It scales from 0 to infinity? There are many continuous monotonous functions that have an [0, infinity] range. Actually, there are infinitely many. There are even uncountably many. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 14:00 (AEST)

::::* First, you use raw numbers of a self selected group to come to do your statistics. Any conclusion drawn from it is speculative at best. A no-no in statistics 101.
::::* What raw data can do shows this example: In the harris poll 34% of all people are conservative. Your raw data on Wikipedia gives that 36% are conservative. This means that wikipedia is at least as conservative as the american public.
::::* You assume that articles written by a conservative are automatically convervatively biased, and articles written by liberal liberally biased.
::::* You simple forget about the 40% moderates in the Harris poll. Your stament '''six time more liberal than American public''' compares liberals to the American public as a whole, including moderates, your math however doesn't count moderates.
::::* What you need to compare, if anything, compare the percentages of the overall population. Because with your math it doesn't matter if there are 66% conservatives in a population vs 33% liberals, or 12% vs 6%, or two conservatives vs one liberal.
::::What raw data from a self selected sample, with your approach to fractional math, can do was demonstarted in [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#New_Jersey_bias_in_Wikipedia Wikipedia 87.5% more New Jersyian than America] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Wikipedia_biased_towards_Erd.C5.91s Wikipedia 75 times as biased towards Erdos than average mathematicians]. Talking about fun statistics. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:00 (AEST)

We had an editing conflict, so here my answer to your question on how to define liberal bias.

* You say '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.'''.
* This means you compare Liberals to the American public.
* The American public includes Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives.
* What you need to compare is the percentage of liberals in America vs the percentage of liberally biased articles in Wikipedia. To obtain an estimate for the latter just look at 100 random pages (or better 1000), and count the pages that have a liberal bias. Done. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:10 (AEST)

::So many times since I joined this site I've seen people argue different points about the 6x more liberal line and every time Aschlafly claims that no one has brought it up before. It's almost a lost cause. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark]

And which term do you think people are more familiar with -- Noah's Ark or "Great Flood"? Many civilizations have had a "great flood" story at one point or another, so why cater only to the Christians?

--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 20:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:It gets worse from there. The "Deluge (mythology)" article covers many flood myths, including the Noah one. but here's the start of the Noah section:
{{QuoteBox|Hebrew (Genesis) Further information about the Genesis version can be found at Noah's Ark.}}
:And the "Noah's Ark" bit is actually a link to the article LutherBifteck mentioned. This "bias" entry is more than silly, it's just plain wrong or misinformed. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

REPLY: The Noah's Ark entry on Wikipedia has the same bias, with numerous references to "myth" and "story", and gratuitous claims that it is rejected today. 60% of Americans accept that the Great Flood occurred. You obviously disagree, which is fine, but your view is way out of step with the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:That may very possibly be because I'm not a member of the American public. Not even to mention that Americans aren't the majority of Wikipedia users... (Assuming that you actually meant me... it's hard to tell when your reply comes on the "opening post" level addresses an unnamed "you") --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:All narrative Bible verses are called stories. What word would you like in its place? Dictionary.com defines "myth" as "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation". Noah's Ark is the very definition of a myth.

:What gratuitious claims? Noah's Ark maybe accepted by 60% of Americans (who you seem to think are the sole users of Wikipedia), but don't the 40% of people who ''don't'' believe it count for something? I have not found one thing in that article to the effect "nobody really believes the Great Flood story anymore."--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The term "myth" is actually a neutral term when used anthropologically. Myth only has a negative connotation in popular culture. Myths are the stories that cultures inherit that define them as a culture, including their creation stories. Calling them myths neither validates nor invalidates them, but simply explains that they are the stories by which a culture defines itself. Christianity often objects to this term when it is used in regard to Christianity because they either A) Think that myth=lie or B) Equate myths to outdated pagan beliefs (e.g. Greek mythology) that most people no longer have faith in. However, in order to present a balanced point of view, one cannot refer to the creation stories of one religion as fact and another as falsehood. If the word myth bothers you, then go become an anthropologist and work to get the terminology changed. The simple truth is that when you object to a word like "myth" you show your ignorance and your bias. Ignorance because you're interpreting the word incorrectly, and bias because you clearly only want people to believe as you do, a mentality which has been historically responsible for most of the monstrous deaths throughout all of human history. Incidentally, it really doesn't matter if 5% or 100% of Americans believe in the Great Flood--if 75% of Americans believed in the Easter Bunny that wouldn't make him real--there's no conclusive scientific evidence to prove there was a Great Flood (and I've read the counterarguments so don't bother posting them) so until there is, it must be, in all fairness, framed in terms of what it is--a story in the Bible, which is the main foundation of Judaism and Christianity.

In addition to the arguments above, I'd point out that what the majority of Americans believe has precisely no effect on historical fact, unless you happen to believe that opinion in the present changes the past. To list this as an example of bias is ridiculous. The truth is the truth, no matter what people believe. Bias is deliberately distorting the truth, not reporting fact even where it runs contrary to popular belief. The fact remains that there is little or no evidence to support a world covering flood, and wikipedia does a reasonable job of conveying that fact while still presenting dissenting opinion in a neutral light.

== Palestinian people on Wikipedia ==

The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people Palestinian people] screams with bias. Time and time again have others tried to remove the top photograph of young children, with no avail. Encyclopedic articles on other cultures and groups of people do not try to invoke sympathy and emotions by posting images of cute and innocent children. This is clearly a propaganda piece, and it holds no merit. There should be a note of this on the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] list. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 20:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Boy, you really opened my eyes to Wikipedia's bias here. Not only are children's photographs used there, but it makes no mention of the PLO as a terrorist organization. In fact, it doesn't even define the PLO! Click on the PLO entry, and there is no acknowledgement of its massacre of innocent athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. I'll add this now. Thanks much for pointing this out ... and I hope you can stick around and enter some info here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it's true that the 'Palestinian people' article omits the words "terror" and "terrorism", but the intro to the 'PLO' article contains the following statement:
:::*The PLO was considered "the richest of all [[terrorist organizations]]" with $8-$10 billion in assets and an annual income of $1.5-$2 billion from "[[donation]]s, [[extortion]], payoffs, illegal [[Arms industry|arms dealing]], [[drug trafficking]], [[money laundering]], [[fraud]], etc.", according to a 1993 [[National Criminal Intelligence Service]] report. ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' reported in 1999 that the PLO had $50 billion in secret investments around the world.<ref>Rachel Ehrenfeld, [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_14_54/ai_88990523 And a Thief, Too: Yasser Arafat takes what he likes], ''National Review'', [[July 29]], [[2002]]. Accessed online 5 December 2006.</ref>

::::Not to mention direct European Union subsidies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Uh... actually, there is acknowledgement of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page, and there's a whole section devoted to PLO as a terrorist organization.--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The "acknowledgement" of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page is part of a template, not the article itself. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Why must it be acknowledged in the article itself? "In 1972, a terrorist organization some believe to have been controlled by a faction of the PLO..." If you want to add it in there, go ahead. Just try to keep a neutral tone. --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Besides, the Munich massacre has its own article. Why does an already long article need to state stuff that's extensively covered in other articles already? And yes, I agree that several things on the list fall/fell into the "Well, then just add it!" category. But Conservapedia appears to be more proud of pointing and shouting so that it can praise itself for doing so once somebody edits the article. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::So that it can be immediately shot down and reverted in the name of "fighting vandalism" by some self-appointed administrator? No thanks. The majority of regulars on Wikipedia, who have enough free time to dedicate their lives to editing and monitoring articles, are usually teenagers, unemployed, or both. It is no surprise as to which way they lean on the political spectrum. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: There are many liberals, especially in the US, that are very supportive of Israel. A POV article on Palestinians isn't proof of a liberal bias, its proof that you'll find, since Wikipedia is international, more pro-palestinian and anti-israelian rethoric than Americans (Conservatives and Liberals) are used to. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 1:50 (AEST)

: I'm really starting to think this site is a joke. I mean, you can't really be this... never mind. I don't see anything other than that one picture that indicates that the article is a 'propoganda piece'. And the title of the article is 'Palestinian People'; therefore, the article is about the Palestinian people. NOT the PLO. Palestinian people. The PLO is defined in- you guessed it! - the PLO article! Isn't it starting to come together now? And maybe the same goes for the Munich Massacres! I think we might be on to something! --[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 23:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Three, actually. It is not a matter of posting images of the PLO (how does the PLO keep sneaking into this conversation?), it is a matter of posting images more suitable for an encyclopedia. Perfect examples are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_People Turkish people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_people Greek people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_People Finnish people], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_people Norwegian people]. Is it really that difficult to understand the difference between something encyclopedic and something that invokes emotions, like [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Palestinian_Children_in_Hebron.jpg these], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Palestinian_children_in_Jenin.jpg three], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Palestinian_family_in_Yanoon.jpg images].? [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 11:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So it's the same sort of thing as the inclusion of an image of a fetus in utero on the abortion page here on Conservapedia?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I was referring to Aschlafly's post (second one in this section). Even if the picture does invoke sympathy, it doesnt make the whole article biased. And its been removed now.[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, at least one person at Wikipedia corrected this biased item. It's a start, and I've reflected that change on the content page here. Add a meaningful admission of terrorism in the entry on the Palestinian people (terrorists are people) and I would update the remainder of Point 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: The key to understanding the way bias is handled on conservapedia is the likes of Barnum and Baily not Merriam and Webster. If you realize this is simply a promotional campiagn built on the poisonous ideas of the radical (not conservative) right and hard core fundamental evangelical 'christians' (as opposed to real world loving Christians) and place its editors in the context of impressarios not scholars, it all makes sense. Hate is this family's value. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 09:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks for pointing out that it was an article about the Palestinian people, and not the PLO. What is wrong with you people, that you cannot bear seening a picture of kids from another people? What did Jesus say when he saw childern? Take them away because I cannot bear their sight? Guess not --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 11:40 (ASET).

Hi, I'm "Uncle Ed" from Wikipedia, and I'd like to comment on the 'Palestinian' articles. I spent countless hours brokering agreements on terminology and value statements. I am the original author of 'Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian', which I worked out in collaboration with a pro-Arab contributor.

It's not easy to maintain editorial neutrality, especially on topics which attract a majority of Liberal contributors. But it often can be done, with effort and patience. What's the rush? It took God 6 days to create the universe, and for Him "a day is as a thousand years". If He can be patient, shouldn't we? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Ed, you sound like a terrific editor and you're welcome here anytime. We have many (including myself) who left Wikipedia after tiring of dealing with an overwhelmingly liberal group of editors there. You seem to acknowledge that environment at Wikipedia by referencing "a majority of Liberal contributors."

: But the problem is getting worse on Wikipedia, not better. More time is not the solution. Better rules are the answer, which is what we have here. That enables us to be "neutral" to the facts, not to the political views of a majority. If you would like to post a new, factual entry on the Palestinian people here, we would welcome it. Thanks for your thoughts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Ed! We've never talked, but I know you get great respect over there. The points you cite here are so true. Rather than silence a "sparring partner" we actually can sharpen our own skills and outlook. It's not always a matter of converting another editor, being openminded means an editor should be able to recognize thier own flaws by hearing a well reasoned argument. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Face of Terror: Basque ETA? ==

As is expected, the "safe" and politically-correct path was taken in choosing an image to post on Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Perpetrators terrorism.] Some of the most prominent and widely recognized terrorist groups in today's world include [[Al-Qaeda]], Hamas, and Hezbollah; all of which are compromised of fanatical [[Muslims]]. However, the one and only image used to display an example of terrorists on the article coincidentally happens to be a non-Muslim group: ''Basque Fatherland and Liberty: ETA.'' How pathetically feeble. It is very apparent that Wikipedia is doing its best to be politically correct, as to avoid "offending" certain groups of people. As subtle as these instances of bias are, they make quite an impact with their sheer numbers, combinations, and occurrences. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:And the one and only image used to display an example of terrorism is the World Trade Center. Who exactly is Wikipedia biased against by not showing a Muslim terrorist group? The Basque ETA?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::The attacks on the World Trade Center may or may not be terrorism, after all:
::<blockquote>''"I believe the photograph of the WTC used in this article invokes doctrined points of view without proof or cause. Although the 9/11 acts can very easily be described as 'Acts Of Terrorism', that is an assumption with no solid references."''</blockquote>
::Just because something is done in subtle manner, that does not mean it is not biased. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Again, biased against who?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Do you have a image of any terroristic group that is PD or that you are releasing to PD or any other free licence. Feel free to upload it to wikipedia. The A-Queada image that is used on conservapedia is without any information about copyright. So please do not use that one, as it could be illegal just to copy it. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neutral point of view on the Wikipedia bias ==

Before I point out the views on the bias, I would like to point out that I am neither [[Liberal]] nor [[Conservative]]. There is some plausible bias in what you point out but sometimes that bias is necessary. Don't forget that you can add details to Wikipedia itself if you find it is missing something. (One more thing - I am a Christian, don't label me)

1. Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the CE deception.

''One could add B.C.E. and B.C. both to the timelines. Same with C.E. and A.D. Nevertheless both can be used because there are different point-of-views regarding this.''

2. Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestianian People" omits any mention of terrorism.[1] Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.[2] Israel News Agency reports:[3]

No where will you ever find Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah described as terror organizations by Wikipedia. Wikipedia will quote the US State Department or the United Nations Security Council as saying that they are terror groups, but Wikipedia itself will only describe these organizations as "militants".

''A article called Palestine and terrorism could be added but there is no real need to. Why? Many of the terrorist organizations are based somewhere else and has no complete connection to the actual country. A mentioning of terrorist bases could be mentioned, however.''

3. Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."[4]

''Some people believe different things. They are just pointing out a group of people that think normal math is racist. It is like a group of people who still think the world is flat (They exist).''

4. In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.[5] Wikipedia's entry on Jesus has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."[6] But no credible historian makes such a claim.

''It is a good idea to point that out, even if they are wrong. Why? It is to show that not all scholars believe Jesus existed. It would be biased in itself not to add that.''

5. Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.

''I also think that Christianity should be added as a leading factor but do not forget there were many other factors involved. Inspired by Christianity or not.''

6. Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[7] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[8] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.[9]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more Liberals than Conservatives.''

7. About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]

''Somehow somebody chose to make a connection with some pagan belief. People could try and petition, however, to get Great Flood its own article and have Noah's Ark more based on bible manuscripts and keep all criticisms of that in a separate article.''

8. Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as atheistic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, other."[13]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more atheists than Christians. You cannot forget that there are also Christians who do not have the right idea about Christianity.''

9. 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.[14] Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.[15]. Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"![16]

''There seems to of been some biased users writing this. Sometimes the most controversial articles are not noticed until it is too late. Hopefully somebody will go and make the Neutral-Point-Of-View and No Advertising rules evident in those articles.''

10. The Wikipedia entry for the Voting Rights Act contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.[17] This is a longtime liberal cause prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.

''There are some bad apples in Wikipedia. If you feel that you are being harassed, contact an administrator. There is the Neutral-Point-Of-View rule, so use that in your defense.''

11. Initially a Wikipedia admin named "Nearly Headless Nick" deleted, without explaining his decision, an entry about Conservapedia. Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.[18] For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.

''Contact ANOTHER administrator if you would need to. Like I said, there are some bad apples in Wikipedia. I wish there were more people like me on there...''

12. Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist Edward Teller promotes the liberal attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".[19] In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the Manhattan Project and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.

''Like I said earlier, create a Conservative point of view (In the article itself) and organize it so that there is both the Liberal and the Conservative parts of the story. Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View for anything else.''

13. Wikipedia's entry for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.[20] The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another liberal journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!

''If you feel that that entry has no evidence, mark it with a 'citation needed' mark. This will show that the entry might just be some made-up nonsense. Also use a quote to support the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.''

14. There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalism bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war Bell Trade Act of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."[21] The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.

''Like I said earlier not everybody is American. Be sure to use the Neutral-Point-Of-View on that.''

15. Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation." Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[22] Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

''It is used as a formality. It is not anti-American, even though it looks that way. The language for it is not stated American English but rather just English. Remember, America is not the only that edits Wikipedia.''

16. Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of deism by Benjamin Franklin by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the Constitutional Convention for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,[23] an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of Pilgrim's Progress in his autobiography.

''You should add that then and be sure to have a reference to back that up.''

17. Wikipedia's entry on the Intelligent Design court decision in Dover[24] distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the ACLU's side (not $1 million),[25] (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the ACLU's briefs,[26] and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.[27]

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

18. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer. For example, Wikipedia's entry on Nina Totenberg states, "She married H. David Reines, a trauma physician, in 2000. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming." That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

19. Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple rules are respected to the maximum extent possible.

''Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View in your defense. If there is an article about the creationalist theory, add that link as a 'criticisms of the theory of evolution'.''

20. Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone." [28] Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on Young Earth Creationism? It currently offers am article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience". [29] What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism. [30]

''You should then change it to have a dictionary tone, then. I have seen 8-year olds edit Wikipedia and I am sure they might not know how to give an encyclopedic tone, even if the article is beyond their years.''

21. Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry Criticism of Wikipedia.

''What page, then? Sometimes people add pages as vandalism, so you have to keep an open mind. If you need to, add the political bias in the criticisms by stating that some think... Do not make it look like it actually is because there are people with different point of views.''

22. Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[31] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

''There is a portal to a Wiki that focuses on actually practical articles. People often use Wikipedia as a reference, though, so it would likely be more appropriate to call it a data base rather than an encyclopedia.''

If you are wondering about the remaining responses, it is because I am somewhat running out of energy to do so. There will be more added but until then discuss and try and debunk my neutral point of view. If you feel offended, do not delete. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

One point I would like to add:
About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]
from number 7
Going onto the linked article, I found that the masimum number interviewed mentioned on that article about Americans and religion, was 2306. For a country of your size (~ a few hundred million people), this seems pretty pathetic. Chances are, this research was done in a few select counties in one of the southern states. BINGO! America = Christian fundamentalists through interpretation of dubious statistics.

==Downright Untruth==
Most conservatives would probably consider me a liberal. Truth be told, I'm probably more of a moderate libertarian, but from what I've seen here, you'd all probably consider me a liberal. In any case--

This cite claims that wikipedia won't use the word terrorist. I'm not going to waste my time quoting the Hamas article on wikipedia. Look it up yourself. It uses the word terrorist. Well heck, five seconds into reading conservapedia and you've already lost all credibility in my eyes. Good luck with being delusional.

:: OK, I called your bluff. I looked up Hamas and found, just as the content page says here, Wikipedia does not assign the label "terrorist" but merely cites other groups that use that term. The content page here is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::"Terrorist" is opinion. WIkipedia in this case is avoiding opinion, but is citing facts about opinion. That's an example of neutrality, not bias. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: You forget one thing. This is conservapedia. A highly biased site for extremly conservatives and fundamental christs. Everything that is not fundamental christly or conservative is biased in their opinion. Democracy is called Mobocracy (hope I spelled this word right), NPOV is bias and bias (as long as it is towards conservatism or christianity) is true and neutral.

:::"Terrorist" is a loaded word. Hamas would probably tell you they are freedom fighters. Also, they are the majority party of the Palestinian National Authority. Wikipedia is handling the nature of the organization in an neutral way, by telling you who actually calls them terrorists. --[[User:Transfinite|Transfinite]] 21:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I must agree in this regard; even though many terrorists are indeed terrorists (deliberately targeting innocents to forward a radical worldview), they obviously don't consider themselves "terrorists". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::See there's a conspiracy theory beneath all this. Supposedly Wikipedia is baiting in real terrorists by creating a comforatble, friendly editing environment. Then, unbeknownst to the alleged freedom fighter, he is profiled, stalked, identified, outed, harrassed, arrested, detained, sent to Gitmo, interogated, tortured, and finally joins a class action suit. Actually something like this already happened. Terrorists really did in fact take over Stephen Schwartz's page and Schwartz threatened legal action against Wikipedia. The uncensored page is at Wikitruth. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Talk:Uncensored:Stephen_Schwartz#Legal_threats] And there may be lawsuit right now ongoing in Germany over that whole matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

P.S. If Wikipedia is so terrible, why do you use their format? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, my friends.
:Conservapedia's format is from "Wikimedia", which is an open source program used for any wiki. Wikipedia didn't come up with it either.
::Maybe you should check your sources on that. Quoting the MediaWiki homepage:
{{QuoteBox|MediaWiki is a free software wiki package '''originally written for Wikipedia'''. It is now used by several other projects of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation and by many other wikis, including this very website, the home of MediaWiki.}}
::Just pointing it out... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: "originally written for Wikipedia" is not very persuasive. We have many editors here (including myself) who originally wrote entries for Wikipedia too. That doesn't mean Wikipedia can take claim for our work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh Gott, lass Hirn vom Himmel regnen. *facepalms* First of all, "writing entries for Wikipedia" does NOT equal "developing MediaWiki". This is about the software this site uses and how "Wikipedia didn't come up with it". You know? MediaWiki? A WikiMedia project? Like, a project of the foundation Jimmy Wales co-founded?
::::*"In July 2002, a major rewrite of the software powering Wikipedia went live; dubbed "Phase III", it replaced the older "Phase II" version, and became MediaWiki."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia]
::::*"MediaWiki is a free software wiki package originally written for Wikipedia."[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Originally developed to serve the needs of the free content Wikipedia encyclopedia"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia project, that initiated the development of the MediaWikiSoftware."[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction]
::::So please tell me how this is not very persuasive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Please, let's distinguish between the content (the text of the articles, etc.), the medium (the Wiki software), and the "skin" (the visual look and design which is a part of the Wiki software, implemented as a CSS "style sheet," but easily changed.

:::::MediaWIki is open source '''software,''' licensed under a free license. Anyone can use it, including Conservapedia. Using it the way Conservapedia does is perfectly OK, the WikiMedia foundation ''encourages'' it, it's a big win-win.
:::::The MediaWIki development project is so very very closely associated with Wikipedia that it's extremely close to untrue to say "Wikipedia didn't come up with it." MediaWiki is more closely associated with Wikipedia than Jimbo Wales is.
:::::The "look" of Wikipedia, the skin as it's called, is very definitely a part of MediaWiki. It is called the "monobook" skin. Wikipedia used to have a very plain "1995-ish" look, and developing the new look was a big part of the revisions that went into MediaWiki 3.0.
:::::Conservapedia used to use the Monobook skin absolutely unchanged, which gave it a look that was so similar to Wikipedia as to be downright confusing. Recent tweaks and the addition of the logo have now made it visually distinct.
:::::While it is correct to say that Conservapedia doesn't use '''content''' from Wikipedia (by the way:
::::::'''it is absolutely CHURLISH''' not to acknowledge that "Wikipedia" or more strictly the Wikimedia Foundation has not made Conservapedia (and most other WIki-based sites) a great and generous '''gift''' in the form of the Mediawiki software.
:::::Fair is fair. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==CE is not an example of bias==
I fail to see why CE should be listed as an example of bias. Why should it be maintained that using the term "common era" is to deny the dating system is based on the birth of Christ? It is merely a recognition that many people object to using a phrase meaning "year of our lord", when quite obviously they do not wish to recognize Jesus Christ as their lord. I don't see any denials at all, just pragmatism.

Further to the above point, this site fails to establish a link between Jesus and God. I do not dispute that a person such as Jesus exists, but the actual date of his birth is an estimate. If you do your calendar research, you will know that nobody started tick marks on a wall the day he was allegedly born. However, there is no definitive evidence on the existence of God, and thus there can be no proof of a link to Jesus. CE is an attempt at an international standard, and is an attempt to eliminate bias. BC and AD are a bias in favour of Christianity/Catholicism. QED.

Having though about the subject a little further, it occurs to me that since the stated aim of Conservapedia is to avoid all forms of bias, wouldn't it be better to switch to a less controversial dating system yourselves? I'd suggest the widely recognised and implemented Unix Epoch, 1st January 1970. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 00:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Mathematics==
Actually, if the person responsible for the entry on Wikipedia's liberal bias on Anti-racist mathematics knew anything about sociological theory, they would understand that education in general is biased in favour of the white middle to upper class. It has to do with the language used in the home versus in school. The language used in a lower class household, and the frame of reference for the students is vastly different than the upper class. However, the Wikipedia article does not do an effective job of explaining the overall concept. For instance, an inner-city youth might do better if word problems reflected situations more relevant to their station in life, rather than an upper class youth. (Example to follow in the next 24 hours, I just have to find it). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia

2007-03-20T10:48:03Z

Itsjustme:

'''Wikipedia''' is a free-content online [[encyclopedia]] established on January 15, 2001. It currently has over 6 million articles, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref> on various topics, including over 1,600,000 articles in the English version. Like [[Conservapedia]], it is a [[wiki]] that is written and edited by its users. Under its GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.

==Wikipedia and Bias==
Wikipedia has been accused by Conservapedia of many biased entries. The article detailing these is found here: [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].
In fact Wikipedia really has some articles with bias. In Wikipedia this biases are called "POV articles" (Point of view). Wikipedia aims for articles with a neutral point of few. Anyone who discovers an article that does not have a neutral point of view is encouraged to remove the bias and adding facts.

==References==
<references />

==External Links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]

[[Category:Wiki]]

Dinosaur

2007-03-20T10:47:07Z

Itsjustme:

The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen<ref>http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/about.htm</ref>, from the [[Greek]] for "terrible lizard" (fututor). Dinosaurs were a group of large [[reptiles]] that previously lived in abundance on Earth.

===Dinosaur Speciation===
Dinosaur species were immensely varied, from herbivores to carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast genus that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>National Geographic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html</ref>

==Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism==
Creationist scientists believe that dinosaurs and man coexisted based on a number of pieces of evidence rather than the [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary view]] that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp]

===Humans and Dinosaurs Coexisting===
There are a number of lines of evidence that point to dinosaurs and man coexisting. For example, explorers have reported seeing a live dinosaur.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp</ref> A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp</ref> An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which is claimed to portray dinosaurs and man coexisting.<ref>http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm</ref><ref> http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving</ref>. The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth. Dragons were generally evil and destructive. Every country had them in its mythology." <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html</ref> The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. <ref>http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html</ref>

Since 565 A.D. there are reports about the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie by birth), a large Monster living in Loch Ness, near Inverness, Scotland. People who saw Nessie described the Monster as it would look similar to a dinosaur. In the life story of St. Columba, there is an account of him driving off a monster attacking a Pict. Some have taken this to refer to the Loch Ness Monster

An alternate theory for the inclusion of dinosaurs within many cultures is the existence of fossils. Ancient people, unaware that the ancient fossils uncovered by erosion were of extinct animals, attributed the bones to living, magical creatures. This would explain the importance of dragons in Chinese culture - there are a large number of dinosaur (as well as non-dinosaur) fossils to be found in China <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH712.html</ref>.

===Dinosaurs and Creationism===

Some [[Christian|Christians]] reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the current science community consensus of the age of the earth. Of those Christians who reject evolution, the [[Creationism | Young Earth Creationists]] believe, based primarily on Biblical [[sources]], but also drawing on [[archeological]] and fossil evidence, that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the [[Creation Week]]<ref>''Genesis'', 1:25</ref> as a final addendum to the wonders God created, approximately 6,000 years ago; that they lived in the [[Garden of Eden]] in harmony with other animals, eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of various dinosaurs were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp "Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?"], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>; that fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/dinosaurbones.asp "Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?"], ''Creation'' 21(1):54–55, December 1998</ref>; and that some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp "Are dinosaurs alive today?"], ''Creation'' 15(4):12–15, September 1993</ref>

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] obviously does not use the word "dinosaur." However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the '''behemoth''' in [[Job]] and the '''leviathan''' in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs,<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp "Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?"], ''TJ'' 15(2):42–45, August 2001</ref> <ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm</ref>, although some reject this view, saying that behemoth was a hippopotamus and leviathan was a crocodile. There is a problem with this view, however, such as the fact that a hippo doesn't have a "tail like a cedar" and a crocodile does not accurately match the description of leviathan.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Science]]

Wikipedia

2007-03-20T10:40:28Z

Itsjustme: /* Wikipedia and Bias */

'''Wikipedia''' is a free-content online [[encyclopedia]] established on January 15, 2001. It currently has over 6 million articles, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref> on various topics, including over 1,600,000 articles in the English version. Like [[Conservapedia]], it is a [[wiki]] that is written and edited by its users. Under its GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.

==Wikipedia and Bias==
Wikipedia has been accused by Conservapedia of many biased entries. The article detailing these is found here: [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].
In fact Wikipedia really has some articels with bias. In Wikipedia this biases are called "POV articles" (Point of view). Wikipedia aims for articles with a neutral point of few. Anyone who discovers an article that does not have a neutral point of few is encouraged to remove the bias and adding facts.

==References==
<references />

==External Links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]

[[Category:Wiki]]

Wikipedia

2007-03-20T10:37:16Z

Itsjustme: Undo revision 50994 by Special:Contributions/Testament9 (User talk:Testament9)

Pirahna

2007-03-20T10:36:25Z

Itsjustme:

The Pirahna is a general word describing several differnt kinds of pirahana.

The most common being the red bellied pirahna.

Evolutionists belive that theese fish are decended from a primeval version of sharks, whereas creationists belive that they are decendants of adam's mother in law.

Pirahna

2007-03-20T10:35:23Z

Itsjustme: Undo revision 50990 by Special:Contributions/Kodash (User talk:Kodash)

The Pirahna is a general word describing several differnt kinds of pirahana.

The most common being the red bellied pirahna.

Evolutionists belive that theese fish are decended from a primeval version of sharks, whereas creationism belives that they are decendants of adam's mother in law?

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-19T23:49:51Z

Itsjustme: /* The Face of Terror: Basque ETA? */

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]

===Reply (to [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Figured you'd find this interesting|this]])===
Aschafly: Sure, go ahead. Just remember to attribute. And i'm not hiding anything. I am a liberal.

Order: I took that view from looking at the above talk page. Also, you should remember that Wikipedia generally inflates that count since around 70-80% of those accounts are vandalism only by my estimates, even back when I was doing that study when there were only around 800,000 user names.

:: Even if there are only 10%, i.e. 380 000, active wikipedians, a group of 20 self selcted respondants is still insignificant. --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:35 (AEST)

:::There were around 50, and they weren't self selected. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 15:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: How did you get the sample, if I may ask? -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

Others: Feel free to add to the study if you want in any way you'd like. Just remember to attribute the initial research. I took it basically by word of mouth in metapedian areas, that old user name of mine ("I", the real world "I", Andrew Sylvia, has a few more user accounts that still edit actively, including a few admin accounts) had around 10,000 welcomes if I remember correctly.

And "I"(karmafist, not "me") didn't leave that place due to this survey, it was because I fought the tyrant that runs Wikipedia when he bullied an underage minor and sacrificed my reputation with those monsters for it. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Using fun statistics on wikipedia, just turn this site into a joke ==
I just saw that there is an additonal item on the list on bias using yet another fun statistic. You are now also quoting [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion| List of wikipedians by religion]. This has nothing to do with being a responsible serious site anymore. A very bad example for the rest of the editors. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:50 (AEST)

Polls show that America has more than three times higher percentaeg Christians (77% in 2001) http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm than Wikipedia (23% in 2006) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion (higher percentage Christian Wikimedias though 29%)

: Thanks for proving my point. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

I really feel sorry for Christians who are forced by both conservatives and liberals to be grouped with mind-numbing idiots like the people responsible for this site. Yes, a really large majority of Americans are Christians. A majority of Americans are Democrats too. Hmmm... this would indicate that most liberals are Christians too. Okay, so I'll admit that there are probably a greater percentage of conservatives who are Christian than Liberals, but nonetheless, we all are fully aware that this is a country comprised primarily of Christians. You know what kills me? There are a good number of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc., who are very conservative. I wonder how many of them vote Democrat because they're turned off by fundamentalist Christians who dominate the right wing of America? I have many Muslim friends (no, they're not terrorists). They supported the invasion of Afghanistan (as did I--and still do) and by and large are fairly conservative. In fact, I think that in many ways, they'd have a lot in common with conservative Christians, if they weren't marginalized in this country. They'd probably vote Republican if we didn't continually target Muslims with suspicion. Conservative Christians like to pretend that they welcome "good" Muslims, then they start throwing around statistics stating the "overwhelming" number of Christians in this country as justification or explanation for anything they feel necessary. Being a predominately Christian nation does not mean that policy should therefore be Christian. It means that we all get to see Christmas decorations put up every year, we have to wait in line at all the stores during December... in other words, our culture is visibly affected by Christianity in all sorts of ways. That's okay, as far as I'm concerned. It's not okay when we try to make Christianity into the driving force of policy in our secular nation. Conservatives love to quote the second amendment (which I support, incidentally) but love to forget what freedom of religion means. And guess what Christians, when you write articles that are slanted toward a Christian viewpoint, you can no longer claim to be attempting to represent truth. Instead, you're representing your own point of view. While it is true that no one can escape their own point of view when writing an article, approaching the article with the perspective of "I'm right" rather than at least a willingness to attempt to look at the other side dispassionately is patently worthless. If you wish to write an opinion piece, make it an opinion piece. I can take far more out of someone's opinion when they legitimately represent it as such. Oh, by the way, just because you think that your religion is correct doesn't mean that God agrees with your interpretation of the scriptures. So be careful. Who knows, maybe God will condemn you instead of me!

== Ratio (again) ==

This ratio is totally bogus because the words are loaded. The reason that the number of people who say that they are conservative has been increasing for the last two decades is not because America is becoming more conservative, but rather because the conservative movement has made a concerted propaganda effort to demonize the word "liberal" and prop up the word "conservative". The proof is in the pudding: If you instead ask people what their political views are, the evidence suggest that people overwhelmingly entertain liberal positions on most issues. For example:

(1) As of 3/11/2007, 69% of the country feels that the country is "on the wrong track" after 12 years of Republican control of Congress and 6 years of a Republican president.

(2) 59% of Americans have an "unfavorable" opinion of the republican party, compared to only 43% for the democratic party.

(3) 51% of the public respond that they "feel closer" to the democratic party than the republican party, compared to ony 40% for the republican party.

source:
http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070313_pollresults.pdf

Other studies show that most Americans disagree with the republican position on a whole host of issues, including: the international criminal court, global warming, protecting the environment, the Kyoto Treaty, nonproliferation treaty, etc. Interestingly, people who watch Fox News tend to believe that the Bush/Republican position is similar to their own position even though that is not true, which bolsters my suggestion that the conservative propagandists misinform the public. This is all very well documented in the PIPA study about misperceptions in the media, which can be found here:
http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

Why hasn't the statistic displayed been changed, even though it has been ''conclusively'' demonstrated that the math is bad? In addition, I would not define "liberal bias" as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, that is simply anti-intellectual. If they were editing from a liberal POV, instead of an NPOV (the two are different things), ''then'' it might be somewhat reasonable. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I defined "liberal bias" in the only sensible way possible: the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. If you have a different definition, then let's hear it. Based on my definition, the ratio of 6 is plainly correct. Liberal math to try to get a different result for 3 divided by 1/2 doesn't fly here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: No, it's plainly not. If 2:1 is a 200% liberal bias, then that makes 1:1, a completely unbiased ratio, 100% liberal. According to your definition of ratios, the only non-liberal-bias is no liberals at all. So what makes your idea of ratios the "only sensible way possible"? --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 16:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: What? Liberal math? You divide the fraction of liberals in Wikipedia (3/4) by the fraction of liberals in America (1/3), and you get (9/4). Thats 5th grade math, not liberal math. And you graduated from Harvard? [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 16:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Folks, I've asked someone to propose a different definition of liberal bias. My definition makes the most sense because its scale is from 0 to infinity, like the Kelvin temperature scale preferred by scientists. No one has proposed a plausible alternative scale for liberal bias. Based on the obvious definition, my math is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: What kind of argument is this? It scales from 0 to infinity? There are many continuous monotonous functions that have an [0, infinity] range. Actually, there are infinitely many. There are even uncountably many. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 14:00 (AEST)

::::* First, you use raw numbers of a self selected group to come to do your statistics. Any conclusion drawn from it is speculative at best. A no-no in statistics 101.
::::* What raw data can do shows this example: In the harris poll 34% of all people are conservative. Your raw data on Wikipedia gives that 36% are conservative. This means that wikipedia is at least as conservative as the american public.
::::* You assume that articles written by a conservative are automatically convervatively biased, and articles written by liberal liberally biased.
::::* You simple forget about the 40% moderates in the Harris poll. Your stament '''six time more liberal than American public''' compares liberals to the American public as a whole, including moderates, your math however doesn't count moderates.
::::* What you need to compare, if anything, compare the percentages of the overall population. Because with your math it doesn't matter if there are 66% conservatives in a population vs 33% liberals, or 12% vs 6%, or two conservatives vs one liberal.
::::What raw data from a self selected sample, with your approach to fractional math, can do was demonstarted in [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#New_Jersey_bias_in_Wikipedia Wikipedia 87.5% more New Jersyian than America] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Wikipedia_biased_towards_Erd.C5.91s Wikipedia 75 times as biased towards Erdos than average mathematicians]. Talking about fun statistics. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:00 (AEST)

We had an editing conflict, so here my answer to your question on how to define liberal bias.

* You say '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.'''.
* This means you compare Liberals to the American public.
* The American public includes Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives.
* What you need to compare is the percentage of liberals in America vs the percentage of liberally biased articles in Wikipedia. To obtain an estimate for the latter just look at 100 random pages (or better 1000), and count the pages that have a liberal bias. Done. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:10 (AEST)

::So many times since I joined this site I've seen people argue different points about the 6x more liberal line and every time Aschlafly claims that no one has brought it up before. It's almost a lost cause. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark]

And which term do you think people are more familiar with -- Noah's Ark or "Great Flood"? Many civilizations have had a "great flood" story at one point or another, so why cater only to the Christians?

--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 20:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:It gets worse from there. The "Deluge (mythology)" article covers many flood myths, including the Noah one. but here's the start of the Noah section:
{{QuoteBox|Hebrew (Genesis) Further information about the Genesis version can be found at Noah's Ark.}}
:And the "Noah's Ark" bit is actually a link to the article LutherBifteck mentioned. This "bias" entry is more than silly, it's just plain wrong or misinformed. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

REPLY: The Noah's Ark entry on Wikipedia has the same bias, with numerous references to "myth" and "story", and gratuitous claims that it is rejected today. 60% of Americans accept that the Great Flood occurred. You obviously disagree, which is fine, but your view is way out of step with the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:That may very possibly be because I'm not a member of the American public. Not even to mention that Americans aren't the majority of Wikipedia users... (Assuming that you actually meant me... it's hard to tell when your reply comes on the "opening post" level addresses an unnamed "you") --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:All narrative Bible verses are called stories. What word would you like in its place? Dictionary.com defines "myth" as "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation". Noah's Ark is the very definition of a myth.

:What gratuitious claims? Noah's Ark maybe accepted by 60% of Americans (who you seem to think are the sole users of Wikipedia), but don't the 40% of people who ''don't'' believe it count for something? I have not found one thing in that article to the effect "nobody really believes the Great Flood story anymore."--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The term "myth" is actually a neutral term when used anthropologically. Myth only has a negative connotation in popular culture. Myths are the stories that cultures inherit that define them as a culture, including their creation stories. Calling them myths neither validates nor invalidates them, but simply explains that they are the stories by which a culture defines itself. Christianity often objects to this term when it is used in regard to Christianity because they either A) Think that myth=lie or B) Equate myths to outdated pagan beliefs (e.g. Greek mythology) that most people no longer have faith in. However, in order to present a balanced point of view, one cannot refer to the creation stories of one religion as fact and another as falsehood. If the word myth bothers you, then go become an anthropologist and work to get the terminology changed. The simple truth is that when you object to a word like "myth" you show your ignorance and your bias. Ignorance because you're interpreting the word incorrectly, and bias because you clearly only want people to believe as you do, a mentality which has been historically responsible for most of the monstrous deaths throughout all of human history. Incidentally, it really doesn't matter if 5% or 100% of Americans believe in the Great Flood--if 75% of Americans believed in the Easter Bunny that wouldn't make him real--there's no conclusive scientific evidence to prove there was a Great Flood (and I've read the counterarguments so don't bother posting them) so until there is, it must be, in all fairness, framed in terms of what it is--a story in the Bible, which is the main foundation of Judaism and Christianity.

== Palestinian people on Wikipedia ==

The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people Palestinian people] screams with bias. Time and time again have others tried to remove the top photograph of young children, with no avail. Encyclopedic articles on other cultures and groups of people do not try to invoke sympathy and emotions by posting images of cute and innocent children. This is clearly a propaganda piece, and it holds no merit. There should be a note of this on the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] list. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 20:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Boy, you really opened my eyes to Wikipedia's bias here. Not only are children's photographs used there, but it makes no mention of the PLO as a terrorist organization. In fact, it doesn't even define the PLO! Click on the PLO entry, and there is no acknowledgement of its massacre of innocent athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. I'll add this now. Thanks much for pointing this out ... and I hope you can stick around and enter some info here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it's true that the 'Palestinian people' article omits the words "terror" and "terrorism", but the intro to the 'PLO' article contains the following statement:
:::*The PLO was considered "the richest of all [[terrorist organizations]]" with $8-$10 billion in assets and an annual income of $1.5-$2 billion from "[[donation]]s, [[extortion]], payoffs, illegal [[Arms industry|arms dealing]], [[drug trafficking]], [[money laundering]], [[fraud]], etc.", according to a 1993 [[National Criminal Intelligence Service]] report. ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' reported in 1999 that the PLO had $50 billion in secret investments around the world.<ref>Rachel Ehrenfeld, [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_14_54/ai_88990523 And a Thief, Too: Yasser Arafat takes what he likes], ''National Review'', [[July 29]], [[2002]]. Accessed online 5 December 2006.</ref>

::::Not to mention direct European Union subsidies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Uh... actually, there is acknowledgement of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page, and there's a whole section devoted to PLO as a terrorist organization.--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The "acknowledgement" of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page is part of a template, not the article itself. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Why must it be acknowledged in the article itself? "In 1972, a terrorist organization some believe to have been controlled by a faction of the PLO..." If you want to add it in there, go ahead. Just try to keep a neutral tone. --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Besides, the Munich massacre has its own article. Why does an already long article need to state stuff that's extensively covered in other articles already? And yes, I agree that several things on the list fall/fell into the "Well, then just add it!" category. But Conservapedia appears to be more proud of pointing and shouting so that it can praise itself for doing so once somebody edits the article. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::So that it can be immediately shot down and reverted in the name of "fighting vandalism" by some self-appointed administrator? No thanks. The majority of regulars on Wikipedia, who have enough free time to dedicate their lives to editing and monitoring articles, are usually teenagers, unemployed, or both. It is no surprise as to which way they lean on the political spectrum. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: There are many liberals, especially in the US, that are very supportive of Israel. A POV article on Palestinians isn't proof of a liberal bias, its proof that you'll find, since Wikipedia is international, more pro-palestinian and anti-israelian rethoric than Americans (Conservatives and Liberals) are used to. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 1:50 (AEST)

: I'm really starting to think this site is a joke. I mean, you can't really be this... never mind. I don't see anything other than that one picture that indicates that the article is a 'propoganda piece'. And the title of the article is 'Palestinian People'; therefore, the article is about the Palestinian people. NOT the PLO. Palestinian people. The PLO is defined in- you guessed it! - the PLO article! Isn't it starting to come together now? And maybe the same goes for the Munich Massacres! I think we might be on to something! --[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 23:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Three, actually. It is not a matter of posting images of the PLO (how does the PLO keep sneaking into this conversation?), it is a matter of posting images more suitable for an encyclopedia. Perfect examples are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_People Turkish people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_people Greek people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_People Finnish people], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_people Norwegian people]. Is it really that difficult to understand the difference between something encyclopedic and something that invokes emotions, like [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Palestinian_Children_in_Hebron.jpg these], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Palestinian_children_in_Jenin.jpg three], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Palestinian_family_in_Yanoon.jpg images].? [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 11:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So it's the same sort of thing as the inclusion of an image of a fetus in utero on the abortion page here on Conservapedia?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I was referring to Aschlafly's post (second one in this section). Even if the picture does invoke sympathy, it doesnt make the whole article biased. And its been removed now.[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, at least one person at Wikipedia corrected this biased item. It's a start, and I've reflected that change on the content page here. Add a meaningful admission of terrorism in the entry on the Palestinian people (terrorists are people) and I would update the remainder of Point 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: The key to understanding the way bias is handled on conservapedia is the likes of Barnum and Baily not Merriam and Webster. If you realize this is simply a promotional campiagn built on the poisonous ideas of the radical (not conservative) right and hard core fundamental evangelical 'christians' (as opposed to real world loving Christians) and place its editors in the context of impressarios not scholars, it all makes sense. Hate is this family's value. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 09:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks for pointing out that it was an article about the Palestinian people, and not the PLO. What is wrong with you people, that you cannot bear seening a picture of kids from another people? What did Jesus say when he saw childern? Take them away because I cannot bear their sight? Guess not --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 11:40 (ASET).

Hi, I'm "Uncle Ed" from Wikipedia, and I'd like to comment on the 'Palestinian' articles. I spent countless hours brokering agreements on terminology and value statements. I am the original author of 'Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian', which I worked out in collaboration with a pro-Arab contributor.

It's not easy to maintain editorial neutrality, especially on topics which attract a majority of Liberal contributors. But it often can be done, with effort and patience. What's the rush? It took God 6 days to create the universe, and for Him "a day is as a thousand years". If He can be patient, shouldn't we? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Ed, you sound like a terrific editor and you're welcome here anytime. We have many (including myself) who left Wikipedia after tiring of dealing with an overwhelmingly liberal group of editors there. You seem to acknowledge that environment at Wikipedia by referencing "a majority of Liberal contributors."

: But the problem is getting worse on Wikipedia, not better. More time is not the solution. Better rules are the answer, which is what we have here. That enables us to be "neutral" to the facts, not to the political views of a majority. If you would like to post a new, factual entry on the Palestinian people here, we would welcome it. Thanks for your thoughts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Ed! We've never talked, but I know you get great respect over there. The points you cite here are so true. Rather than silence a "sparring partner" we actually can sharpen our own skills and outlook. It's not always a matter of converting another editor, being openminded means an editor should be able to recognize thier own flaws by hearing a well reasoned argument. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Face of Terror: Basque ETA? ==

As is expected, the "safe" and politically-correct path was taken in choosing an image to post on Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Perpetrators terrorism.] Some of the most prominent and widely recognized terrorist groups in today's world include [[Al-Qaeda]], Hamas, and Hezbollah; all of which are compromised of fanatical [[Muslims]]. However, the one and only image used to display an example of terrorists on the article coincidentally happens to be a non-Muslim group: ''Basque Fatherland and Liberty: ETA.'' How pathetically feeble. It is very apparent that Wikipedia is doing its best to be politically correct, as to avoid "offending" certain groups of people. As subtle as these instances of bias are, they make quite an impact with their sheer numbers, combinations, and occurrences. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:And the one and only image used to display an example of terrorism is the World Trade Center. Who exactly is Wikipedia biased against by not showing a Muslim terrorist group? The Basque ETA?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::The attacks on the World Trade Center may or may not be terrorism, after all:
::<blockquote>''"I believe the photograph of the WTC used in this article invokes doctrined points of view without proof or cause. Although the 9/11 acts can very easily be described as 'Acts Of Terrorism', that is an assumption with no solid references."''</blockquote>
::Just because something is done in subtle manner, that does not mean it is not biased. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Again, biased against who?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Do you have a image of any terroristic group that is PD or that you are releasing to PD or any other free licence. Feel free to upload it to wikipedia. The A-Queada image that is used on conservapedia is without any information about copyright. So please do not use that one, as it could be illegal just to copy it. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neutral point of view on the Wikipedia bias ==

Before I point out the views on the bias, I would like to point out that I am neither [[Liberal]] nor [[Conservative]]. There is some plausible bias in what you point out but sometimes that bias is necessary. Don't forget that you can add details to Wikipedia itself if you find it is missing something. (One more thing - I am a Christian, don't label me)

1. Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the CE deception.

''One could add B.C.E. and B.C. both to the timelines. Same with C.E. and A.D. Nevertheless both can be used because there are different point-of-views regarding this.''

2. Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestianian People" omits any mention of terrorism.[1] Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.[2] Israel News Agency reports:[3]

No where will you ever find Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah described as terror organizations by Wikipedia. Wikipedia will quote the US State Department or the United Nations Security Council as saying that they are terror groups, but Wikipedia itself will only describe these organizations as "militants".

''A article called Palestine and terrorism could be added but there is no real need to. Why? Many of the terrorist organizations are based somewhere else and has no complete connection to the actual country. A mentioning of terrorist bases could be mentioned, however.''

3. Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."[4]

''Some people believe different things. They are just pointing out a group of people that think normal math is racist. It is like a group of people who still think the world is flat (They exist).''

4. In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.[5] Wikipedia's entry on Jesus has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."[6] But no credible historian makes such a claim.

''It is a good idea to point that out, even if they are wrong. Why? It is to show that not all scholars believe Jesus existed. It would be biased in itself not to add that.''

5. Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.

''I also think that Christianity should be added as a leading factor but do not forget there were many other factors involved. Inspired by Christianity or not.''

6. Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[7] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[8] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.[9]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more Liberals than Conservatives.''

7. About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]

''Somehow somebody chose to make a connection with some pagan belief. People could try and petition, however, to get Great Flood its own article and have Noah's Ark more based on bible manuscripts and keep all criticisms of that in a separate article.''

8. Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as atheistic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, other."[13]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more atheists than Christians. You cannot forget that there are also Christians who do not have the right idea about Christianity.''

9. 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.[14] Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.[15]. Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"![16]

''There seems to of been some biased users writing this. Sometimes the most controversial articles are not noticed until it is too late. Hopefully somebody will go and make the Neutral-Point-Of-View and No Advertising rules evident in those articles.''

10. The Wikipedia entry for the Voting Rights Act contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.[17] This is a longtime liberal cause prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.

''There are some bad apples in Wikipedia. If you feel that you are being harassed, contact an administrator. There is the Neutral-Point-Of-View rule, so use that in your defense.''

11. Initially a Wikipedia admin named "Nearly Headless Nick" deleted, without explaining his decision, an entry about Conservapedia. Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.[18] For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.

''Contact ANOTHER administrator if you would need to. Like I said, there are some bad apples in Wikipedia. I wish there were more people like me on there...''

12. Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist Edward Teller promotes the liberal attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".[19] In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the Manhattan Project and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.

''Like I said earlier, create a Conservative point of view (In the article itself) and organize it so that there is both the Liberal and the Conservative parts of the story. Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View for anything else.''

13. Wikipedia's entry for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.[20] The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another liberal journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!

''If you feel that that entry has no evidence, mark it with a 'citation needed' mark. This will show that the entry might just be some made-up nonsense. Also use a quote to support the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.''

14. There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalism bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war Bell Trade Act of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."[21] The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.

''Like I said earlier not everybody is American. Be sure to use the Neutral-Point-Of-View on that.''

15. Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation." Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[22] Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

''It is used as a formality. It is not anti-American, even though it looks that way. The language for it is not stated American English but rather just English. Remember, America is not the only that edits Wikipedia.''

16. Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of deism by Benjamin Franklin by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the Constitutional Convention for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,[23] an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of Pilgrim's Progress in his autobiography.

''You should add that then and be sure to have a reference to back that up.''

17. Wikipedia's entry on the Intelligent Design court decision in Dover[24] distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the ACLU's side (not $1 million),[25] (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the ACLU's briefs,[26] and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.[27]

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

18. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer. For example, Wikipedia's entry on Nina Totenberg states, "She married H. David Reines, a trauma physician, in 2000. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming." That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

19. Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple rules are respected to the maximum extent possible.

''Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View in your defense. If there is an article about the creationalist theory, add that link as a 'criticisms of the theory of evolution'.''

20. Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone." [28] Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on Young Earth Creationism? It currently offers am article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience". [29] What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism. [30]

''You should then change it to have a dictionary tone, then. I have seen 8-year olds edit Wikipedia and I am sure they might not know how to give an encyclopedic tone, even if the article is beyond their years.''

21. Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry Criticism of Wikipedia.

''What page, then? Sometimes people add pages as vandalism, so you have to keep an open mind. If you need to, add the political bias in the criticisms by stating that some think... Do not make it look like it actually is because there are people with different point of views.''

22. Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[31] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

''There is a portal to a Wiki that focuses on actually practical articles. People often use Wikipedia as a reference, though, so it would likely be more appropriate to call it a data base rather than an encyclopedia.''

If you are wondering about the remaining responses, it is because I am somewhat running out of energy to do so. There will be more added but until then discuss and try and debunk my neutral point of view. If you feel offended, do not delete. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

One point I would like to add:
About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]
from number 7
Going onto the linked article, I found that the masimum number interviewed mentioned on that article about Americans and religion, was 2306. For a country of your size (~ a few hundred million people), this seems pretty pathetic. Chances are, this research was done in a few select counties in one of the southern states. BINGO! America = Christian fundamentalists through interpretation of dubious statistics.

==Downright Untruth==
Most conservatives would probably consider me a liberal. Truth be told, I'm probably more of a moderate libertarian, but from what I've seen here, you'd all probably consider me a liberal. In any case--

This cite claims that wikipedia won't use the word terrorist. I'm not going to waste my time quoting the Hamas article on wikipedia. Look it up yourself. It uses the word terrorist. Well heck, five seconds into reading conservapedia and you've already lost all credibility in my eyes. Good luck with being delusional.

:: OK, I called your bluff. I looked up Hamas and found, just as the content page says here, Wikipedia does not assign the label "terrorist" but merely cites other groups that use that term. The content page here is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

P.S. If Wikipedia is so terrible, why do you use their format? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, my friends.
:Conservapedia's format is from "Wikimedia", which is an open source program used for any wiki. Wikipedia didn't come up with it either.
::Maybe you should check your sources on that. Quoting the MediaWiki homepage:
{{QuoteBox|MediaWiki is a free software wiki package '''originally written for Wikipedia'''. It is now used by several other projects of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation and by many other wikis, including this very website, the home of MediaWiki.}}
::Just pointing it out... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: "originally written for Wikipedia" is not very persuasive. We have many editors here (including myself) who originally wrote entries for Wikipedia too. That doesn't mean Wikipedia can take claim for our work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh Gott, lass Hirn vom Himmel regnen. *facepalms* First of all, "writing entries for Wikipedia" does NOT equal "developing MediaWiki". This is about the software this site uses and how "Wikipedia didn't come up with it". You know? MediaWiki? A WikiMedia project? Like, a project of the foundation Jimmy Wales co-founded?
::::*"In July 2002, a major rewrite of the software powering Wikipedia went live; dubbed "Phase III", it replaced the older "Phase II" version, and became MediaWiki."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia]
::::*"MediaWiki is a free software wiki package originally written for Wikipedia."[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Originally developed to serve the needs of the free content Wikipedia encyclopedia"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia project, that initiated the development of the MediaWikiSoftware."[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction]
::::So please tell me how this is not very persuasive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Gravitation

2007-03-19T16:58:57Z

Itsjustme:

'''Gravitation''' is a phenomenon which attracts all objects within the [[universe]] to each other <ref>New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition</ref>. In modern physics, it is explained by the [[general theory of relativity]]. Before general relativity, gravitation was described by [[Issac Newton | Issac Newton's]] [[law of universal gravitation]], which is still useful in most situations.

Gravitation is responsible for objects falling down as well as for the formation of the [[earth]] and [[sun]], the [[stars]] and the [[planets]].

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

Gravitation

2007-03-19T16:58:25Z

Itsjustme: removed unprooven bias. Where in the bible is stated that gravitation is gods will?

'''Gravitation''' is a phenomenon which attracts all objects within the [[universe]] to each other <ref>New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition</ref>. In modern physics, it is explained by the [[general theory of relativity]]. Before general relativity, gravitation was described by [[Issac Newton | Issac Newton's]] [[law of universal gravitation]], which is still useful in most situations.

Gravitation is responsible for the formation of the [[earth]] and [[sun]], the [[stars]] and the [[planets]].

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

Physics

2007-03-19T16:14:47Z

Itsjustme: That does not matter if you got the OK or not. Important is the fact. This article is about physics, not about god or the bible. Please stop that edit war with everybody.

{{stub}}
'''Physics''' is the study of nature, and is the science of studying the laws of universe. [[Galileo]] was the first to discover and propose some of the fundamental laws of physics that we still realize today. He began by studying how a ball will roll down and incline and showed that it's speed would be proportional to the hight it started at. A scientist that studies ''physics'' is called a [[physicist]].

[[Category:Physics| ]]

Physics

2007-03-19T12:23:36Z

Itsjustme:

{{stub}}
'''Physics''' is the study of nature, and is the science of studying the laws of the universe. [[Galileo]] was the first to discover and propose some of the fundamental laws of physics that we still realize today. He began by studying how a ball will roll down and incline and showed that it's speed would be proportional to the hight it started at. A scientist that studies ''physics'' is called a [[physicist]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics| ]]

Physics

2007-03-19T12:23:22Z

Itsjustme: Physics is not stated in Genesis

Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp

2007-03-19T11:18:13Z

Itsjustme:

The '''Guantanamo Bay detention camp''' is a prison of the [[United States of America]] in [[Cuba]]. In this prison, the people being held are accused by the US government of [[terrorism]]. The [[liberal]] organization Center for Constitutional Rights is organizing attorneys to file habeas corpus petitions in the Washington, D.C., federal court on behalf of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. [http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=pQOvjcVXXK&Content=406]

Due to security concerns the media has not been given access to the detention center, and the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] adminstration has said that interrogations are vital tools for winning the [[War on Terror]]{{fact}}. Some human rights groups and other activists claim the US has practiced [[torture]], such as cold-hot shock rooms, electrical shocks, simulated drowning, food and water deprivation, chaining, forced walking on broken glass and barbed wire, and psychological torture.[http://web.amnesty.org/pages/stoptorture-reallives-eng] As torture is illegal in the US and in nearly all other nations in the world, the camp is critisized by governments around the world.

Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?

2007-03-19T11:14:50Z

Itsjustme: /* Yes */

I think that religion is just a tool to make people feel safe and not alone in this world. However, many religious doctrines have been proven wrong by modern science. In the case of Christianity, science has disproved the biblical teaching that the world is flat. Science has shown us that the world cannot be 6,000 years old as the bible teaches through methods such as carbon dating with fossils. So now that we know how most of the world works there is no need for it anymore. I mean the world isnt flat right and we know the world isnt 6000 years old. So basically in this day in age we dont need an ancient book to tell us how the world works. i would like to think of myself as more intelligant then people who were alive 2000 years ago. All major religions (with the exception of buddhism which does not worship a higher being) were created to outline specific mores and give simple comprehendable explanations for things as complex as the creation of the universe. In today's world, religion can really only serve one of those two purposes effectively, that is to provide moral codes and societal rules. An ever increasing amount of "history" provided in the Bible has been proven to be false, and it seems unlikely that the entire universe was created by a being living in the third dimension and shaped like a human being (it also seems like an egocentrical thing to believe but that's beside the point). So religion's only real significant purpose today is to set up moral code. However, this is not to say that laws should be based on such moral codes. The moralities set up in each religion are different. Mores are not universally accepted or shared. Furthermore, many rules set up in the bible cause the infringement upon the rights of others (i.e. banning of gay marriage, bans on abortion etc.). If religion serves a purpose today than it is a considerably smaller one than it did a thousand years ago.
==Yes==
Religion has to be relevant in that so many people are influenced by it.
Religion is not relevant in discovering scientific truth and has only served to impede scientific understanding.
Religious truth is necessarily contradictory to factual understanding as the particular notion of truth only becomes the purview of religion is unsubstantiated or contradictory to physical or natural truth otherwise it is a general truth. Therefore the focus of conservipedia is the aspects of Christianity that focus on the discrepancies between reason and logic based on observable, quantifiable, understandable phenomenon and an interpretation of Christian text biased towards the Conservative Agenda.

So many inaccuracies and assumptions in your statement that I can't address them all without turning what should be a forum into a dialogue. Anyway, if by religion you mean faith in God and reacting to your faith in a manner similar to many others, then yes, it is of critical and eternally lasting importance. If you mean the highly ritualized practices of organized religion such as in Roman Catholic or Anglican services, then I would say it's less important, as the decline of "religion" in Western Europe over the last 50 years has shown. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 18:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd say that Religion has always been relevant (or important or destructive) or whatever you choose to say. In my own view, Religion has been, by far, the Most destructive of all weapons of mass destruction. Arguing that the killings of humans by other humans in the name of religion is by a few zealots/crazies is missing the point. Today, we look at the extremists of the Islamic world with horror, a few centuries ago, it was the Christians slaughtering the non-believers in the Crusades. I do not believe that any part of the world, any religion has been insulated from the killings in the name of THAT religion. To dismiss this as the acts of a few, to grab power/money or whatever is not sufficient. We ought to examine why men have historically used religion as a weapon and not as they claim it is supposed to be used - show the path to eternal truths using persuasion and words and not the sword.

Of course religion is and was relevant what does not mean that it should be relevant. Most people in the world believe in a religion. And many live their religion. They arrange their day arround religious habits. Not working on Friday or Sunday. No meat, no pork, no alcohol, limited sexuality, ... there are many restrictions that restrict people in their life and in the way they behave in socciety. Fanatic religious people as well as people who pretend to be (fanatic) religious to gain more power for worldly plans are one of the biggest threats today. In that point it does not matter WHAT religion one has. If a person is holding some written or told words for true in every case without using the own brain, it leads often to murder and hatered. As allready mentioned in statement above mine, there was slaughtering in many religions including christianity. The church was there when the native americans were slaughtered. The church was there when "whiches" were burned. The church was there, when the Nazis took Jews to concentration camps. And today the christian church es in Germany still receive the taxes that were introduced by Hitler. (What means they are possibly the only institution still profiting from WW2) But that does not mean that the catholic church or even religions in total are evil? I would say NO! They are not evil. But many people, who are religious are evil. And for those it is easy to find credulous believers. For sure religion is relevant. But I say this is not good as religion is a big danger.--[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 07:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==No==
Religion is not relevant in todays society because Truth is absolute and not relative. Religion is a concept created to make false belief systems seem the same as the one true beleif system that the one true God allowed his only son to die for our sins.

So, if I understand what you're saying, you believe the very concept of religion gives rise to false beliefs and somehow grants them legitimacy? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Response'''
The use of the concept of religion allows nonchristians to marginalize the truth and accept their falsehoods as alternative versions of the truth. [[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 17 March 2007

I am curious - does that mean that in your opinion, Christians do not use the concept of religion? Perhaps you meant, Christians use the word religion correctly (i.e. accept the truth of God and Jesus) while Non Christians do not accept THE truth? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 18 March 2007

::Just to point it out, Religion is [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/religion defined] as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". This could be God or God''s'', and doesn't make any reference to JC; there are thousands (maybe millions) of religions, and only one family encompasses JC and God. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:The thing about science is that it is flexible and open to change, using the latest evidence. Religion isn't as flexible. I mean, a few centuries ago, we still thought the earth was the center of the universe. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?

2007-03-19T11:14:00Z

Itsjustme:

I think that religion is just a tool to make people feel safe and not alone in this world. However, many religious doctrines have been proven wrong by modern science. In the case of Christianity, science has disproved the biblical teaching that the world is flat. Science has shown us that the world cannot be 6,000 years old as the bible teaches through methods such as carbon dating with fossils. So now that we know how most of the world works there is no need for it anymore. I mean the world isnt flat right and we know the world isnt 6000 years old. So basically in this day in age we dont need an ancient book to tell us how the world works. i would like to think of myself as more intelligant then people who were alive 2000 years ago. All major religions (with the exception of buddhism which does not worship a higher being) were created to outline specific mores and give simple comprehendable explanations for things as complex as the creation of the universe. In today's world, religion can really only serve one of those two purposes effectively, that is to provide moral codes and societal rules. An ever increasing amount of "history" provided in the Bible has been proven to be false, and it seems unlikely that the entire universe was created by a being living in the third dimension and shaped like a human being (it also seems like an egocentrical thing to believe but that's beside the point). So religion's only real significant purpose today is to set up moral code. However, this is not to say that laws should be based on such moral codes. The moralities set up in each religion are different. Mores are not universally accepted or shared. Furthermore, many rules set up in the bible cause the infringement upon the rights of others (i.e. banning of gay marriage, bans on abortion etc.). If religion serves a purpose today than it is a considerably smaller one than it did a thousand years ago.
==Yes==
Religion has to be relevant in that so many people are influenced by it.
Religion is not relevant in discovering scientific truth and has only served to impede scientific understanding.
Religious truth is necessarily contradictory to factual understanding as the particular notion of truth only becomes the purview of religion is unsubstantiated or contradictory to physical or natural truth otherwise it is a general truth. Therefore the focus of conservipedia is the aspects of Christianity that focus on the discrepancies between reason and logic based on observable, quantifiable, understandable phenomenon and an interpretation of Christian text biased towards the Conservative Agenda.

So many inaccuracies and assumptions in your statement that I can't address them all without turning what should be a forum into a dialogue. Anyway, if by religion you mean faith in God and reacting to your faith in a manner similar to many others, then yes, it is of critical and eternally lasting importance. If you mean the highly ritualized practices of organized religion such as in Roman Catholic or Anglican services, then I would say it's less important, as the decline of "religion" in Western Europe over the last 50 years has shown. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 18:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd say that Religion has always been relevant (or important or destructive) or whatever you choose to say. In my own view, Religion has been, by far, the Most destructive of all weapons of mass destruction. Arguing that the killings of humans by other humans in the name of religion is by a few zealots/crazies is missing the point. Today, we look at the extremists of the Islamic world with horror, a few centuries ago, it was the Christians slaughtering the non-believers in the Crusades. I do not believe that any part of the world, any religion has been insulated from the killings in the name of THAT religion. To dismiss this as the acts of a few, to grab power/money or whatever is not sufficient. We ought to examine why men have historically used religion as a weapon and not as they claim it is supposed to be used - show the path to eternal truths using persuasion and words and not the sword.

Of course religion is and was relevant what does not mean that it should be relevant. Most people in the world believe in a religion. And many live their religion. They arrange their day arround religious habits. Not working on Friday or Sunday. No meat, no pork, no alcohol, limited sexuality, ... there are many restrictions that restrict people in their life and in the way they behave in socciety. Fanatic religious people as well as people who pretend to be (fanatic) religious to gain more power for worldly plans are one of the biggest threats today. In that point it does not matter WHAT religion one has. If a person is holding some written or told words for true in every case without using the own brain, it leads often to murder and hatered. As allready mentioned in statement above mine, there was slaughtering in many religions including christianity. The church was there when the native americans were slaughtered. The church was there when "whiches" were burned. The church was there, when the Nazis took Jews to concentration camps. And today the christian church es in Germany still receive the taxes that were introduced by Hitler. (What means they are possibly the only institution still profiting from WW2) But that does not mean that the catholic church or even religions in total are evil? I would say NO! They are not evil. But many people, who are religious are evil. And for those it is easy to find credulous believers. For sure religion is relevant. But I say this is not good as religion is a big danger.

==No==
Religion is not relevant in todays society because Truth is absolute and not relative. Religion is a concept created to make false belief systems seem the same as the one true beleif system that the one true God allowed his only son to die for our sins.

So, if I understand what you're saying, you believe the very concept of religion gives rise to false beliefs and somehow grants them legitimacy? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Response'''
The use of the concept of religion allows nonchristians to marginalize the truth and accept their falsehoods as alternative versions of the truth. [[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 17 March 2007

I am curious - does that mean that in your opinion, Christians do not use the concept of religion? Perhaps you meant, Christians use the word religion correctly (i.e. accept the truth of God and Jesus) while Non Christians do not accept THE truth? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 18 March 2007

::Just to point it out, Religion is [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/religion defined] as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". This could be God or God''s'', and doesn't make any reference to JC; there are thousands (maybe millions) of religions, and only one family encompasses JC and God. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:The thing about science is that it is flexible and open to change, using the latest evidence. Religion isn't as flexible. I mean, a few centuries ago, we still thought the earth was the center of the universe. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp

2007-03-13T19:31:39Z

Itsjustme: reverted vandalism

The '''Guantanamo Bay detention camp''' is a prison of the [[United States of America]] in [[Cuba]]. In this prison, the people being held are accused by the US government of [[terrorism]]. The camp is criticized by governments around the world as the prisoners are tortured there without any constitutional right or human respect.

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-03-13T00:56:38Z

Itsjustme: /* Yes */

== No ==
In fact, from the information I have lately seen, nothing more serious is happening than that a Little Ice Age has recently ended.

I recognize that some who are promulgating the notion of global warming live in semi-tropical climes that have enjoyed (or, they might say, endured) hotter summers than usual. I live in a temperate clime ([[New Jersey]], [[United States|USA]] that has lately endured a rather harsh and lethal winter. I therefore cannot lend credence to [[global warming]] so long as my neighbors are freezing to death.

Anecdotal evidence aside, the climate models that claim to predict global warming are at best flawed, and at worst deliberately skewed.

"Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming" is not a valid argument; that is merely [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argument from the numbers]]. And when a politician ([[Albert Gore, Jr.]]) pontificates about "carbon footprints" while continuing to pursue the worst sort of conspicuous consumption in his own home (and in his means of private air transport), he is engaging in [[special pleading]].

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]].

And finally: when some of the worst-"offending" nations (I put that in quotes because I do not accept this activity as a [[sin]]), i.e. the [[People's Republic of China]], are ''exempt'' from the [[Kyoto Protocol]], that's special pleading of a sort that, even if global warming were real, would defeat the announced purpose of the Protocol.

Evidence, if you please. Not "I am disturbed by your view." Public policy debate will always disturb someone.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

In reply to the above, [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] left the following without signing it:

The very most offending countries did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Guess which countries that are?
China did, but the USA did not! So do not tell anything about Kyoto Protocol and other countries as
long as the most Energy is wasted in the USA. Of course China is dangerous. If they only will need
half of the Energy per person the US is using today, the desaster will come faster than anyone thinks.

{{Fallacy|Loaded question}}
{{Fallacy|Special pleading}}

My reply to [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]]: First of all, in future you ought to sign your posts to this article. Just type four tildes; the editing engine will translate that automatically to a link to your user page and a time stamp.

As to the content of your statement: Of course China ratified the [[Kyoto Protocol]], because China need not reduce any of its carbon emissions under its terms. Furthermore, I don't accept your premise about energy wasting in the [[United States]]--that's a [[loaded question]] if ever I heard one.

When I asked for evidence, I did not mean more examples of loaded questions and special pleading.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 17:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I am sorry that I forgot to sign my statement. I know how to do it, but forgot it that time. Yes China has not to reduce emissions, thats true. But they are now on a very low level in using energy and in terms of carbon emissions. Not to compare with USA, Europe or any other deveoloped region in the world. As people living there also want to get a piece of the cake of welthfare, we can not stop them to start driving cars, going for holiday with planes, ... Everything we from developed countries are doing since decades. As we are allready highly developed we can reduce our emmisions and still keep a very high wealthfare. But even if they start to use better technology in China, there are still hundrets of millions of people who do not drive a car today, who do not consume a lot today, ... Have a look to [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita the CO2 emissions per capita] in different countries around the world. An average US citizen is emitting more than 7 times as much co2 than an average person from china. If you compare the US emissions with those from European countries, you will see that those countries only emmit a little more than half of what the USA is emitting per capita. But in Europe they just made the decission to reduce emissions by 20% until 2020. The more engergy that is allready used, the easier it is to reduce it. If people in the USA would start to use more trains (as they do for example in Europe - you should ride with one of these fast trains there, it is great.). --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 17:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: [[People's Republic of China|China]] is on anything but a low level of carbon emissions. Their increasing demand for oil is one factor that has driven the price of crude oil to $60 US per barrel and kept it there.

:: I seriously question the assumptions behind most "carbon footprint" calculations. I further remind you that Europe's standard of living has always been several steps behind our own. Furthermore, Europe is dying out--literally.

::: This proves that you have never been to Europe. Europes standards are for sure not several steps behind the standards in the USA. It is true for the Eastern European countries that were comunistic some years ago. But not for western Europe. You know that many of our "big steps" are comming from Europe? The car: Mercedes was the first - a German car. World Wide Web: It was born in Geneve (Switzerland).... Western European Contries are more or less at the same standard as the USA. Just go there, have a look for yourself. And do remind me about things that are not true at all. Europe is dying out? On what planet do you live? There is a low birthrate in some countries. But still Europe is far away from dying out. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Now if you want to suggest various techniques that people can use, and create a market for, that would be more environmentally friendly, then by all means start another Debate Topic on that subject. But that's not the question here. The question is whether anything we do to reduce carbon emissions is even necessary, ''or even sufficient.'' I deny both. You have to show both. I won't even describe in detail, here on this topic, the monumental [[hypocrisy]] of [[Albart Gore, Jr.]] and his twenty-times-normal use of electricity in his house in [[Belle Meade]], [[Tennessee]]. Perhaps for every Al Gore, there's an [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] who at least tries to make his own home and life a showcase for carbon reduction. (Sometimes he looks ridiculous, and I know that he hasn't thought the matter through nearly as well as he things, but I give him points for trying.) But that's irrelevant and immaterial. Thus far you have shown levels of carbon emissions. You have ''not'' shown the harm they do.

:: So the question you have to answer is: So what? That's what I'm still waiting to hear.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:56, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::: As you do not believe the scientists, who were proofing that there is global warming - how should I proof it? You won't believe me. You won't believe me if I tell you that we have the warmest winter in the area were I live since temperature is recorded. You won't believe me if I tell you that there even was not a real winter at all in my area. You won't beleive that the average temperature was increasing over the last decades. And you won't believe that the rising temperature correlates with the concentration of CO2. You won't believe that the weather that scinetists were warning from 20 years ago is true today. You won't believe me, that the glaciers around the world are melting faster and faster. For sure they are melting because it is toooo cold for them. The great thing is: Even the politican who was one of the hardliners in denying global warming, George Bush, is now changing direction to a less "Oily" policy. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::How am I supposed to believe the so-called scientists, when they engage in intimidation, [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argumentum ab numeris]], [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]], and [[non sequitur]]? So you had the warmest winter? Well, I had the coldest. So what? And correlation? You really disappoint me now. Correlation does not ''ipso facto'' equal causation, and I've heard a convincing argument that CO2 is a ''lagging'' indicator of temperature, not a leading. And twenty years ago? Well, ''forty'' years ago they were predicting a return of the Big [[Ice Age]].

:::::Forty years ago, they thought computers woudl never get smaller than room-sized monstrosities. Scientists do occasionally update their beliefs in the face of massive disproof. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Now about a "less 'oily' policy": President [[George W. Bush|Bush]] has a reason for that, that has nothing to do with "[[global warming]]", and ''everything'' to do with national security. ''I'' would want that. My motive is simple: I want to bankrupt Al-Qa'ida and the whole Wahhabi establishment, and I'd also like to bankrupt [[Hugo Chavez]] into the bargain. I'd do what he's doing, and more: I'd encourage a redevelopment of the [[Fischer-Tropsch fuel]] process to produce liquid fuels from coal--or even to produce liquid fuels by extracting CO2 from the [[atmosphere]]. (That would take a lot of energy--[[nuclear energy]] to be precise--but that would be better than [[carbon sequestration]], which is the whackiest idea I've heard proposed.)

::::While we're on the subject: if you're honest-to-[[God]] serious, then are you prepared to see us build nuclear power plants to the extent that the [[France|French]] have done?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:04, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The French haven't had a nuclear meltdown yet, have they? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, now that you mention it--they haven't! Let me be quite clear: I am all ''in favor'' of building more nuclear power plants, for reasons that go ''far beyond'' the narrow issue (and, I still say, false concern) of "global warming." Sadly, [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] is not--which is why I said that he hasn't thought the matter through, though I still hope he someday will. [[Albert Gore Jr.]] certainly is not--and that, plus his Belle Meade house, convince me that he is not serious about the environment, and desires only to be a totalitarian and keep everybody else poor.

::::::But nuclear power would solve a whole host of problems--and we can do it safely, too.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

It is unlikely people can stop it altogether, but turning off your lights would be a good start.

Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming {{Fallacy|Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers}}

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]]. Citation needed.{{Unsigned|Intelligent}}

: Mr. "Intelligent," you asked for a citation. All right, here's a citation for you--from the [[United States Senate]] Committee on Environment and Public Works, no less.<ref>[http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 Heidi Cullen advocates decertification of meteorologists who deny global warming] from the Press Room, Committee on Environment and Public Works, [[United States Senate]]</ref>

: If I turn off my lights, then how do I know that you're going to turn off yours?

: You can readily see what I think of your "ninety percent" argument. What's happening is that ninety percent of scientists are fudging their data to get grants--which is to say, to get graft.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm pretty sure of the existence of global warming, and I also believe that man is a contributor. The obvious way to slow global warming would be to cease pouring greenhous gases into the atmosphere, even at the cost of the partial restriction of capitalism. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

From observation here in Maine, it is happening. Over the years, the date the lakes and rivers freeze up here happens later, and the day they thaw comes earlier. Average global mean temperature has also risen over the past few decades. The real debate is how much is natural and how much is man-made.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I should think the debate ought to be, "How bad is it, really?" Frankly, the first thing I noticed, when I thought this winter would be one of our mildest, was that our heating bill was less. You'd think that people would realize that if the winter turns mild, people don't burn as much fuel because they don't need to. But ''no!'' Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone.

:I further remind one and all that no less than three separate conventions of global-warming alarmists had to be postponed or cancelled for a reason that no global-warming alarmist would ever have predicted: cold-weather travel hazards or similar emergencies.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In some areas a warmer weather might be quite nice. But the world is bigger than one tiny area around you. There are people living in areas that are more and more deserted. They die, because there is no water. There are people living at the coast. They will loose their homes (and maybe go to your place), when more glaciers around the world will melt. There are people who earn their money with wintersports. They will loose their jobs when there is less snow in the mountains. There are people whose life is bound to cold areas (e.g. native Greenland people) and they will loose the base of their lifes. The world consists of far more than a person with a limited horizont can see. And there are a lot of things people just do not want to see. When I once was in Bombay (India) for business purposes a guy asked me "What about that global warming. It seems to be a big problem for you in the west". When I told him that "global" also means Mumbai (Indian for Bombay) and that Mumbai will be one of the first places that disappears when the sea level should rise, he was surprised. People tend not to see that the things that happen will also affect themselves. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 18:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: And you have not shown that Mumbai or any other city will disappear beneath a rising ocean. ''No one'' has so shown, by any reasonable standard whatsoever. So why don't you stop scaring people to no purpose?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: Many people have allready shown. We do not have to reinvent the wheel every day. It is simple mathematics: Glaciers around the world are melting. Proven. Just google for pictures if there is no glacier area that you know yourself. It is not a shame that you do not live close to one. Glaciers consist of .... right ... water. Water goes where? ... Into the sea. Either direct or through rivers. Now you just have to measure how fast the glaciers will continue to melt and how much volume will melt. After you know how much ice will melt, you know the volume it takes in the oceans. You have to calculate the area of all oceans in the world, and .... simple mathematics ... you can easily calculate the amount of cm or meters that the seas will rise.
:::: Why don't you stop ignoring facts for no purpose? You allready agreed that the temperatures are rising. ("Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone." or "...that a Little Ice Age has recently ended". In short for you again: End of Ice Age means less ice. Less ice means more water. Water has to go somewhere. It ends in the ocean. More water in the ocean means => Higher sea level. Higher sea level means => Places that were just a little above sea level will be (just a little) below sea level. Easy enogh for you to understand? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, sure, sure. So how much water does that glacier hold? And how wide is the ocean? In fact: hasn't that glacier been melted before, and re-formed? Does the term ''Little Ice Age'' mean anything to you? Or do you deny it?

:::::Once again, you have not shown that the circumstances are as dire as you portray. And if you propose to sentence the entire civilized world to a pre-industrial existence, ''you owe the world'' a showing that none can doubt. (And while you're at it, you need to ask Al Gore where he gets off using all that energy in his own house. Why, even George W. Bush has a better "showcase home" for conservation than Gore has!)<ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm Bush Loves Ecology--At Home] at CommonDreams.org</ref>
::::: The glaciers around the world are holding enormous masses of water. But the ocean is wide enogh not to rise 50 meter. ;-). Of course glaciers had been melting and were re-formed over the thousands and millions of years of earths history. So will it happen now. For our planet it is no big deal if the sea level rises by 3 meter or even by 10 meter. (AFAIK the sea level will rise by 7 meter if the polar cups will melt completely, what will not happen soon). So no Problem? Yes there is a problem. We have built a lot of cities at the coasts. And the coast-line will change. So we will have to think what to do. Building damms around the coasts. Move those places that are to low? The planet will change its face.
::::::I am not convinced. I see a B-grade [[Hollywood]] [[motion picture]] script. You could get a job writing Al Gore's next movie.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: I do not propose that the entire civilized world should go back to pre-industrial existance. This is what some morons are thinking. And also those who can not accept the truth (like you) are often thinking that this is the only solution. But there are many alternative solutions to fossile engery just to adress one tiny aspect. But I do not think that we can change anything. Because men are selfish and egocentric. As long as there is oil, coal and gas it will be used. So it is sure that nearly all carbonate that is fixed in fossile engergy today will come to athmosphere. And after oil, gas and coal is run out, there is even more to be blown into the air: Methaneclathrate. So you see. There is global warming. It is the fault of man. Man can not stop it. And the planet will survive. But nobody knows if man will survive. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Hollywood hype again. But I'm curious: what forms of energy are you in favor of using? You see, I had to judge you by the association of your ideas with the same crowd that cries out, "NO NUKES! NO NUKES!" ''That'' is why I suspected you of wanting to drive the world into a pre-industrial existence. Now if I have misjudged you, then prove it to me: announce your support, here and now, for nuclear energy.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: There is more than oil and nuclear power. You can not drive a car with nuclear power. And you can not really drive a car only with electricity. It does not work well enough. But there are alternative possibilities. Some can allready be used, others have to be improved and researched further for. See what is happening in stock markets. Alternativ energy companies are the big winners since some years. Regrowing fuel from the fields, Electricity by Wind, Sun, ... In France they build now the first reactor for Fussion. The technique will be ready to use commercial (if ever) in expected 50 years. It is important to do research for alternative energies, but also to use techniques not wasting to much. You can drive a car that uses more or less fuel. You can heat a house without good isolation or isolate it and save. There are many possibilities. Just be aware of them, encourage research.
::::::: But still I do not think that there will be any change. Maybe we will reduce our emissions by 20%? So what? If one is driving a car in the direction of a wall with the speed of 100 mph and thinking about reducing speed by 20% in order not to hit the wall, that is just 1 mile ahead - what are his chances to escape? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-03-13T00:34:11Z

Itsjustme: /* Yes */

== No ==
In fact, from the information I have lately seen, nothing more serious is happening than that a Little Ice Age has recently ended.

I recognize that some who are promulgating the notion of global warming live in semi-tropical climes that have enjoyed (or, they might say, endured) hotter summers than usual. I live in a temperate clime ([[New Jersey]], [[United States|USA]] that has lately endured a rather harsh and lethal winter. I therefore cannot lend credence to [[global warming]] so long as my neighbors are freezing to death.

Anecdotal evidence aside, the climate models that claim to predict global warming are at best flawed, and at worst deliberately skewed.

"Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming" is not a valid argument; that is merely [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argument from the numbers]]. And when a politician ([[Albert Gore, Jr.]]) pontificates about "carbon footprints" while continuing to pursue the worst sort of conspicuous consumption in his own home (and in his means of private air transport), he is engaging in [[special pleading]].

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]].

And finally: when some of the worst-"offending" nations (I put that in quotes because I do not accept this activity as a [[sin]]), i.e. the [[People's Republic of China]], are ''exempt'' from the [[Kyoto Protocol]], that's special pleading of a sort that, even if global warming were real, would defeat the announced purpose of the Protocol.

Evidence, if you please. Not "I am disturbed by your view." Public policy debate will always disturb someone.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

In reply to the above, [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] left the following without signing it:

The very most offending countries did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Guess which countries that are?
China did, but the USA did not! So do not tell anything about Kyoto Protocol and other countries as
long as the most Energy is wasted in the USA. Of course China is dangerous. If they only will need
half of the Energy per person the US is using today, the desaster will come faster than anyone thinks.

{{Fallacy|Loaded question}}
{{Fallacy|Special pleading}}

My reply to [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]]: First of all, in future you ought to sign your posts to this article. Just type four tildes; the editing engine will translate that automatically to a link to your user page and a time stamp.

As to the content of your statement: Of course China ratified the [[Kyoto Protocol]], because China need not reduce any of its carbon emissions under its terms. Furthermore, I don't accept your premise about energy wasting in the [[United States]]--that's a [[loaded question]] if ever I heard one.

When I asked for evidence, I did not mean more examples of loaded questions and special pleading.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 17:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I am sorry that I forgot to sign my statement. I know how to do it, but forgot it that time. Yes China has not to reduce emissions, thats true. But they are now on a very low level in using energy and in terms of carbon emissions. Not to compare with USA, Europe or any other deveoloped region in the world. As people living there also want to get a piece of the cake of welthfare, we can not stop them to start driving cars, going for holiday with planes, ... Everything we from developed countries are doing since decades. As we are allready highly developed we can reduce our emmisions and still keep a very high wealthfare. But even if they start to use better technology in China, there are still hundrets of millions of people who do not drive a car today, who do not consume a lot today, ... Have a look to [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita the CO2 emissions per capita] in different countries around the world. An average US citizen is emitting more than 7 times as much co2 than an average person from china. If you compare the US emissions with those from European countries, you will see that those countries only emmit a little more than half of what the USA is emitting per capita. But in Europe they just made the decission to reduce emissions by 20% until 2020. The more engergy that is allready used, the easier it is to reduce it. If people in the USA would start to use more trains (as they do for example in Europe - you should ride with one of these fast trains there, it is great.). --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 17:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: [[People's Republic of China|China]] is on anything but a low level of carbon emissions. Their increasing demand for oil is one factor that has driven the price of crude oil to $60 US per barrel and kept it there.

:: I seriously question the assumptions behind most "carbon footprint" calculations. I further remind you that Europe's standard of living has always been several steps behind our own. Furthermore, Europe is dying out--literally.

::: This proves that you have never been to Europe. Europes standards are for sure not several steps behind the standards in the USA. It is true for the Eastern European countries that were comunistic some years ago. But not for western Europe. You know that many of our "big steps" are comming from Europe? The car: Mercedes was the first - a German car. World Wide Web: It was born in Geneve (Switzerland).... Western European Contries are more or less at the same standard as the USA. Just go there, have a look for yourself. And do remind me about things that are not true at all. Europe is dying out? On what planet do you live? There is a low birthrate in some countries. But still Europe is far away from dying out. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Now if you want to suggest various techniques that people can use, and create a market for, that would be more environmentally friendly, then by all means start another Debate Topic on that subject. But that's not the question here. The question is whether anything we do to reduce carbon emissions is even necessary, ''or even sufficient.'' I deny both. You have to show both. I won't even describe in detail, here on this topic, the monumental [[hypocrisy]] of [[Albart Gore, Jr.]] and his twenty-times-normal use of electricity in his house in [[Belle Meade]], [[Tennessee]]. Perhaps for every Al Gore, there's an [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] who at least tries to make his own home and life a showcase for carbon reduction. (Sometimes he looks ridiculous, and I know that he hasn't thought the matter through nearly as well as he things, but I give him points for trying.) But that's irrelevant and immaterial. Thus far you have shown levels of carbon emissions. You have ''not'' shown the harm they do.

:: So the question you have to answer is: So what? That's what I'm still waiting to hear.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:56, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::: As you do not believe the scientists, who were proofing that there is global warming - how should I proof it? You won't believe me. You won't believe me if I tell you that we have the warmest winter in the area were I live since temperature is recorded. You won't believe me if I tell you that there even was not a real winter at all in my area. You won't beleive that the average temperature was increasing over the last decades. And you won't believe that the rising temperature correlates with the concentration of CO2. You won't believe that the weather that scinetists were warning from 20 years ago is true today. You won't believe me, that the glaciers around the world are melting faster and faster. For sure they are melting because it is toooo cold for them. The great thing is: Even the politican who was one of the hardliners in denying global warming, George Bush, is now changing direction to a less "Oily" policy. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::How am I supposed to believe the so-called scientists, when they engage in intimidation, [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argumentum ab numeris]], [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]], and [[non sequitur]]? So you had the warmest winter? Well, I had the coldest. So what? And correlation? You really disappoint me now. Correlation does not ''ipso facto'' equal causation, and I've heard a convincing argument that CO2 is a ''lagging'' indicator of temperature, not a leading. And twenty years ago? Well, ''forty'' years ago they were predicting a return of the Big [[Ice Age]].

:::::Forty years ago, they thought computers woudl never get smaller than room-sized monstrosities. Scientists do occasionally update their beliefs in the face of massive disproof. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Now about a "less 'oily' policy": President [[George W. Bush|Bush]] has a reason for that, that has nothing to do with "[[global warming]]", and ''everything'' to do with national security. ''I'' would want that. My motive is simple: I want to bankrupt Al-Qa'ida and the whole Wahhabi establishment, and I'd also like to bankrupt [[Hugo Chavez]] into the bargain. I'd do what he's doing, and more: I'd encourage a redevelopment of the [[Fischer-Tropsch fuel]] process to produce liquid fuels from coal--or even to produce liquid fuels by extracting CO2 from the [[atmosphere]]. (That would take a lot of energy--[[nuclear energy]] to be precise--but that would be better than [[carbon sequestration]], which is the whackiest idea I've heard proposed.)

::::While we're on the subject: if you're honest-to-[[God]] serious, then are you prepared to see us build nuclear power plants to the extent that the [[France|French]] have done?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:04, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The French haven't had a nuclear meltdown yet, have they? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, now that you mention it--they haven't! Let me be quite clear: I am all ''in favor'' of building more nuclear power plants, for reasons that go ''far beyond'' the narrow issue (and, I still say, false concern) of "global warming." Sadly, [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] is not--which is why I said that he hasn't thought the matter through, though I still hope he someday will. [[Albert Gore Jr.]] certainly is not--and that, plus his Belle Meade house, convince me that he is not serious about the environment, and desires only to be a totalitarian and keep everybody else poor.

::::::But nuclear power would solve a whole host of problems--and we can do it safely, too.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

It is unlikely people can stop it altogether, but turning off your lights would be a good start.

Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming {{Fallacy|Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers}}

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]]. Citation needed.{{Unsigned|Intelligent}}

: Mr. "Intelligent," you asked for a citation. All right, here's a citation for you--from the [[United States Senate]] Committee on Environment and Public Works, no less.<ref>[http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 Heidi Cullen advocates decertification of meteorologists who deny global warming] from the Press Room, Committee on Environment and Public Works, [[United States Senate]]</ref>

: If I turn off my lights, then how do I know that you're going to turn off yours?

: You can readily see what I think of your "ninety percent" argument. What's happening is that ninety percent of scientists are fudging their data to get grants--which is to say, to get graft.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm pretty sure of the existence of global warming, and I also believe that man is a contributor. The obvious way to slow global warming would be to cease pouring greenhous gases into the atmosphere, even at the cost of the partial restriction of capitalism. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

From observation here in Maine, it is happening. Over the years, the date the lakes and rivers freeze up here happens later, and the day they thaw comes earlier. Average global mean temperature has also risen over the past few decades. The real debate is how much is natural and how much is man-made.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I should think the debate ought to be, "How bad is it, really?" Frankly, the first thing I noticed, when I thought this winter would be one of our mildest, was that our heating bill was less. You'd think that people would realize that if the winter turns mild, people don't burn as much fuel because they don't need to. But ''no!'' Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone.

:I further remind one and all that no less than three separate conventions of global-warming alarmists had to be postponed or cancelled for a reason that no global-warming alarmist would ever have predicted: cold-weather travel hazards or similar emergencies.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In some areas a warmer weather might be quite nice. But the world is bigger than one tiny area around you. There are people living in areas that are more and more deserted. They die, because there is no water. There are people living at the coast. They will loose their homes (and maybe go to your place), when more glaciers around the world will melt. There are people who earn their money with wintersports. They will loose their jobs when there is less snow in the mountains. There are people whose life is bound to cold areas (e.g. native Greenland people) and they will loose the base of their lifes. The world consists of far more than a person with a limited horizont can see. And there are a lot of things people just do not want to see. When I once was in Bombay (India) for business purposes a guy asked me "What about that global warming. It seems to be a big problem for you in the west". When I told him that "global" also means Mumbai (Indian for Bombay) and that Mumbai will be one of the first places that disappears when the sea level should rise, he was surprised. People tend not to see that the things that happen will also affect themselves. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 18:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: And you have not shown that Mumbai or any other city will disappear beneath a rising ocean. ''No one'' has so shown, by any reasonable standard whatsoever. So why don't you stop scaring people to no purpose?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: Many people have allready shown. We do not have to reinvent the wheel every day. It is simple mathematics: Glaciers around the world are melting. Proven. Just google for pictures if there is no glacier area that you know yourself. It is not a shame that you do not live close to one. Glaciers consist of .... right ... water. Water goes where? ... Into the sea. Either direct or through rivers. Now you just have to measure how fast the glaciers will continue to melt and how much volume will melt. After you know how much ice will melt, you know the volume it takes in the oceans. You have to calculate the area of all oceans in the world, and .... simple mathematics ... you can easily calculate the amount of cm or meters that the seas will rise.
:::: Why don't you stop ignoring facts for no purpose? You allready agreed that the temperatures are rising. ("Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone." or "...that a Little Ice Age has recently ended". In short for you again: End of Ice Age means less ice. Less ice means more water. Water has to go somewhere. It ends in the ocean. More water in the ocean means => Higher sea level. Higher sea level means => Places that were just a little above sea level will be (just a little) below sea level. Easy enogh for you to understand? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, sure, sure. So how much water does that glacier hold? And how wide is the ocean? In fact: hasn't that glacier been melted before, and re-formed? Does the term ''Little Ice Age'' mean anything to you? Or do you deny it?

:::::Once again, you have not shown that the circumstances are as dire as you portray. And if you propose to sentence the entire civilized world to a pre-industrial existence, ''you owe the world'' a showing that none can doubt. (And while you're at it, you need to ask Al Gore where he gets off using all that energy in his own house. Why, even George W. Bush has a better "showcase home" for conservation than Gore has!)<ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm Bush Loves Ecology--At Home] at CommonDreams.org</ref>
::::: The glaciers around the world are holding enormous masses of water. But the ocean is wide enogh not to rise 50 meter. ;-). Of course glaciers had been melting and were re-formed over the thousands and millions of years of earths history. So will it happen now. For our planet it is no big deal if the sea level rises by 3 meter or even by 10 meter. (AFAIK the sea level will rise by 7 meter if the polar cups will melt completely, what will not happen soon). So no Problem? Yes there is a problem. We have built a lot of cities at the coasts. And the coast-line will change. So we will have to think what to do. Building damms around the coasts. Move those places that are to low? The planet will change its face.
::::: I do not propose that the entire civilized world should go back to pre-industrial existance. This is what some morons are thinking. And also those who can not accept the truth (like you) are often thinking that this is the only solution. But there are many alternative solutions to fossile engery just to adress one tiny aspect. But I do not think that we can change anything. Because men are selfish and egocentric. As long as there is oil, coal and gas it will be used. So it is sure that nearly all carbonate that is fixed in fossile engergy today will come to athmosphere. And after oil, gas and coal is run out, there is even more to be blown into the air: Methaneclathrate. So you see. There is global warming. It is the fault of man. Man can not stop it. And the planet will survive. But nobody knows if man will survive. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Talk:Liberal

2007-03-12T23:40:15Z

Itsjustme: /* Liberal outside of the US */

How is gun control liberal? I mean like, doesn't sound conservetive? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:Actually, I've been intrigued and annoyed at the one-dimensionality of the political spectrum in the United States. I can't honestly quarrel with Aschlafly's list. If this were Wikipedia I'd want to see a source for it... and of course it has a conservative spin ("protection of obscure endangered species")... but it wouldn't surprise me if you could pull that list, or something very like it from election-year national Democratic Party platforms.

:But isn't it weird? These positions have very little to do with each other. Years ago I was trying to explain American politics to friends from the Netherlands and they found it baffling. They didn't see at all why someone who was for gun control would necessarily be expected to support legalized abortion, why someone who supported legalized abortion would necessarily be expected to support environmental protection, or why someone who supported environmental protection would necessarily be expected to oppose prayer in schools.

:I don't know where this one-dimensional polarization comes from. Perhaps the two-party system leads to political leaders trying to sort political positions into neat packages and sell the public on an "us-versus-them" situation.

:I always thought Jimmy Carter got a bad rap, and that part of the reason was that he actually ''voiced moderate positions,'' and that he did ''not'' fit neatly into a one-dimensional political spectrum. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

== Parochial definition ==

I have long had a real problem with the way that this word is defined in America.

Yes, I know this is Conservapedia and we are all about American usage. But the way this particular word is defined in America seems, in some ways, perverse. I wonder if this definition ought to be a little broader. I am prompted to say this because of the line in the article that says '"Liberal" today means the disfavoring of individual responsibility in favor of collectivism or egalitarianism'. That is almost the opposite of my understanding of the word. What about John Stuart Mill and the freedom of the individual? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, for purposes of this article, I'd suggest: slap a qualification on it: "In the present-day United States, the word liberal means..."

:Then start another section or something. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:P. S. Don't you just love it that the traditional dead-white-European-male Harold Bloom, "Western canon" educational curriculum is known as the (wait for it...) '''Liberal Arts?''' (rimshot) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:24, 3 March 2007 (EST)

==Vandalism?==

The last three listed "characteristics" of liberalism seem to be sarcastic caricatures of conservative positions. I'm especially suspicious because the evolution reference seems redundant, and it also directly states that creationism is not science. I think I'm going to remove the last three. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Aliens? ==

Do Liberals really attempt to achieve amnesty for illegal aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Some do. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:So does George W. Bush. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

But are they not aware that aliens are sometimes really dangerous? It is O.K not to hate every foreigner, ... but aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:If my ancestors had had your attitude, we'd all be speaking Navaho today. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why were my changings reverted? ==

I made some changings to the article, by adding some more information. But they were reverted without any reason. I think the main reason why this project was started is because they used to revert imortant contributions to articles in wikipedia. So there should not be removement of important facts that are added. Or do I get something wrong? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The "reversion" key does not allow explanation. Let me explain here. Your additions were not factual enough. Saying liberals want "reform" is meaningless. You said they want more wealth for the poor. No one is against that either. The point of this entry is to describe how liberals distinguish themselves in their beliefs. No one favors harming the environment either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:36, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:: The "reform" comes from "American Heritage Dictionary". Of course no one is against more wealth for the poor. But the liberals are tending to take a lot of money from the rich to achieve that. And of course no one favours harming the environment. But most just do not really care. Look who is driving the hybrids. Most of them are liberals. No American but Japanese cars. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Foreign Treaties are liberal? ==

First off, treaties by their nature are foreign since we sign them with other countries. So that is redundant. Secondly, many conservative presidents have signed treaties, so how can they be a "liberal" goal? Thirdly, conservative presidents have signed disarmament treaties, or has everyone forgotten Reagan and Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty in 1988? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, President George W. Bush has made it clear he's not going to obey any treaties that might endanger America, so he's not as liberal as SOME presidents. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:30, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::I believe that any President is bound by the Constitution to honor treaties that have been ratified by the Senate. To do otherwise could well lead to a breakdown of constitutional principles such as separation of powers.[[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 01:27, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::President Bush has also made it clear he is also not bound by the "separation of powers" if it might endanger America. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:31, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== References for the "typical" liberal positions? ==

Please add references for each position and maybe try tor sort it. I would do it if i would be competent on the american political system and culture; sadly i am not. Maybe one could sort it into the categories "economic beliefs in international trade", "economic beliefs regarding financing public services" and "relation between state and citizen". So something like "funding abortions from tax money" is a combination of "health system funded by taxes" and the belief "abortion is a personal health decision by the women" (i am not judging about either of the claims; my opinion is that the state should do everything to decrease the reasons for abortion. It is a shame for any industrialized nation that pregant women see economic causes as a pressure to commit an abortion.).

So clarify the fundamental opinions by references.

== Reference to socialism ==

It used to say that many views of liberals are similar to socialism. This just shows little knowledge of socialism, and the context it operated in. Socialist regimes were often bad for the environment, let criminals and gays in disappear in gulags, were very restrictive on immigration (see guest workers in East Germany), were critical of evolution, oppressed independent trade unions (Solidarnosc in Poland), engaged in the arms race, were militaristic, supported para military organizations, and some even were outright opposed to abortion (Romania). Also issues such as welfare didn't apply, since these countries didn't know this concept.[[User:Order|Order]] 13:45 (AEST)

== Increased taxes? ==

I find it interesting that "increased taxes" is listed among the goals of liberalism. Granted, there is among liberals a generally greater emphasis on social programs geared towards helping the less-fortunate members of society. Since those programs cost money to operate, there is perhaps a tendency towards taxes higher than we would otherwise see without those programs in place. But it seems a bit of a stretch to say that liberals are focused on raising taxes for the sake of raising taxes. Why is "increased taxes" listed?

: Welcome, and please sign your entries with the signature button at the top. Increasing taxes is a way of increasing government power and equalizing wealth, regardless of whether the money is really needed for government services. Liberals support increasing taxes even when there is a budget surplus. Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes." That's a pretty bold statement. John F. Kennedy, for example, called for one of the biggest tax cuts in history in 1963. See http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9387&st=Kennedy&st1=tax.--[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 19:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Re: Increased Taxes ==

I didn't notice the signature item earlier. I'll be sure to use it from now on.--[[User:Blr|Blr]] 01:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandments? ==

Doesn’t this list break some or all of the following commandments?

1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain.
6. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.

:*Agree. I'm new here but I've already noticed that people don't seem to cite their sources...

== Liberal outside of the US ==

You cannot call liberals outside of the US ''socialists''. Neither are ''socialists'' abroad liberal. In many countries, the ''Liberals'' are either moderates or right-wing. Examples are the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria. The Australian PM, from the Liberal Party, is one of the staunchest supporters of President Bush. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:11 (AEST)

: For ''liberal'' parties in Europe check [http://www.alde.eu/], for socialist parties check [http://www.pes.org/]. These are different organizations, different parties. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:41 (AEST)
:::Yes, that is one definition of liberal. But, as conservapedia aims to maintain a pro american stance the American definition of liberal is important too. The British Labour Party (who fit the US definition of liberal) are socialists as are many other european parties.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 08:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Does Pro-American mean Anti-World (or "ignore that US-people are less than 5% of the world and that there is a world outside"?) If you write about liberals outside the USA, you have to see what liberals outside the USA are. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-03-12T23:27:23Z

Itsjustme: /* Yes */

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-03-12T22:16:59Z

Itsjustme: /* Yes */

Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp

2007-03-11T03:05:38Z

Itsjustme:

'''Quantanamo Bay detention camp''' is a prison of the United States of America in [[Cuba]]. In the prison are people suspected by the US government to be [[terrorist]]s.
The camp is criticized by governments around the world as the prisoners are [[torture]]d there without any [[constitution]]al right or human respect.

Atomic bomb

2007-03-11T01:21:25Z

Itsjustme:

[[Image:Abomb.jpg|right|200px]]

The '''atomic bomb''' was the name used in the 1950s for the first of what are now called '''nuclear weapons.''' It was originally developed out of fear that the Germans were also working on such a weapon (as in fact they were, although they did not get very far with their project.)

The secret wartime project that developed the bomb was called by the code name ''the Manhattan project.'' It had nothing to do with Manhattan. Much the development took place at Los Alamos, New Mexico. The town, laboratories, production and test facilities built there for the Manhattan Project became what is today the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of [[Hiroshima]] and [[Nagasaki]], bringing World War II to a swift and decisive end. The morality of the use of the bombs is debated, because it caused such huge loss of innocent civilian life (140,000 at Hiroshima, 70,000 at Nagasaki). U. S. officials have said that the entire cities were proper military targets, and that because the bombings ended the war so quickly, fewer Japanese civilians were killed than if the bombs had not been used.
After the USA in World War II no other country has used the atomic bomb in war. As the bomb is a weapon of mass destruction that is capable of killing many innocent people it is banned by international law.

The atomic bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "fission" weapons, which detonate with a massive explosion due to the release of the binding energy in within the nucleus of the atom. Specifically, neutrons in a rapid chain reaction split the nuclei of a heavy chemical element, such as plutonium or uranium, to cause the massive release of energy.

[[Category:Weapons]]

Atomic bomb

2007-03-11T01:03:15Z

Itsjustme:

The '''atomic bomb''' was the name used in the 1950s for the first of what are now called '''nuclear weapons.''' It was originally developed out of fear that the Germans were also working on such a weapon (as in fact they were, although they did not get very far with their project.)

The secret wartime project that developed the bomb was called by the code name ''the Manhattan project.'' It had nothing to do with Manhattan. Much the development took place at Los Alamos, New Mexico. The town, laboratories, production and test facilities built there for the Manhattan Project became what is today the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of [[Hiroshima]] and [[Nagasaki]], bringing World War II to a swift and decisive end. The morality of the use of the bombs is debated, because it caused such huge loss of innocent civilian life (140,000 at Hiroshima, 70,000 at Nagasaki). U. S. officials have said that the entire cities were proper military targets, and that because the bombings ended the war so quickly, fewer Japanese civilians were killed than if the bombs had not been used.
After the USA not other country used the atomic bomb in war. As the bomb is a weapon of mass destruction that kills many innocent people it is banned by international law.

The atomic bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "fission" weapons, which detonate with a massive explosion due to the release of the binding energy in within the nucleus of the atom. Specifically, neutrons in a rapid chain reaction split the nuclei of a heavy chemical element, such as plutonium or uranium, to cause the massive release of energy.
[[Image:Abomb.jpg]]

Atomic bomb

2007-03-11T00:57:50Z

Itsjustme:

The '''atomic bomb''' was the name used in the 1950s for the first of what are now called '''nuclear weapons.''' It was originally developed out of fear that the Germans were also working on such a weapon (as in fact they were, although they did not get very far with their project.)

The secret wartime project that developed the bomb was called by the code name ''the Manhattan project.'' It had nothing to do with Manhattan. Much the development took place at Los Alamos, New Mexico. The town, laboratories, production and test facilities built there for the Manhattan Project became what is today the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of [[Hiroshima]] and [[Nagasaki]], bringing World War II to a swift and decisive end. The morality of the use of the bombs is debated, because it caused such huge loss of innocent civilian life (140,000 at Hiroshima, 70,000 at Nagasaki). U. S. officials have said that the entire cities were proper military targets, and that because the bombings ended the war so quickly, fewer Japanese civilians were killed than if the bombs had not been used.

The atomic bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "fission" weapons, which detonate with a massive explosion due to the release of the binding energy in within the nucleus of the atom. Specifically, neutrons in a rapid chain reaction split the nuclei of a heavy chemical element, such as plutonium or uranium, to cause the massive release of energy.
[[Image:Abomb.jpg]]

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-03-11T00:40:42Z

Itsjustme:

Liberal

2007-03-10T23:13:31Z

Itsjustme:

'''Liberal''' is a term used to describe a person who generally is left-wing in his attitudes towards the government, establishment, and many other laws. The term was first used in reference to a political opinion c. 1801 A.D., in the aftermath of the French Revolution, when it meant "tending in favor of freedom and democracy" — at that time the liberal party was the party of individual political freedoms.<ref>Etymology [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal]</ref>

"Liberalism" today means the favoring of collectivism or egalitarianism over individual responsibility. Liberals tend to prefer equality in result rather than increased opportunities that can result in unequal results.

The term "liberal" is used often in the United States, Canada and Great Britain. Some examples of liberal beliefs include:

* gun control
* taxpayer funding of abortion
* prohibiting prayer in school
* equal rights for men and women
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
* same-sex marriage
* amnesty for illegal aliens
* teaching of evolution
* increased taxpayer funding of public school
* protection of endangered species
* taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
* increased power for labor unions
* disarmament treaties
* increased taxes
* dependence on government programs such as welfare
* reduction of millitary expenses

A lot of these beliefs come under the term [[socialism]].

Liberals typically align themselves with the Democratic Party in the United States, and the [[socialist]] Labour Party in Great Britain.<ref>http://www.labour.org.uk/home</ref>

An alternative definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>

:Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...

==References==
<references/>

Dinosaur

2007-03-10T22:57:17Z

Itsjustme:

The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen<ref>http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/about.htm</ref>, from the [[Latin]] for "terrible lizard". Dinosaurs were a group of large [[lizards]] that previously lived in abundance on Earth.

Most scientists believe that dinosaurs lived from 230 million until 65 million years ago and that they are all currently extinct (except for [[birds]], which many scientists consider to be descended from early [[therapod]] dinosaurs). They claim the [[fossil]] evidence supports their beliefs. However, there are a number of lines of evidence that point to dinosaurs and man coexisting. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3061/</ref> For example, trained scientists have reported seeing a live dinosaur. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp</ref> A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp</ref> An expedition which included, Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which is claimed to point to dinosaurs and man existing <ref>http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm</ref><ref> http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving</ref> The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth. Dragons were generally evil and destructive. Every country had them in its mythology." <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html</ref> The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. <ref>http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html</ref>
Since 565 A.D. there are reports about the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie), a large Monster living in the Scotish lake Loch Ness. People, who saw Nessie described the Monster as it would look similar to a dinosaur.

Some [[Christians]] reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the current science community consensus of the age of the earth. Of those Christians who reject evolution, the [[Creationism | Young Earth Creationists]] believe, based primarily on Biblical [[sources]], but also drawing on [[archeological]] and fossil evidence, that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the [[Creation Week]]<ref>''Genesis'', 1:25</ref>, approximately 6,000 years ago; that they lived in the [[Garden of Eden]] in harmony with other animals, eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of various dinosaur [[baramin]]s were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp "Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?"], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>; that fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/dinosaurbones.asp "Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?"], ''Creation'' 21(1):54–55, December 1998</ref>; and that some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp "Are dinosaurs alive today?"], ''Creation'' 15(4):12–15, September 1993</ref>.

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] obviously does not use the word "dinosaur." However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the '''behemoth''' in [[Job]] and the '''leviathan''' in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs. <ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp "Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?"], ''TJ'' 15(2):42–45, August 2001</ref> Other biblical scholars contend that the terms respectively refer to hippopotomi and crocodiles <ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm</ref>.
==References==
<references/>

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-03-10T22:47:55Z

Itsjustme:

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-03-09T21:36:45Z

Itsjustme:

'''No.''' In fact, from the information I have lately seen, nothing more serious is happening than that a Little Ice Age has recently ended.

I recognize that some who are promulgating the notion of global warming live in semi-tropical climes that have enjoyed (or, they might say, endured) hotter summers than usual. I live in a temperate clime ([[New Jersey]], [[United States|USA]] that has lately endured a rather harsh and lethal winter. I therefore cannot lend credence to [[global warming]] so long as my neighbors are freezing to death.

Anecdotal evidence aside, the climate models that claim to predict global warming are at best flawed, and at worst deliberately skewed.

"Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming" is not a valid argument; that is merely [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argument from the numbers]]. And when a politician ([[Albert Gore, Jr.]]) pontificates about "carbon footprints" while continuing to pursue the worst sort of conspicuous consumption in his own home (and in his means of private air transport), he is engaging in [[special pleading]].

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]].

And finally: when some of the worst-"offending" nations (I put that in quotes because I do not accept this activity as a [[sin]]), i.e. the [[People's Republic of China]], are ''exempt'' from the [[Kyoto Protocol]], that's special pleading of a sort that, even if global warming were real, would defeat the announced purpose of the Protocol.

The very most offending countries did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Guess which countries that are? China did, but the USA did not! So do not tell anything about Kyoto Protocol and other countries as long as the most Energy is wasted in the USA. Of course China is dangerous. If they only will need half of the Energy per person the US is using today, the desaster will come faster than anyone thinks.

Evidence, if you please. Not "I am disturbed by your view." Public policy debate will always disturb someone.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:Liberal

2007-03-08T02:41:36Z

Itsjustme: /* Why were my changings reverted? */

Talk:Liberal

2007-03-08T02:28:15Z

Itsjustme: /* Why were my changings reverted? */

Talk:Liberal

2007-03-08T02:27:54Z

Itsjustme: /* Why were my changings reverted? */

Talk:Liberal

2007-03-08T02:27:12Z

Itsjustme: Why were my changings reverted?

Liberal

2007-03-08T02:21:33Z

Itsjustme:

'''Liberal''' is a term used to describe a person who generally is left-wing in their attitudes towards the government, establishment, and many other laws. The term was first used in reference to a political opinion c. 1801 A.D., in the aftermath of the French Revolution, when it meant "tending in favor of freedom and democracy"—at that time the liberal party was the party of individual political freedoms. <ref>Etymology [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal]</ref>

"Liberal" today means the disfavoring of individual responsibility in favor of collectivism or egalitarianism. Liberals tend to prefer equality in result rather than increased opportunities that can result in unequal results.

The term "liberal" is used often in the United States, Canada and Great Britain. Some examples of liberal beliefs include:

* gun control
* taxpayer funding of abortion
* prohibiting prayer in school
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
* same-sex marriage
* amnesty for illegal aliens
* teaching of evolution
* increased taxpayer funding of public school
* protection of endangered species
* foreign treaties, especially for disarmament
* taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
* increased power for labor unions
* environmental protection
* increased wealth for the underclass

Liberals typically align themselves with the Democratic Party in the United States, and the Labour Party in Great Britain.<ref>http://www.labour.org.uk/home</ref>

An alternative definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>

: ''1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas 2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded ...''

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Liberal

2007-03-08T02:07:47Z

Itsjustme: /* Aliens? */

Talk:Liberal

2007-03-08T02:05:17Z

Itsjustme: Aliens?

Liberal

2007-03-08T02:04:00Z

Itsjustme:

'''Liberal''' is a term used to describe a person who generally is left-wing in their attitudes towards the government, establishment, and many other laws. The term was first used in reference to a political opinion c. 1801 A.D., in the aftermath of the French Revolution, when it meant "tending in favor of freedom and democracy"—at that time the liberal party was the party of individual political freedoms. <ref>Etymology [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal]</ref>

"Liberal" today means the disfavoring of individual responsibility in favor of collectivism or egalitarianism. Liberals tend to prefer equality in result rather than increased opportunities that can result in unequal results.

The term "liberal" is used often in the United States, Canada and Great Britain. Some examples of liberal beliefs include:

* gun control
* taxpayer funding of abortion
* prohibiting prayer in school
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
* same-sex marriage
* amnesty for illegal aliens
* teaching of evolution
* increased taxpayer funding of public school
* protection of endangered species
* foreign treaties, especially for disarmament
* taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
* increased power for labor unions

Liberals typically align themselves with the Democratic Party in the United States, and the Labour Party in Great Britain.<ref>http://www.labour.org.uk/home</ref>

An alternative definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>

: ''1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas 2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded ...''

==References==
<references/>