Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Archaeopteryx

2008-01-03T01:55:01Z

JakeC: /* When even Creationist sites disagree... */

==Feduccia==
Amongst pro-evolution scientists Feduccia's research is considered to be completely disproven. Referencing his research without mentioning the dozens of papers that refute it makes the conservapedia appear biased and/or out of date. {{unsigned|token}}

== Italics ==

Folks, please. No matter what your view, it's proper scientific style to use italics. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 22:21, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Removed paragraph ==

I've removed the following paragraph because I question it's accuracy:
{{QuoteBox|More recently, CT scans of an ''Archaeopteryx'' braincase were compared to the brains of modern and more advanced fossil birds. It was demonstrated that the brain of ''Archaeopteryx'' is not like modern birds. Instead, the authors concluded that like its ankle, feet, and skull, the brain or ''Archaeopteryx'' is more like predatory dinosaurs than modern birds.}}
It referenced a paper that is not available freely on-line (it needs to be purchased), but the on-line abstract[http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/q5p612262q241205/?p=657022247b19465a9506b78afc612ddd&pi=0] says the following:
{{QuoteBox|Fossils preserving traces of soft anatomy are rare in the fossil record; even rarer is evidence bearing on the size and shape of sense organs that provide us with insights into mode of life. Here, we describe unique fossil preservation of an avian brain from the Volgograd region of European Russia. The brain of this Melovatka bird is similar in shape and morphology to those of known fossil ornithurines (the lineage that includes living birds), such as the marine diving birds ''Hesperornis'' and ''Enaliornis'', but documents a new stage in avian sensory evolution: acute nocturnal vision coupled with well-developed hearing and smell, developed by the Late Cretaceous (ca 90Myr ago). This fossil also provides insights into previous ‘bird-like’ brain reconstructions for the most basal avian ''Archaeopteryx''—reduction of olfactory lobes (sense of smell) and enlargement of the hindbrain (cerebellum) occurred subsequent to ''Archaeopteryx'' in avian evolution, closer to the ornithurine lineage that comprises living birds. The Melovatka bird also suggests that brain enlargement in early avians was not correlated with the evolution of powered flight.}}
That suggests to me that, contrary to the paragraph removed from the article, CT scans were done of a different bird, not of ''Archaeopteryx''.

If someone has access to the full paper and can confirm that the paragraph is accurate, it can go back in.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:47, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

The brain of ''Archaeopteryx'' had already been CT scanned, see here:http://www.utexas.edu/opa/pubs/oncampus/02oc_issues/oc020702/oc_brain.html. ''Archaeopteryx'''s brain was not like modern birds, so it was harder to interpret; the new paper scanned an intermediate bird's fossil skull, which greatly helped paleontologists understand the orginal CT scan of ''Archaeopteryx'''s brain. It was not like that of modern birds, it is more like a ''Velociraptor'' or oviraptorid in organization.

When the first paper came out the press carried the headlines "Archaeopteryx has bird-like brain" because the orignal study onlyused an alligator, and Allosaurus (a meat-eating dinosaur not very close to birds) and a modern bird. When maniraptoran dinosaurs and other extint birds were examined, it became clear that Archaeopteryx had a brain that is sort of birdlike, but no more so than Velociraptor and it's other close cousins.

If you are going to remove actual peer-reviewd data because "it requires payment" (I don't like it either, but they have to make money somehow) while keeping easily-refuted information that has never made it to a scientific journal in your entries then you are making the conservapedia into a joke.{{unsigned|Token}}

: Interesting comment about peer review. Do you also feel that so-called "professors" who were not selected based on peer review should not be taken seriously?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:(replying to Token):
:*First, thanks for the additional information about the brain scans of ''Archaeopteryx'' being done earlier. It does clarify the situation somewhat.
:*However, I still can't see that the text I removed was justified in being there. The abstract of the paper doesn't seem to go as far as the removed content.
:*I did not remove data 'because "it requires payment"'. I removed it because I suspected that it was inaccurate and pending someone demonstrating its accuracy.
:*Your swipe about including "easily-refuted" information was less than helpful, given that you didn't say what information is supposedly "easily refuted".

:(to Aschlafly):
:Andy, there was nothing "liberal" about what you removed and changed in the article. Apart from Hoyle and a few isolated creationists basing their view on Hoyle, essentially nobody believes that the fossils have been faked and essentially everyone accepts that ''Archaeopteryx'' really existed. The only real dispute is over whether it was a true bird or an intermediate form.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:48, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Philip, many people (including books on the topic) consider the fossils to be fakes. Hoyle is the best [[British]] scientist of the 20th century, and he considered it a fake also. The evidence speaks for itself in suggesting forgery, just as other fossils (e.g., the bird-dinosaur National Geographic fossil) are fakes. You don't really think that an "Archaeopteryx" existed only in pro-evolution parts of England in Germany, do you??? That's the only source of these unusual "fossils".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:52, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
::: I would be interested in know who these "many people" and book are, because I know of very few. I agree that the late Fred Hoyle is not someone to be ignored, but I do believe that he was something of a loner on this issue (as he was on a number of issues), and the evidence has been reexamined and not just doesn't support, but actually refutes, his claims of forgery. To quote from Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (whom you reference in your changes) referring to Dr. Menton whom you quote, he "totally reject[s] the charge of forgery. Dr Menton points out that the Archaeopteryx bones have tiny bumps where the feathers were attached to the bones by ligaments. This was unexpected, so impossible to attribute to a forgery. So it is simply wrong to say that the feathers are just imprints added to a dino skeleton.". That is quoted from [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3653/ here], and that article includes several other reasons for rejecting the claim of forgery. (Incidentally, it also refers to the brain scans of ''Archaeopteryx''.)
::: Many fossils are only found in particular locations around the world. The fact that the ''Archaeopteryx'' fossils are only found in two parts of Europe is not all that unusual.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:32, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

:::: I've addressed this by expanding the paragraph, with citations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::Your additions don't really address my questions. Your additions don't say who these "many people" are (but see below), nor mention any books. You have not addressed that Drs. Sarfati and Menton totally reject the forgery charge, nor my answer to your question about where they were found.
:::::You did make reference to a "half dozen leading scientist", but without names, that's not a lot of use. However, I have tracked down what appears to be your source, the [http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist09.htm Creation Evolution Encyclopedia], and it lists R.S. Watkins, N.C. Wickramasinghe, J. Watkins, R. Rabilizirov, and L.M. Spetner along with Hoyle. Okay, there were six scientists, not just Hoyle (and Wickramasinghe, whom I had been aware of).
:::::Have you checked the sources that are currently listed as Nos. 4, 5, and 6? Because the Creation Evolution Encyclopedia does ''not'' list them as supporting the argument. Instead, it lists them under an "also see" introduction. These sources clearly have more about the issue, but not necessarily any evidence supportive of the claims of Hoyle et. al.
:::::So what we have is a forgery claim by a small group of scientists who may or may not still hold that view (Hoyle is now dead), which is refuted not just by other evolutionists but also by creationists, including ones that you cite. Furthermore, I'm not sure that any of the six were qualified to know what they were talking about (Hoyle was an astronomer, for example), but some of the scientists who reject the hoax (such as anatomist Dr. Menton) are so qualified.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:29, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

== When even Creationist sites disagree... ==

I find it interesting to note that Answers in Genesis (which is cited as a reliable source in numerous articles here) goes as far as including "Archaeopteryx is a fraud" in their [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#archaeopteryx "Which arguments should ''definitely'' not be used?"] FAQ section and even published a dedicated article with the title [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp "Archaeopteryx is NOT a hoax"]

I believe that AiG has a good reason to include this specific accusation in their "Do not use!" list, so maybe we should try to work along those lines? In my eyes, it's usually a bad sign when evolutionists ''and'' Creationists disagree with a claim we make. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 17:44, 1 January 2008 (EST)

: I agree. The case for it being a fraud has been blown out of the water. However, someone seems to think that my view (and that of [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[Answers in Genesis]]) is liberal bias. (See the article's history). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:00, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:: [[Sir Fred Hoyle]] declared it a fraud. That's good enough for most people. To me, after reviewing his conclusion and the unlikely sources of these specimens, it appears to be a fraud just as the dinosaur-bird fossil was about ten years ago. And I don't think JakeC is really in agreement with the AiG that he cites. His pro-evolution bias shows through by falsely insisting this is a "Creationist" site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:44, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::: Umm, AiG, if that's what you are referring to, ''is'' a creationist site. And Fred Hoyle's opinion (on this particular matter) may be good enough for you, but not for other experts, including many of the world's leading creationists, who have re-examined the issue and found further evidence refuting Hoyle's claims. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:05, 1 January 2008 (EST)
::::I feel I must point out the following: "Answers in Genesis will not stock any books that promote the Archaeopteryx hoax idea, at least not without a disclaimer, because it is ''the truth which shall set you free'' (cf. John 8:32), not error." [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp]
::::The truth is - it was a bird, like all the other birds, created by God on the fifth day. Promoting the claim that part of God's creation is a fraud is a concept that erodes one's [[faith]] and gets people to believe in things from which disbelief in [[Christianity]] logically follows. [[User:WKirkwood|WKirkwood]] 20:13, 1 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Although I agree with much of that, Andy is claiming that the Archaeopteryx fossil was a fake, not that part of God's creation was a fake. That is, in his mind, the bird Archaeopteryx is ''not'' part of God's creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:23, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:::Sorry, Andy, but simply calling Creationists "critics" (as you did in this article) is omitting information. I did get a good chuckle out of your ''"His pro-evolution bias shows through by falsely insisting this is a 'Creationist' site."'' claim, though. Like Philip said, that site ''is'' a creationist site. I know you're [[Discussion:Creationist|not a fan]] of the word, but it's used by creationists to describe themselves and each other, so I don't see the problem.
:::That aside, does it really matter if I personally agree with a specific source? I am able to research points of view for both sides of any debate, and I believe I can represent both sides fairly. As such, personal bias does not factor into my work. You seem to attack my person and not the point.
:::I merely noted that AiG is an accepted source here on CP and then noted that it lists Hoyle's claim in the "Do not use" list (CMI ''also'' features the article that argues against the hoax theory, btw). When a site that argues against evolution and an old Earth actively discourages people from spreading this claim, it's a clear warning signal to me. Nothing against Hoyle, but it appears that he was most likely wrong here. That's what modern experts from ''both'' sides of the creation/evolution discussion say. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:38, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:::Edit to add: Like Philip, I assumed the "pro-evolution" comment was about me calling ''AiG'' a creationist site. I only now notice your "''this'' site" wording, and I got to say that I never labeled Conservapedia. My point was that it's ''always'' a bad sign when we claim something that experts from ''both'' sides of the debate declared to be wrong. Doesn't matter if our article or site is pro-Creation, pro-Evolution, pro-Facts, pro-Neutrality, or whatever. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:51, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Folks, JakeC called '''this''' site a creationist site. That's exactly what I said, yet everyone above misread it. I didn't read past the biased and inappropriate labeling by evolutionists in the responses above, which is done to try to smear anyone who dares criticize their theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:...could you please point out where I did so? I don't appreciate accusations like that without evidence. Please see my "edit to add" about my actual point in the initial post. It seems to me that your personal attacks and off-topic remarks are just shiny distractions to avoid discussing the issue itself. Note how your initial reply was roughly 50% personal remarks and 50% "I think Hoyle's reasoning is correct". Please read the AiG/CMI source (CMI link is actually listed in the article's Bibliography) about how scientists from both camps came to the conclusion that (and I cite) "it is simply wrong to say that the feathers are just imprints added to a dino skeleton" and that "Fred Hoyle is completely wrong". When faced with such a united front of scientists who disagree with Hoyle, we will need more backing than "Andrew Schlafly agrees with Hoyle". --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 21:08, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:Andy, I wrote "if that's what you are referring to" because I did wonder if your use of the word "this" was a reference to Conservapedia, but as JakeC has now reiterated, he ''didn't'' label Conservapedia as a creationist site. He was referring to AiG as a creationist site. And what "biased and inappropriate labeling by evolutionists" was there. As far as I can tell, everything above was written by probable ''creationists''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:23, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:: JakeC's edit is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Archaeopteryx&diff=prev&oldid=362428 here], where he refers to a disagreement between "creationist sites," trying to goad Conservapedia (one of his so-called "creationist" sites) into conformity (or criticism of) another "creationist" site.

:: JakeC's argument reflects bias and is becoming a waste of time to discuss further. It's like demanding a person of one perceived ethnicity to explain why he disagrees with someone else of the same perceived ethnicity. Some might even call that bigotry. It's baseless anyway: Conservapedia is not a "creationist" site, a term used by evolutionists to smear anyone who disagrees with them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:::...I don't get it, honestly. If you mean the headline (which is pretty much all that is left by now since I think I addressed any potential ambiguity in my "edit to add" post way up), that was meant as "When even Creationist sites disagree with our claim that aims at debunking an evolutionist argument, it's a bad sign" (as should be clear from the context provided by the post) and not as "When even Creationist sites disagree with each other (because I regard CP as a Creationist site), it's a bad sign". Talk about far-fetched... If I had known that you would desperately X-Ray my post in search for a distraction, I would have called the section "Creationists and evolutionists both think that Hoyle was wrong" or something.
:::Judging by the tremendous amount of bad faith and attacking my person, it's becoming clear to me that you have no argument to support your position (Remember? We were talking about Hoyle's claim and how modern scientists concluded that he was "completely wrong"). I would be offended if I wasn't so terribly amused. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 21:51, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:::: JakeC, I think you are a [[provocateur]], and have not seen a quality edit by you yet. Unless you do some quality edits soon I would expect your account to be blocked by a Sysop under our [[rules]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:11, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Andy, I took JakeC's reference to "creationist sites" disagreeing to be referring to other creationist sites that ''do'' still cling to Hoyle's now-discredited view. I'm now not so sure that's what he was referring to, but the point still remains that the argument—that Hoyle's claim of forgery is rejected by leading creationists (as well as evolutionists)—is true and valid. And even if you want to ignore him because you doubt his motives, I'm making the same point.
::::: And you didn't answer my question about "biased and inappropriate labeling by evolutionists".
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:21, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:::::...okay, now I ''am'' offended, Andy.
:::::If my edits so far (155 ''mainspace'' edits in less than two weeks, spent to improve the style of articles and actively seek to find references for unreferenced articles; and don't even get me started on things like pointing out copyright violations, suggesting redirects, and providing insight about style issues) are so bad as to get me ''blocked'', then so be it.
:::::However, it appears to me that you're simply resorting to open threats now since I looked through your diversionary tactics of using personal attacks to distract from your inability to come up with a good argument. So if I get blocked, it will be because you are unwilling or unable to admit that you are wrong. And that block itself will be proof that you need to use your sysop powers (or gently nudge somebody else into doing so) to win a content discussion that was started in good faith.
:::::If - for some reason - these are really my Famous Last Words (*sniff*), then I want to give Philip a friendly pat on the back here. I wish you the best, man, and thanks for everything. :) That would be all. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 22:44, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::: JakeC, point me to several quality edits by you, if you can. I looked at your last 22 and found that over half were talk, 4 were edits that I had to revert, and the remainder seemed to be trivial. You seem to be a candidate for [[provocateur]] of the week. I encourage you to contribute quality edits ... or leave. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::::Dear God, this is so terribly stupid... *shakes head*
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Confession&diff=prev&oldid=362532 Confession] - provided source.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Baidu_Baike&diff=prev&oldid=362506 Baidu Baike] - slight rewrite, more sourcing, see also talk for reasoning.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexual_rights_advocacy&diff=362440&oldid=353845 Homosexual rights advocacy] - provided source.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Angles&diff=prev&oldid=361687 Angles] - provided source.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=prev&oldid=361457 Merge suggestion] which was later realized.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Quechua&diff=prev&oldid=360744 Quechua] - provided multiple sources and corrected facts.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Four_Noble_Truths&diff=prev&oldid=360698 Four Noble Truths] - provided source.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harry_Potter&diff=prev&oldid=360671 Harry Potter] - replaced vague and hard-to-source claim with a more precise and sourced one along the same lines.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template_talk:Fact&diff=prev&oldid=360655 Template talk] to point out that an important template was broken.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment&diff=prev&oldid=360615 Insight] about a style issue.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Papyrus&diff=prev&oldid=359583 Papyrus] - pointed out that a section was copy-pasted, replaced with rewritten and sourced version.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Asymmetric_Digital_Subscriber_Line&diff=prev&oldid=358275 ADSL] - started.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexuality_and_Gonorrhea&diff=357984&oldid=343846 Homosexuality and Gonorrhea] - replacing broken source with working link, cited authority instead of secondary source (content remained the same)
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Delhi_Sultanate&diff=prev&oldid=357958 Delhi Sultanate] - pointed out copyright violation.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=American_Taliban&diff=prev&oldid=357953 American Taliban] - added source while pointing out the need of one.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism_and_the_Problem_of_Evil&diff=prev&oldid=357950 Atheism and the Problem of Evil] - one of the cases where I improved the style of the references.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gun_control&diff=357525&oldid=357515 Gun control] - added a new section and provided a source to replace a broken link. I think I also cleaned up the other references in that article... ah yes, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gun_control&diff=357510&oldid=357497 here] we go.
::::I stopped looking at that point. There should be a few more (plus the few dozen or so edits where I touched up the formatting, corrected typos, etc.), but I think that should answer your attempt to drag this issue further and further away from the actual content of my initial post: What is your argument about Hoyle? Creation scientists ''and'' evolutionary scientists concluded that he was wrong there. What is your evidence that these modern experts independently came to the wrong conclusions? --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 23:26, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::::: I couldn't find a substantive contribution in your list. Do you really think fixing a broken link, though welcome, is a substantive edit? I hope not. Moreover, many of your edits have been of a [[provocateur]] variety, and I've had to revert some them.

::::: I can't see what your point is here, for example. The entry is factual and presents various views of the [[Archaeopteryx]]. Are you suggesting we delete the esteemed [[Sir Fred Hoyle]]'s conclusion that it was a fraud, based on his firsthand examination of the specimens with a team of top scientists??? As with many [[provocateur]]s, it's often difficult to see what their point is. I can't see your point here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 2 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: It reads as though Hoyle's opinion is correct, rather than as a now-discredited idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:16, 2 January 2008 (EST)

::::::: Evolutionists and some creationists may disagree with Hoyle's firsthand conclusions, but I'm not aware of any discrediting. Is someone saying Hoyle lied or made scientific mistakes that affect his conclusion? Hoyle, by the way, was the preeminent [[British]] scientist of the 20th century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:52, 2 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::I'm faced with two views:
::::::::#Hoyle (astronomer), in the '80s, declares fossils to be fake.
::::::::#Menton (creationist anatomist) and Feduccia (paleornithologist), among others, use modern techniques and insights of fossils and argue that Hoyle's conclusion was incorrect.
::::::::I might feel a bit more conflicted, but it appears as if this wasn't the first time that Hoyle was most likely incorrect: Hoyle was an astronomer (Since when are ''astronomers'' experts when it comes to bird fossils?) who believed that the influenza epidemics were caused by particles of meteor streams which conveyed the virus to Earth. He also believed that the primeval molecules (which were the origin of life on Earth) came from outer space and that there was continuous creation (Steady State Theory).
::::::::Sorry, but the man's been proven wrong before (for example, discovery of cosmic microwave background led to the pretty much complete defeat of the Steady State Theory), and when modern-day experts in the fields of anatomy and paleornithology (study of bird evolution and fossil birds) disagree with an astronomer's conclusion from 20 years ago, I tend to go with the modern experts. The article should at least state clearly that Hoyle's field of expertise is astronomy (and not the study of fossils, birds, or bird fossils) and that modern experts in those fields reject his claims. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:55, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Archaeopteryx

2008-01-02T04:26:32Z

JakeC: /* When even Creationist sites disagree... */ *hack* *wheeze* Okay, here is a selection of my quality edits. Can we NOW... P-L-E-A-S-E... discuss the actual issue?

Talk:Archaeopteryx

2008-01-02T03:44:16Z

JakeC: /* When even Creationist sites disagree... */ So far, you have called me a liberal, an evolutionist, a provocateur, and now my 150+ edits are low-quality?

Talk:Archaeopteryx

2008-01-02T02:51:17Z

JakeC: /* When even Creationist sites disagree... */

Talk:Archaeopteryx

2008-01-02T02:08:55Z

JakeC: /* When even Creationist sites disagree... */

Talk:Archaeopteryx

2008-01-02T01:51:17Z

JakeC: /* When even Creationist sites disagree... */ Edit to add

Talk:Archaeopteryx

2008-01-02T01:38:23Z

JakeC: /* When even Creationist sites disagree... */ Experts from both sides agree that Hoyle is wrong, but your "pro-evolution bias" comment made me chuckle at least.

Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation

2008-01-02T00:00:17Z

JakeC: One less fact-tagged article

'''Confession''' is the admission of guilt for forgiveness of sin. To be effective, it is typically expressed to another, usually a cleryman for absolution by him. All mortal sins are expressed to obtain full forgiveness, while not all venial (lesser) sins need be expressed.<ref>"We commit a venial sin (one which can be forgiven outside confession) [...]" and "God will forgive the sinner of these minor sins if he confesses them to God in prayer with sincere repentance." - Reaching Catholics For Christ: [http://www.reachingcatholics.org/mortal.html Mortal and Venial Sin]</ref>

Confession is usually made in a confidential manner, and clergymen are duty-bound never to disclose a confession. Numerous legal protections also respect this confidentiality in the very rare instance of an attempt to force disclosure.

Confession has played a central role in Christianity from its earliest days, as in the example of the [[Confessions of St. Augustine]].

Confessing one's sins - and performing a prescribed [[penance]] - is an important sacrament in the [[Roman Catholic]] faith.

==Alternate Definitions==
Confession in a secular sense is any admission of a wrongdoing, written or spoken.<ref>Merriam-Webster - [http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=confession "confession"]</ref>

==References==
<references />

Talk:Baidu Baike

2008-01-01T23:45:16Z

JakeC: Rewriting, restructuring, removing fact tag

== Rewriting, restructuring, removing fact tag ==

My edit induced some structure into the previous one-paragraph mess and also cleaned up the overall style (and cleaned up the source formatting). I also included the new (and apparently current) block of Wikipedia in China.

The only not-quite-brilliant move was the removal of the "fact" tag that was previously attached to the sentence about Baidu Baike's growth. This growth is noted even in Wikipedia itself ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baidu_Baike&oldid=181219180 Baidu Baike], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Wikipedia&oldid=181401464 Chinese Wikipedia]), but it's apparently based on either user observations or Chinese sources, so I can't find a reliable source for it. Thus, I accepted this as "Most likely true, but extremely hard to verify" and removed the "fact" tag to lighten the burden on the currently horribly overcrowded "Articles with unsourced statements" category. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 18:45, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Baidu Baike

2008-01-01T23:37:34Z

JakeC: Rewriting and restructuring. Also see notes on Talk in a few minutes.

'''Baidu Baike''' is a [[Chinese]] alternative to the Chinese language [[Wikipedia]].

==Origin==
Baidu Baike is run in conjunction with the Chinese search engine [[Baidu]]. Both Baidu and Baidu Baike are heavily censored in compliance with the [[communist]] government of mainland China.<ref>Slashdot - [http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/11/1841224 Self-Censoring 'Chinese Wikipedia' Launched]</ref>

==Baidu Baike and Wikipedia==
It has been pointed out that the Chinese Wikipedia appears to be censored when it comes to articles on controversial, political subjects like [[Mao Zedong]], which played down the millions of deaths he was responsible for. This behavior was tracked down to Chinese editors who engage in self-censorship. This form of censorship has its roots for example in the Chinese education system, which presents a whitewashed view of such topics.<ref>International Herald Tribune - [http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/29/news/wiki.php Chinese-language Wikipedia presents different view of history]</ref>

However, aside from editors censoring themselves, Wikipedia itself did and does not engage in or encourage self-censorship, something Reporters without Borders praised the site for. The refusal of censoring itself has resulted in history of blocking and unblocking of Wikipedia by the Chinese government.<ref>BBC - [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6154444.stm China 'unblocks' Wikipedia site] (year-long block until November 2006)</ref><ref>InfoWorld - [http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/09/06/Wikipedia-blocked-in-China-again_1.html Wikipedia blocked in China yet again] (block began August 31, 2007)</ref> This blocking behavior, along with the different content and editing policies, led to Baidu Baike's article count surpassing that of the Chinese Wikipedia within weeks after launch.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Wiki]]

Homosexual rights advocacy

2008-01-01T22:55:04Z

JakeC:

The '''gay rights''' movement seeks to elevate [[homosexuality]] to the same level of social and political respectability as heterosexual relationships. Although the Bible prohibits homosexual acts, activists point out that such prohibitions are found in the old testament among a variety of outdated and ignored guidelines. For example, it is no longer acceptable to treat one's wife or children as property; clearly Christianity has evolved beyond the rules that bound it thousands of years ago. Additionally, the levels of STI's in the heterosexual population has become equal to that in the homosexual population. It can no longer be claimed that gay sex poses a greater health risk than any other form of intercourse.

With arguments against homosexuality largely dispelled, the gay rights movement seeks to remove the stigma of [[sexual perversion]] from homosexuality by arguing that either,
# Homosexuality is an immutable trait, and discriminating against immutable traits is wrong (cf. race discrimination), or,
# Homosexuality, if not immutable, is highly correlated with personality, and discriminating against such deeply rooted notions of self is wrong, as well (cf. religious intolerance).

==History==
As Amazon.com said in a review of a book of [[Harry Hay]]'s writings, he "is the acknowledged father…of the modern gay liberation movement." As a [[Communist Party of the United States]] (CPUSA) organizer, he turned out "essays, position papers, critical studies, and manifestos concerning what it means to be gay in the world." <ref> [http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A269_0_2_0_C/ Red Roots Of Gay Movement], Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media, September 10, 2003. </ref>

The first step Hay took in organizing the gay rights movement was to recommend to the CPUSA that he be expelled. In
light of his years 18 years of service to the party <ref>[http://www.sojournertruth.net/ipp.html#i In Partial Payment Class Struggle, Sexuality and Gay Liberation (1978)], by A. Rausch. Retrieved from ''Urgent Tasks: [[Leftist|Journal of the Revolutionary Left]]'', Sojourner Truth Organization Digital Archive , 10 May 2007. </ref> they released him as “a security risk but a life-long friend of the people.” The early leadership of the Foundation shaped the organization to reflect the cell structure of the Communist Party, in which "secrecy, hierarchical structures, and centralized leadership predominated." <ref>John D'Emilio, ''Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), quoted in Martin Meeker, Behind the Mask of Respectability, ''Journal of the History of Sexuality'', (2001) 78-116. </ref>
Hay and his fellow gay rights activists began circulating the [[USSR]] and the East European Communist parties sponsored anti-war [[Stockholm Peace petition]] against the [[Korean War]] <ref>[http://www.kimsoft.com/2000/germberia.htm New Russian Evidence on the Korean War Biological Warfare Allegations: Background and Analysis,]Milton Leitenberg, Cold War International History Project, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. </ref> at a gay beach in Los Angeles. The first months produced hundreds of members.

Amid growing public focus on gays and lesbians, 91 homosexuals were found to be employed in the [[U.S. State Department]]. Congressional investigators discovered homosexuals employed in 36 of 53 branches of Government, as well as in the armed forces. Between Jan. 1, 1947 and April 1950, 4,954 cases had come to light among some three and a half million people in Government service. Most were in the armed services. 574 cases were found involving civilian Government employees; in all the other cases the accused had either quit, been cleared or fired. The investigators found the greatest batch of civilian cases—143—in the U.S. State Department. State had cleared or gotten rid of all but a dozen whose cases were still pending. The Veterans Administration was found to have 101 cases. Others included the Atomic Energy Commission, 8; EGA, 27; Congress' legislative agencies (Library of Congress, congressional employees, etc.), 19. One Senator remarked, "It follows that if blackmailers can extort money from a homosexual under threat of disclosure, [[espionage]] agents can use the same type of pressure to extort confidential information." <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,859060,00.html Object Lesson], ''TIME magazine'', Dec. 25, 1950.</ref>

The [[Human Rights Campaign]] referred to Hay as "founder and architect of the modern movement for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights" and "Harry was one of the first to realize that the dream of equality for our community could be attained through visibility and activism". <ref>[http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/News_Releases/20021/HRC_Mourns_the_Death_of_Gay_Rights_Pioneer_Harry_Hay.htm Human Rights Campaign Mourns the Death of Gay Rights Pioneer Harry Hay], Press Release, Oct. 24, 2002.</ref> Hay not only promoted homosexual rights, he actively campaigned for the "rights" of [[pedophile]]s. ''The Boston Phoenix'' noted that nowhere was this more evident than in Hay's persistent support of the right of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, [[NAMBLA]], to march in gay-pride parades. <ref>''The Boston Phoenix'', [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm The real Harry Hay], Michael Bronski, October 31 - November 7, 2002. </ref> NAMBLA maintains a website with a body of Hay's work and a tribute to Harry Hay on its homepage. The Human Rights Campaign and other gay rights organizations, while revering Hay for his contributions to gay rights, do not support NAMBLA or communism.

In 2006, [[Catholic Charities]] of Boston closed their adoption program after more than a century of finding homes for [[orphans]] and [[unwanted children]] when it was reported by the ''Boston Globe'' that gay couples had received children placed from the agency.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/ Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions], By Patricia Wen, ''The Boston Globe'', March 11, 2006.</ref> Massachusetts law barring "orientation discrimination" prohibited one of the nations oldest adoption agencies from refusing service to gay activists, and a mass resignation of the agencies Board in protest followed. <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp Banned in Boston], by Maggie Gallagher, ''The Weekly Standard'', 05/15/2006, Volume 011, Issue 33.</ref>

== Legal Success ==
Courts, including the Supreme Court, have accepted either one or both of these rationales. In ''[[Romer v. Evans]]'', the Court found that discriminating against homosexuals could only be explained by a rational of animus laid bare, which was not enough even to allow state condemnation of homosexuality under the [[rational basis review]] test. ''Romer'', then, protects the status of homosexuality from undue discrimination that occurs without a rational basis.<ref>Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620</ref>

Homosexual conduct was formerly illegal in many states.<ref>See generally ''Bowers v. Hardwick'', 478 U.S. 186</ref> In the last decade of the twentieth century, although these laws existed, they were rarely (if ever) enforced.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas,'' 539 U.S. 558, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the Opinion of the Court, found this in his historical analysis.</ref> Without disclosing whether it saw homosexuality as a status protected from discrimination at as high of a level as gender and race, the Court struck down bans on homosexual conduct, framing it as an expansion of its privacy jurisprudence.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', 539 U.S. 558</ref>

The status of homosexuality before the law, then, is in some degree of flux. While bare discrimination against homosexual status is facially unconstitutional lacking a rational basis, and while preventing homosexual conduct is similarly unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has held in these landmark cases that the state may discriminate against homosexuals to preserve an "institution that the law protects" - namely, [[marriage]].<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas''; Kennedy & O'Connor both reached this conclusion explicitly.</ref> As such, the standard to be applied in deciding if discrimination against homosexuals is wrong is somewhere in between [[rational basis review]] and [[strict scrutiny review]]. Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] thinks that this uncertainty will surely be resolved in the favor of gay rights, and he warns that such a legal erosion will result in the downfall of the law's moral authority.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', Scalia, J., dissenting.</ref>

== Opposition to Gay Rights ==
Polls consistently reveal that a clear majority <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031800484.html | Clinton, Obama Slow to Respond to Questions on Homosexuality] Washington Post, March 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/963906/posts| New poll shows Americans oppose gay civil unions 58%-37%] Washington Post, August 18, 2003</ref> of people disapprove of homosexuality, or at least consider it less than ideal, and prefer that public policy does not encourage it. They also believe that accepting homosexuality would require the loss of rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and traditional [[marriage]].<ref>Traditional Values Coalition - [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2963 Homosexual Marriage In Canada Killing Free Speech]</ref>
Conservatives criticize attempts by gay rights activists to prohibit any statements which are critical of homosexuality, such as the idea that it is "unnatural" or "sinful", using [[hate crime]]s statutes and anti-[[discrimination]] laws.

Conservatives also oppose attempts by homosexual activists to indoctrinate children through the use of ''tolerance'' or ''diversity'' programs in schools which encourage acceptance of homosexual behavior. Notable figures including [[Tony Perkins]] have expressed concerns.

*The EU parliament called on Polish authorities to publicly condemn and take measures against declarations by officials "inciting discrimination and hatred based on sexual orientation." [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OOFTCO5&show_article=1]

== Support for Gay Rights ==

A [[Newsweek]] poll, conducted March, 2007, found that 61% of those polled felt that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military ([[margin of error]], plus or minus 3%). The poll did not ask directly about current military policy.

The same poll found that 50% of those asked favored legal recognition of same-sex unions, either as marriages or [[civil union]]s or partnerships. 44% felt same-sex couples should have no legal recognition, with 6% unsure.<ref>Polling Report http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm</ref>

==Tactics==

*Kirk and Madsen predicted a mass public change of heart would follow, even among opponents, "if we can actually make them like us." <ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html How America Went Gay], by Charles W. Socarides, M.D., ''America'', November 18, 1995.</ref>

Advocates routinely use deceit, notably pursuing various goal while pretending not to. For example, some advocates will claim:
*The movement does not seek to convince others that homosexuality is ''right''

Yet clearly the drive for "[[tolerance]]" is only one step toward the ultimate goal of "[[approval]]".

Blurring distinctions: Advocates routinely fail to distinguish between [[homosexual behavior]] and homosexuality as an "identity".

==See also==
*[[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]

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

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Homosexual rights advocacy

2008-01-01T22:54:07Z

JakeC: /* Opposition to Gay Rights */ One less fact-tagged article.

The '''gay rights''' movement seeks to elevate [[homosexuality]] to the same level of social and political respectability as heterosexual relationships. Although the Bible prohibits homosexual acts, activists point out that such prohibitions are found in the old testament among a variety of outdated and ignored guidelines. For example, it is no longer acceptable to treat one's wife or children as property; clearly Christianity has evolved beyond the rules that bound it thousands of years ago. Additionally, the levels of STI's in the heterosexual population has become equal to that in the homosexual population. It can no longer be claimed that gay sex poses a greater health risk than any other form of intercourse.

With arguments against homosexuality largely dispelled, the gay rights movement seeks to remove the stigma of [[sexual perversion]] from homosexuality by arguing that either,
# Homosexuality is an immutable trait, and discriminating against immutable traits is wrong (cf. race discrimination), or,
# Homosexuality, if not immutable, is highly correlated with personality, and discriminating against such deeply rooted notions of self is wrong, as well (cf. religious intolerance).

==History==
As Amazon.com said in a review of a book of [[Harry Hay]]'s writings, he "is the acknowledged father…of the modern gay liberation movement." As a [[Communist Party of the United States]] (CPUSA) organizer, he turned out "essays, position papers, critical studies, and manifestos concerning what it means to be gay in the world." <ref> [http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A269_0_2_0_C/ Red Roots Of Gay Movement], Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media, September 10, 2003. </ref>

The first step Hay took in organizing the gay rights movement was to recommend to the CPUSA that he be expelled. In
light of his years 18 years of service to the party <ref>[http://www.sojournertruth.net/ipp.html#i In Partial Payment Class Struggle, Sexuality and Gay Liberation (1978)], by A. Rausch. Retrieved from ''Urgent Tasks: [[Leftist|Journal of the Revolutionary Left]]'', Sojourner Truth Organization Digital Archive , 10 May 2007. </ref> they released him as “a security risk but a life-long friend of the people.” The early leadership of the Foundation shaped the organization to reflect the cell structure of the Communist Party, in which "secrecy, hierarchical structures, and centralized leadership predominated." <ref>John D'Emilio, ''Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), quoted in Martin Meeker, Behind the Mask of Respectability, ''Journal of the History of Sexuality'', (2001) 78-116. </ref>
Hay and his fellow gay rights activists began circulating the [[USSR]] and the East European Communist parties sponsored anti-war [[Stockholm Peace petition]] against the [[Korean War]] <ref>[http://www.kimsoft.com/2000/germberia.htm New Russian Evidence on the Korean War Biological Warfare Allegations: Background and Analysis,]Milton Leitenberg, Cold War International History Project, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. </ref> at a gay beach in Los Angeles. The first months produced hundreds of members.

Amid growing public focus on gays and lesbians, 91 homosexuals were found to be employed in the [[U.S. State Department]]. Congressional investigators discovered homosexuals employed in 36 of 53 branches of Government, as well as in the armed forces. Between Jan. 1, 1947 and April 1950, 4,954 cases had come to light among some three and a half million people in Government service. Most were in the armed services. 574 cases were found involving civilian Government employees; in all the other cases the accused had either quit, been cleared or fired. The investigators found the greatest batch of civilian cases—143—in the U.S. State Department. State had cleared or gotten rid of all but a dozen whose cases were still pending. The Veterans Administration was found to have 101 cases. Others included the Atomic Energy Commission, 8; EGA, 27; Congress' legislative agencies (Library of Congress, congressional employees, etc.), 19. One Senator remarked, "It follows that if blackmailers can extort money from a homosexual under threat of disclosure, [[espionage]] agents can use the same type of pressure to extort confidential information." <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,859060,00.html Object Lesson], ''TIME magazine'', Dec. 25, 1950.</ref>

The [[Human Rights Campaign]] referred to Hay as "founder and architect of the modern movement for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights" and "Harry was one of the first to realize that the dream of equality for our community could be attained through visibility and activism". <ref>[http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/News_Releases/20021/HRC_Mourns_the_Death_of_Gay_Rights_Pioneer_Harry_Hay.htm Human Rights Campaign Mourns the Death of Gay Rights Pioneer Harry Hay], Press Release, Oct. 24, 2002.</ref> Hay not only promoted homosexual rights, he actively campaigned for the "rights" of [[pedophile]]s. ''The Boston Phoenix'' noted that nowhere was this more evident than in Hay's persistent support of the right of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, [[NAMBLA]], to march in gay-pride parades. <ref>''The Boston Phoenix'', [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm The real Harry Hay], Michael Bronski, October 31 - November 7, 2002. </ref> NAMBLA maintains a website with a body of Hay's work and a tribute to Harry Hay on its homepage. The Human Rights Campaign and other gay rights organizations, while revering Hay for his contributions to gay rights, do not support NAMBLA or communism.

In 2006, [[Catholic Charities]] of Boston closed their adoption program after more than a century of finding homes for [[orphans]] and [[unwanted children]] when it was reported by the ''Boston Globe'' that gay couples had received children placed from the agency.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/ Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions], By Patricia Wen, ''The Boston Globe'', March 11, 2006.</ref> Massachusetts law barring "orientation discrimination" prohibited one of the nations oldest adoption agencies from refusing service to gay activists, and a mass resignation of the agencies Board in protest followed. <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp Banned in Boston], by Maggie Gallagher, ''The Weekly Standard'', 05/15/2006, Volume 011, Issue 33.</ref>

== Legal Success ==
Courts, including the Supreme Court, have accepted either one or both of these rationales. In ''[[Romer v. Evans]]'', the Court found that discriminating against homosexuals could only be explained by a rational of animus laid bare, which was not enough even to allow state condemnation of homosexuality under the [[rational basis review]] test. ''Romer'', then, protects the status of homosexuality from undue discrimination that occurs without a rational basis.<ref>Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620</ref>

Homosexual conduct was formerly illegal in many states.<ref>See generally ''Bowers v. Hardwick'', 478 U.S. 186</ref> In the last decade of the twentieth century, although these laws existed, they were rarely (if ever) enforced.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas,'' 539 U.S. 558, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the Opinion of the Court, found this in his historical analysis.</ref> Without disclosing whether it saw homosexuality as a status protected from discrimination at as high of a level as gender and race, the Court struck down bans on homosexual conduct, framing it as an expansion of its privacy jurisprudence.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', 539 U.S. 558</ref>

The status of homosexuality before the law, then, is in some degree of flux. While bare discrimination against homosexual status is facially unconstitutional lacking a rational basis, and while preventing homosexual conduct is similarly unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has held in these landmark cases that the state may discriminate against homosexuals to preserve an "institution that the law protects" - namely, [[marriage]].<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas''; Kennedy & O'Connor both reached this conclusion explicitly.</ref> As such, the standard to be applied in deciding if discrimination against homosexuals is wrong is somewhere in between [[rational basis review]] and [[strict scrutiny review]]. Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] thinks that this uncertainty will surely be resolved in the favor of gay rights, and he warns that such a legal erosion will result in the downfall of the law's moral authority.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', Scalia, J., dissenting.</ref>

== Opposition to Gay Rights ==
Polls consistently reveal that a clear majority <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031800484.html | Clinton, Obama Slow to Respond to Questions on Homosexuality] Washington Post, March 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/963906/posts| New poll shows Americans oppose gay civil unions 58%-37%] Washington Post, August 18, 2003</ref> of people disapprove of homosexuality, or at least consider it less than ideal, and prefer that public policy does not encourage it. They also believe that accepting homosexuality would require the loss of rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and traditional [[marriage]].<ref>Traditional Values Coalition - [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2963 Homosexual Marriage In Canada Killing Free Speech]
Conservatives criticize attempts by gay rights activists to prohibit any statements which are critical of homosexuality, such as the idea that it is "unnatural" or "sinful", using [[hate crime]]s statutes and anti-[[discrimination]] laws.

Conservatives also oppose attempts by homosexual activists to indoctrinate children through the use of ''tolerance'' or ''diversity'' programs in schools which encourage acceptance of homosexual behavior. Notable figures including [[Tony Perkins]] have expressed concerns.

*The EU parliament called on Polish authorities to publicly condemn and take measures against declarations by officials "inciting discrimination and hatred based on sexual orientation." [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OOFTCO5&show_article=1]

== Support for Gay Rights ==

A [[Newsweek]] poll, conducted March, 2007, found that 61% of those polled felt that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military ([[margin of error]], plus or minus 3%). The poll did not ask directly about current military policy.

The same poll found that 50% of those asked favored legal recognition of same-sex unions, either as marriages or [[civil union]]s or partnerships. 44% felt same-sex couples should have no legal recognition, with 6% unsure.<ref>Polling Report http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm</ref>

==Tactics==

*Kirk and Madsen predicted a mass public change of heart would follow, even among opponents, "if we can actually make them like us." <ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html How America Went Gay], by Charles W. Socarides, M.D., ''America'', November 18, 1995.</ref>

Advocates routinely use deceit, notably pursuing various goal while pretending not to. For example, some advocates will claim:
*The movement does not seek to convince others that homosexuality is ''right''

Yet clearly the drive for "[[tolerance]]" is only one step toward the ultimate goal of "[[approval]]".

Blurring distinctions: Advocates routinely fail to distinguish between [[homosexual behavior]] and homosexuality as an "identity".

==See also==
*[[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]

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

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Talk:Archaeopteryx

2008-01-01T22:44:54Z

JakeC: Inserting a headline above the initial remark so we get a ToC

Talk:Archaeopteryx

2008-01-01T22:44:03Z

JakeC: When even Creationist sites disagree...

Amongst pro-evolution scientists Feduccia's research is considered to be completely disproven. Referencing his research without mentioning the dozens of papers that refute it makes the conservapedia appear biased and/or out of date. {{unsigned|token}}

== Italics ==

Folks, please. No matter what your view, it's proper scientific style to use italics. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 22:21, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Removed paragraph ==

I've removed the following paragraph because I question it's accuracy:
{{QuoteBox|More recently, CT scans of an ''Archaeopteryx'' braincase were compared to the brains of modern and more advanced fossil birds. It was demonstrated that the brain of ''Archaeopteryx'' is not like modern birds. Instead, the authors concluded that like its ankle, feet, and skull, the brain or ''Archaeopteryx'' is more like predatory dinosaurs than modern birds.}}
It referenced a paper that is not available freely on-line (it needs to be purchased), but the on-line abstract[http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/q5p612262q241205/?p=657022247b19465a9506b78afc612ddd&pi=0] says the following:
{{QuoteBox|Fossils preserving traces of soft anatomy are rare in the fossil record; even rarer is evidence bearing on the size and shape of sense organs that provide us with insights into mode of life. Here, we describe unique fossil preservation of an avian brain from the Volgograd region of European Russia. The brain of this Melovatka bird is similar in shape and morphology to those of known fossil ornithurines (the lineage that includes living birds), such as the marine diving birds ''Hesperornis'' and ''Enaliornis'', but documents a new stage in avian sensory evolution: acute nocturnal vision coupled with well-developed hearing and smell, developed by the Late Cretaceous (ca 90Myr ago). This fossil also provides insights into previous ‘bird-like’ brain reconstructions for the most basal avian ''Archaeopteryx''—reduction of olfactory lobes (sense of smell) and enlargement of the hindbrain (cerebellum) occurred subsequent to ''Archaeopteryx'' in avian evolution, closer to the ornithurine lineage that comprises living birds. The Melovatka bird also suggests that brain enlargement in early avians was not correlated with the evolution of powered flight.}}
That suggests to me that, contrary to the paragraph removed from the article, CT scans were done of a different bird, not of ''Archaeopteryx''.

If someone has access to the full paper and can confirm that the paragraph is accurate, it can go back in.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:47, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

The brain of ''Archaeopteryx'' had already been CT scanned, see here:http://www.utexas.edu/opa/pubs/oncampus/02oc_issues/oc020702/oc_brain.html. ''Archaeopteryx'''s brain was not like modern birds, so it was harder to interpret; the new paper scanned an intermediate bird's fossil skull, which greatly helped paleontologists understand the orginal CT scan of ''Archaeopteryx'''s brain. It was not like that of modern birds, it is more like a ''Velociraptor'' or oviraptorid in organization.

When the first paper came out the press carried the headlines "Archaeopteryx has bird-like brain" because the orignal study onlyused an alligator, and Allosaurus (a meat-eating dinosaur not very close to birds) and a modern bird. When maniraptoran dinosaurs and other extint birds were examined, it became clear that Archaeopteryx had a brain that is sort of birdlike, but no more so than Velociraptor and it's other close cousins.

If you are going to remove actual peer-reviewd data because "it requires payment" (I don't like it either, but they have to make money somehow) while keeping easily-refuted information that has never made it to a scientific journal in your entries then you are making the conservapedia into a joke.{{unsigned|Token}}

: Interesting comment about peer review. Do you also feel that so-called "professors" who were not selected based on peer review should not be taken seriously?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:(replying to Token):
:*First, thanks for the additional information about the brain scans of ''Archaeopteryx'' being done earlier. It does clarify the situation somewhat.
:*However, I still can't see that the text I removed was justified in being there. The abstract of the paper doesn't seem to go as far as the removed content.
:*I did not remove data 'because "it requires payment"'. I removed it because I suspected that it was inaccurate and pending someone demonstrating its accuracy.
:*Your swipe about including "easily-refuted" information was less than helpful, given that you didn't say what information is supposedly "easily refuted".

:(to Aschlafly):
:Andy, there was nothing "liberal" about what you removed and changed in the article. Apart from Hoyle and a few isolated creationists basing their view on Hoyle, essentially nobody believes that the fossils have been faked and essentially everyone accepts that ''Archaeopteryx'' really existed. The only real dispute is over whether it was a true bird or an intermediate form.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:48, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Philip, many people (including books on the topic) consider the fossils to be fakes. Hoyle is the best [[British]] scientist of the 20th century, and he considered it a fake also. The evidence speaks for itself in suggesting forgery, just as other fossils (e.g., the bird-dinosaur National Geographic fossil) are fakes. You don't really think that an "Archaeopteryx" existed only in pro-evolution parts of England in Germany, do you??? That's the only source of these unusual "fossils".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:52, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
::: I would be interested in know who these "many people" and book are, because I know of very few. I agree that the late Fred Hoyle is not someone to be ignored, but I do believe that he was something of a loner on this issue (as he was on a number of issues), and the evidence has been reexamined and not just doesn't support, but actually refutes, his claims of forgery. To quote from Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (whom you reference in your changes) referring to Dr. Menton whom you quote, he "totally reject[s] the charge of forgery. Dr Menton points out that the Archaeopteryx bones have tiny bumps where the feathers were attached to the bones by ligaments. This was unexpected, so impossible to attribute to a forgery. So it is simply wrong to say that the feathers are just imprints added to a dino skeleton.". That is quoted from [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3653/ here], and that article includes several other reasons for rejecting the claim of forgery. (Incidentally, it also refers to the brain scans of ''Archaeopteryx''.)
::: Many fossils are only found in particular locations around the world. The fact that the ''Archaeopteryx'' fossils are only found in two parts of Europe is not all that unusual.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:32, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

:::: I've addressed this by expanding the paragraph, with citations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::Your additions don't really address my questions. Your additions don't say who these "many people" are (but see below), nor mention any books. You have not addressed that Drs. Sarfati and Menton totally reject the forgery charge, nor my answer to your question about where they were found.
:::::You did make reference to a "half dozen leading scientist", but without names, that's not a lot of use. However, I have tracked down what appears to be your source, the [http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist09.htm Creation Evolution Encyclopedia], and it lists R.S. Watkins, N.C. Wickramasinghe, J. Watkins, R. Rabilizirov, and L.M. Spetner along with Hoyle. Okay, there were six scientists, not just Hoyle (and Wickramasinghe, whom I had been aware of).
:::::Have you checked the sources that are currently listed as Nos. 4, 5, and 6? Because the Creation Evolution Encyclopedia does ''not'' list them as supporting the argument. Instead, it lists them under an "also see" introduction. These sources clearly have more about the issue, but not necessarily any evidence supportive of the claims of Hoyle et. al.
:::::So what we have is a forgery claim by a small group of scientists who may or may not still hold that view (Hoyle is now dead), which is refuted not just by other evolutionists but also by creationists, including ones that you cite. Furthermore, I'm not sure that any of the six were qualified to know what they were talking about (Hoyle was an astronomer, for example), but some of the scientists who reject the hoax (such as anatomist Dr. Menton) are so qualified.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:29, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

== When even Creationist sites disagree... ==

I find it interesting to note that Answers in Genesis (which is cited as a reliable source in numerous articles here) goes as far as including "Archaeopteryx is a fraud" in their [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#archaeopteryx "Which arguments should ''definitely'' not be used?"] FAQ section and even published a dedicated article with the title [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp "Archaeopteryx is NOT a hoax"]

I believe that AiG has a good reason to include this specific accusation in their "Do not use!" list, so maybe we should try to work along those lines? In my eyes, it's usually a bad sign when evolutionists ''and'' Creationists disagree with a claim we make. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 17:44, 1 January 2008 (EST)

File talk:Eyeball.jpg

2008-01-01T22:12:41Z

JakeC: Not the most pleasing image!

== Not the most pleasing image! ==

Seriously, do we need this image of eye surgery in the [[eye]] article? I don't know about you, but I find it fairly icky when I want to read about the human eye and then see people cutting around in one. Could somebody with upload rights maybe find a less disturbing image? Please? --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 17:12, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Evangelical atheist

2008-01-01T17:45:40Z

JakeC: /* Where is the reference? */ Very poor way of defending my faith

== Evangelical atheist ==

Hello, I was browsing through this site, and I noticed the article at http://www.conservapedia.com/Evangelical_atheist which said you are the author of that page. I am new to editing here, so I thought to check with the original author about this before editing anything. The article states "claiming that one can be good without attending religious services or reading the Bible" as a technique used by evangelical atheists.
This bring to mind something, as it seems to be claiming that only those who read the Bible can possibly be good people. But what if, for example, there was someone who followed a different religion that didn't include the Bible, but who gave money to charity, worked to improve people's lives, and did many works of good in their life. Even if they did not attend services or ever read the Bible, it seems they would be a good person just by virtue of their good deeds. Do you agree? I would appreciate it if that one phrase could be removed from the article, because it would seem to define a lot of people as "not good" on a single criterion.

Thanks,
T. Otru.

: No, I don't think it should be deleted. The point is not whether it is theoretically possible for someone to be good in such a manner, but that [[evangelical atheists]] exaggerate the opportunity by insisting on it. In other words, the point is about the style and arguments of an [[evangelical atheist]], not where there is a shred of validity to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 31 December 2007 (EST)

If someone can be good without attending services or reading the Bible, then why is this a "technique" of evangelical atheists? It seems that them pointing this out doesn't force their beliefs on anyone else, but simply states that religion isn't required to be a good person; this is in line with atheistic beliefs, and to me it doesn't seem to infringe on religious beliefs at all. Would it not help the article to make a better case by removing such an assertion, which seems to merely restate atheists' belief system? The only problem I see in this article is that it seems to deny that there is any validity to their arguments, which you yourself said exists. -Otru

: The statement, often used by [[evangelical atheists]], that "one can be good without attending religious services or reading the Bible" is grossly misleading. It's like a tobacco company claiming that "one can smoke a pack-a-day of cigarettes and live to be 100." Sure, one in a million can. The other 999,999 are misled by the argument.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:20, 31 December 2007 (EST)

But can't religion be equally misleading? After all, the Bible mentions and supports practices such as slavery (Leviticus 25), witch hunts (Exodus 22), and purely religion-based killing (Exodus 32), things that are now clearly considered immoral. Maybe these atheists are misleading in some ways, and religion does encourage many people to do good, but you must admit that some things that comes out of the Bible and religion are at least as morally misleading as atheism.

It seems to be a completely different situation from tobacco companies (which I am glad to see you do not support); smoking is obviously harmful, but NOT smoking (with this analogy, following the Bible literally) certainly is not a cause of poor health. Could you then at least modify the page so that it does not seem to be making contradictory claims such as this?
--Otru 31 Dec. 2007

: Where did "following the Bible literally" come from, or your claims that there are "immoral" things in the Bible? Those arguments are irrelevant to our discussion. The statement on the content page that "one can be good without attending religious services or reading the Bible" is often made by [[evangelical atheists]], and you do not seem to dispute that. Case closed.

: We can discuss why it is misleading, just as tobacco advertisements are. Check out [[young mass murderers]] to seem some examples, or the psych ward in a hospital. Lots of people "lose it" when they go years, and decades, without any spiritual nourishment. It's misleading to pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:09, 31 December 2007 (EST)

I am not disputing whether atheists state this or not; I am concerned that the article incorrectly portrays it as misleading. The article you linked me to only lists 8 mass murderers, and I know there have been a lot more than that, many of whom were Christian. A few cases such as that is not enough to make a broad statement about a belief.

My points are quite relevant to this discussion. I pointed out the issues with following the Bible literally to demonstrate that it is misleading to claim evangelical atheists are spreading immoral practices when the Bible itself does the same. Unless you deny that slavery and killing are wrong, it's clear that the Bible does portray certain immoral things as just. If you do not wish to remove that statement, at least reword it to make it clear that it is not condemning that "technique" as purely immoral. -Otru

: As to your first paragraph, you implicitly deny the correlation between mass murder and rejection of [[Christianity]]. The correlation is unmistakable and scientifically indisputable. There are many anti-[[Christian]] mass murderers, but few if any [[Christian]] ones. Line up the lists if you doubt this. It's 8-0 in our list of recent examples at [[young mass murderers]].

: As to your second paragraph, where does the entry claim that "evangelical atheists are spreading immoral practices"? And where does the Bible endorse slavery? The content page is accurate, perhaps a bit too much for your liking. But that's why Conservapedia exists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:35, 31 December 2007 (EST)

So your contention is that there are very few "good" Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Is that correct? What are the rest? Evil? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:40, 31 December 2007 (EST)

PS: Can you show a positive correlation between between "crime, depression, anxiety, immorality, insanity and rejection of Christianity." Are you suggesting that more Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists are depressed, anxious, immoral, insane, or criminals per capita than Christians? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:42, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: Which of your mentioned religions do you believe in SSchultz??? Your argument is a bit too cute, leaving out 95% of those in the West who have rejected [[Christianity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::Nice try at a side step, Andy, but you failed to answer any of my questions. My religious beliefs have no bearing on my question. So, again, can you show positive correlation that more non-Christians are depressed, anxious, immoral, insane, or criminals per capita than Christians? Also, if it is significantly less possible (or impossible) to be a "good" person without reading the Bible or attending services, then is it your contention that there are few if any "good" Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:53, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::: And you failed to answer my question. Which of those religions do you believe in? None, I presume, making your argument disingenuous. Why didn't you include your own belief (disbelief) system in your list, which statistically more significant in the West?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:00, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::I'm Christian, Andy, now answer my question. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:08, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Really? You believe that [[Jesus]] was [[God]], and that He rose from the dead??? Why did you leave out the group of (former) Christians who deny that? They are far larger in the West than the groups you listed, and it is that group (along with suicide bombers and fallen away members of other religions) that sparks the correlation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:23, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::::The article didn't state specific articles of faith, only that one must attend services and read the Bible in order to be a good person, this is why I didn't include former Christians (or Cafeteria Christians, for that matter). So, I take it your answer is that there are few if any good non-Christians. If that's the case, where is your '''evidence''' for such a statement? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:33, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::::: SSchultz, you're arguing in non sequiturs now. Nothing in the entry supports your comment above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::Then straighten me out, Andy. Can you show positive correlation that more non-Christians are depressed, anxious, immoral, insane, or criminals per capita than Christians? Also, if it is significantly less possible (or impossible) to be a "good" person without reading the Bible or attending services, then is it your contention that there are few if any "good" Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. This is at least my third time asking this question. Is there an answer forthcoming anytime soon? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:43, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::: You're asking questions that have nothing to do with the entry and which I don't have an answer to. The entry simply states, "denying any correlation between crime, depression, anxiety, immorality, insanity and rejection of Christianity." How do you get to Hindus and Buddhists from there, most of whom have not rejected Christianity and few of whom reside in the West??? It seems you're playing some type of politically correct game that has no place on Conservapedia. I'd guess you're someone who rejects central tenets of Christianity, but you won't even address your own belief and instead want to discuss the beliefs of a tiny fraction of the West. Frankly, you seem to be wasting my time at this point and I'm going to move on to other issues soon unless you want to focus on what the entry actually says and where you are coming from.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::::Now you're just being willfully obtuse. The article states that evangelical atheists claim that people can be good without attending services or reading the Bible, so presumably you believe this to be false and that people can only be good if they attend services and read the Bible. Clearly, non-Christians do not read the Bible or attend services, so if this is the case, are non-Christians capable of being good. This seems a fairly straightforward question that you have dodged repeatedly. The same is the case for "denying any correlation between crime, depression, anxiety, immorality, insanity and rejection of Christianity." Well, non-Christians obviously reject Christianity, so where is the evidence that they are more likely to suffer from any of the above things? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::::: SSchultz, your comments are illogical and I'm going to stop wasting time in replying, and expect you to insist on [[last wordism]]. The entry refers to "religious services," which of course is not limited to [[Christians]]. The entry does not, and I've explained on this talk page that it does not, claim that "people can only be good if they attend services and read the Bible." The entry is correct as stated, obviously a bit too insightful for the liking of some. Such is the purpose of Conservapedia. Have the last word as I'm sure you will insist. I'm moving on to other issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:06, 31 December 2007 (EST)

With your knowledge of the Bible, it seems you'd have a copy handy to look up my reference, Leviticus 25, which is the part that endorses slavery. Other a few cases at [[young mass murderers]], which I notice were almost all listed by you, you haven't shown any correlation between following other religions and murderous tendencies. Though, if you were to find some good sources supporting it, it'd be more convincing. After all, isn't it one of the Commandments that's listed for this website to cite sources?

Nevertheless, it's fairly clear just from reading the page that it's implying evangelical atheists support or spread immoral practices. Going into questioning my reasonability ("a bit too much for your liking") really isn't helping us to have a calm, rational discussion about this matter, though.

-T. Otru.

: Quote the passage that you think endorses slavery in the Bible. It was your claim and you should be able to back it up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:00, 31 December 2007 (EST)

"Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families ... inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever." -Leviticus 25:44-46. It clearly is advocating the treatment of human beings as property, slavery by definition.
-Otru

: Looks like Jose83 identified with bolding how you illustrate the point about "claiming to be smarter or superior than people who have [[faith]]." You're just so clever, aren't you??? I don't know what [[Isaac Newton]] had that you don't have!

: As to your quote from Leviticus, you took it out of its context, which was to prohibit Israelites from ruling over "fellow Israelites ruthlessly." I'm not going to waste any more time debating you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:38, 31 December 2007 (EST)

==But wait, Andy==

Above you claimed the line about religious services must apply to all faiths. Therefore, the item about attending religious services and reading the Bible is redundant to claiming that morality and religion are not inseparable. What's with the change? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:11, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== Where is the reference? ==

Andy,

you have claimed that the sex abuse in public school is worse than in religious institutions. According to the group "Bishop Accountability," approx. 3000 priests out of the 42,000 across the country have since been denounced after abusing children, some of whom have been investigated and convicted. That is 7%, much higher than any other professions, it seems. How does that compare with public schools? --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 12:18, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:I don't even understand the point of this argument. Are all cases of sexual abuse at public schools committed by atheists? I think the point evangelical atheists make is that religious belief doesn't make you a saint - Christians do bad stuff, ''even in religious institutions''. As such they got a point in saying that religious institutions aren't automatically free of bad influences (even though I also don't see how that should magically turn me into an atheist).
:Saying "Oh, but you guys suck even more than we guys do!" (even ignoring my own objection above) strikes me as a poor way of defending my faith. Fact is that there are Christians who kill, rape, abuse, and deceive. I as a Christian am strong enough to admit that there are black sheep. I don't need to make myself feel better by trying to find non-Christians who do ''more'' and ''worse'' bad things.
:If an evangelical atheist told me that religious institutions are not free of people who commit abuse, I would look him in the eye and say "Yes, that is true. But what's your point? How would it help the victims of these people if I stopped going there?"
:I'm for the removal of the "even though secular institutions are worse" part. It makes it look like we're shifting blame, it's hard to prove in a way that makes a good point (Christians comitting sexual abuse in a church aren't better than Christians committing sexual abuse at school), and it's out of place in a list about techniques used by evangelical atheists. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 12:45, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== Why the revert without any reason? ==

Andy,

Could you please tell me why you reverted my edits?

thanks

--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 12:41, 1 January 2008 (EST)

: The references on sex abuse are easily available on the internet. AP, for example, did a big study, and Congress requested another study. I've added data and welcome a good cite that is not simply sensationalism.

: Your one-sided "reasons" for evangelical atheism are inappropriate and unsupported, and were reverted. Any section on reasons would have to include, first and foremost, hostility and animus towards religion and religious people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:43, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Evangelical atheist

2008-01-01T17:14:03Z

JakeC: Incorrect permalink.

An '''evangelical atheist''' is a derogatory term used to describe an [[atheist]] who is not content merely with his own lack of [[faith]] but is also obsessed with (i) censoring expressions of [[faith]] by others and (ii) attempting to sow disbelief in others around him.

Examples of techniques used by evangelical atheists include:

* insisting that morality is independent of religion

* claiming that one can be good without attending religious services or reading the [[Bible]]

* denying the atrocities committed by anti-[[Christian]] zealots

* denying any correlation between crime, depression, anxiety, immorality, insanity and rejection of [[Christianity]]

* insisting that it is hypocrisy for a sinner to attend church

* utilizing [[deceit]] if it advances the [[atheistic]] goal

* criticizing religious institutions even though secular institutions are worse<ref>For example, evangelical atheists like to harp on sex abuse in religious institutions without admitting that sex abuse in public schools is worse.</ref>

* claiming to be smarter or superior than people who have [[faith]]

* using [[evolution]] as a weapon against Christianity

Organizations devoted to evangelical atheism, which may include some or more of the above characteristics, are growing. One organization, the Evangelical Atheist, puts down [[Americans]] on its website by saying, "A new poll from the First Amendment Center reveals that I may have misunderestimated the American people. They are far more ignorant than I had believed ...."<ref>The Evangelical Atheist - [http://evangelicalatheist.com/2007/09/21/tyranny-of-the-majority/ Tyranny of the Majority]</ref>

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:religion]]

Evangelical atheist

2008-01-01T16:28:24Z

JakeC: Opinion, and this is the list of techniques used, not of arguments on how the content is wrong or something.

An '''evangelical atheist''' is an [[atheist]] who is not content merely with his own lack of [[faith]] but is also obsessed with (i) censoring expressions of [[faith]] by others and (ii) attempting to sow disbelief in others around him.

Examples of techniques used by evangelical atheists include:

* insisting that morality is independent of religion

* claiming that one can be good without attending religious services or reading the [[Bible]]

* denying the atrocities committed by anti-[[Christian]] zealots

* denying any correlation between crime, depression, anxiety, immorality, insanity and rejection of [[Christianity]]

* insisting that it is hypocrisy for a sinner to attend church

* utilizing [[deceit]] if it advances the [[atheistic]] goal

* criticizing religious institutions

* claiming to be smarter or superior than people who have [[faith]]

* Using [[evolution]] as a weapon against Christianity.

Organizations devoted to evangelical atheism, which may include some or more of the above characteristics, are growing. One organization, the Evangelical Atheist, puts down [[Americans]] on its website by saying:
{{cquote|A new poll from the First Amendment Center reveals that I may have misunderestimated the American people. They are far more ignorant than I had believed, and most of them see no need to go to the trouble of seeking truth when PR and rumors fit effortlessly into that same space in their consciousness. The majority of Americans (55%) believe that the Constitution established a Christian nation, and even more (65%) believe that the founding fathers intended the United States to be such.<ref>The Evangelical Atheist - [http://evangelicalatheist.com/2007/09/21/tyranny-of-the-majority/ Tyranny of the Majority]</ref>}}

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:religion]]

Evangelical atheist

2008-01-01T16:26:55Z

JakeC:

An '''evangelical atheist''' is an [[atheist]] who is not content merely with his own lack of [[faith]] but is also obsessed with (i) censoring expressions of [[faith]] by others and (ii) attempting to sow disbelief in others around him.

Examples of techniques used by evangelical atheists include:

* insisting that morality is independent of religion

* claiming that one can be good without attending religious services or reading the [[Bible]]

* denying the atrocities committed by anti-[[Christian]] zealots

* denying any correlation between crime, depression, anxiety, immorality, insanity and rejection of [[Christianity]]

* insisting that it is hypocrisy for a sinner to attend church

* utilizing [[deceit]] if it advances the [[atheistic]] goal

* criticizing religious institutions even though secular institutions are worse

* claiming to be smarter or superior than people who have [[faith]]

* Using [[evolution]] as a weapon against Christianity.

Organizations devoted to evangelical atheism, which may include some or more of the above characteristics, are growing. One organization, the Evangelical Atheist, puts down [[Americans]] on its website by saying:
{{cquote|A new poll from the First Amendment Center reveals that I may have misunderestimated the American people. They are far more ignorant than I had believed, and most of them see no need to go to the trouble of seeking truth when PR and rumors fit effortlessly into that same space in their consciousness. The majority of Americans (55%) believe that the Constitution established a Christian nation, and even more (65%) believe that the founding fathers intended the United States to be such.<ref>The Evangelical Atheist - [http://evangelicalatheist.com/2007/09/21/tyranny-of-the-majority/ Tyranny of the Majority]</ref>}}

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:religion]]

Evangelical atheist

2008-01-01T16:26:23Z

JakeC:

An '''evangelical atheist''' is an [[atheist]] who is not content merely with his own lack of [[faith]] but is also obsessed with (i) censoring expressions of [[faith]] by others and (ii) attempting to sow disbelief in others around him.

Examples of techniques used by evangelical atheists include:

* insisting that morality is independent of religion

* claiming that one can be good without attending religious services or reading the [[Bible]]

* denying the atrocities committed anti-[[Christian]] zealots

* denying any correlation between crime, depression, anxiety, immorality, insanity and rejection of [[Christianity]]

* insisting that it is hypocrisy for a sinner to attend church

* utilizing [[deceit]] if it advances the [[atheistic]] goal

* criticizing religious institutions even though secular institutions are worse

* claiming to be smarter or superior than people who have [[faith]]

* Using [[evolution]] as a weapon against Christianity.

Organizations devoted to evangelical atheism, which may include some or more of the above characteristics, are growing. One organization, the Evangelical Atheist, puts down [[Americans]] on its website by saying:
{{cquote|A new poll from the First Amendment Center reveals that I may have misunderestimated the American people. They are far more ignorant than I had believed, and most of them see no need to go to the trouble of seeking truth when PR and rumors fit effortlessly into that same space in their consciousness. The majority of Americans (55%) believe that the Constitution established a Christian nation, and even more (65%) believe that the founding fathers intended the United States to be such.<ref>The Evangelical Atheist - [http://evangelicalatheist.com/2007/09/21/tyranny-of-the-majority/ Tyranny of the Majority]</ref>}}

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:religion]]

Evangelical atheist

2008-01-01T16:13:52Z

JakeC: Tried to rephrase this so it doesn't look like something a Christian Evangelist said about an Atheist Evangelist. I agree with the points made, but the style...

{{Uncited}}
An '''evangelical atheist''' is a person who preaches his [[atheism]] to religious people in an attempt to convert them away from their religion.

Evangelists in general use a number of techniques to convert people to their [[faith]] (or lack thereof). In the case of evangelical atheists, these techniques can manifest themselves like this:

* insisting that morality is independent of religion

* claiming that one can be good without attending religious services or reading the [[Bible]]

* pointing out that atrocities were caused by both religious and non-religious zealots

* fighting the idea that there is a correlation between crime, depression, anxiety, immorality, insanity and rejection of [[Christianity]]

* insisting that it is hypocrisy for a sinner to attend church

* utilizing [[deceit]] if it advances the [[atheistic]] goal

* criticizing religious institutions

* claiming that intelligence or personal value do not depend on religious faith

* citing [[evolution]] to counter [[Creationism]]

Organizations devoted to evangelical atheism, which may include some or more of the above characteristics, are growing. One organization, the Evangelical Atheist, puts down [[Americans]] on its website by saying, "A new poll from the First Amendment Center reveals that I may have misunderestimated the American people. They are far more ignorant than I had believed, and most of them see no need to go to the trouble of seeking truth when PR and rumors fit effortlessly into that same space in their consciousness. The majority of Americans (55%) believe that the Constitution established a Christian nation, and even more (65%) believe that the founding fathers intended the United States to be such."<ref>The Evangelical Atheist - [http://evangelicalatheist.com/2007/09/21/tyranny-of-the-majority/ Tyranny of the Majority]</ref>

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:religion]]

User talk:OtruT

2008-01-01T15:15:03Z

JakeC: /* Welcome */ Well, he had a point, in a way...

I bet you thought you were pretty clever. That behavior isn't acceptable here. -- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]

: What behavior? I simply had a small concern about an article, and wanted to discuss it in the hope that it could be resolved. [[User:OtruT|OtruT]] 22:25, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:: [[Deceit]] is a tactic often employed by liberals such as yourself. Secretly calling the creator of this site a "retard" is not an effective way of resolving an issue. -- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]

::: I'm sorry, but you seem to be looking for some excuse to accuse me of something. If you look for a coincidence hard enough, you'll find one, whether or not it's there. [[User:OtruT|OtruT]] 22:32, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:::: I highly doubt that was a coincidence. I also see that you've attempted to cover your tracks. [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AEvangelical_atheist&diff=361982&oldid=361975]] You'll be banned soon enough. -- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]

I was simply rephrasing my remark to avoid any confusion as to my intent. I don't want other people trying to come up with the same trick to try and get me banned or something. -Otru ~~ [[User:OtruT|OtruT]]
== Welcome ==
Once you return, and assuming that you will be contributing...
{{welcome|sig=[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:59, 1 January 2008 (EST)}}
:Heh, he's a self-confessed sock from RW. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:02, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:: "Sock"? Of an existing editor here? Or simply someone who also has an account, umm, elsewhere? If the latter, and if he ''does'' contribute in a positive way, that's okay. But yeah, I'd be sceptical. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]]
:::Not sure what "RW" is (you guys need a glossary or something), but I thought he made a valid point: The [[Evangelical atheist]] article looks a bit... far out in the current form, and that's coming from somebody who isn't even remotely a fan of such people. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 10:15, 1 January 2008 (EST)

User talk:JakeC

2007-12-31T22:40:55Z

JakeC: Since I keep losing this link...

[[:Category:Articles with unsourced statements]]

{{Welcome}} --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:07, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Hi. Good point about the [[Pizza Hut ad]]. And I liked [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Papyrus&diff=prev&oldid=359583 this rewrite]. Welcome, and keep up the good work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:00, 29 December 2007 (EST)
:Thanks, and glad you liked the rewrite (though it wasn't much, really). I tend to hit "Random Page" a lot in short breaks, so you can expect me to do some more small cleanup in articles every now and then. But don't worry, I'm working on more notable content contributions, too. :) (It should be noted, though, that one could spend months just touching up the existing articles. And while it's not in the same league as writing epic new articles, it helps the overall image of the site, I think.) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 22:04, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany

2007-12-31T22:18:04Z

JakeC: /* Logo request */ Shifting image to the right side to enable indents

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center></noinclude>
=General Messages=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive1|1]]

=="A small thing"==
A small thing...the article "River Trent" is unable to be edited because of a "spam filter". Um...what gives? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:24, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

I fixed it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Page Creation ==

Hello,

A few days ago a small group of us tried to create a page on a local conservative activist named J.R. Hedrick to have the page deleted. We read the guidelines and adjusted our page and were hoping we could ask the conservapedia staff to reconsider. We currently have the page wewantjr.homeip.net if you could take a few minutes check out the website see our reasoning and message and reconsider it would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or would like a shortened verstion of our reasoning feel free to email us at wewantjr@yahoo.com.

*Sorry, this is an encyclopedia, not Vanity Fair. For inclusion, one would have to be of national prominence, not a "local hero". Sorry. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:59, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Can't email other users ==

I try to email other users, I am logged in and I do have a valid email address in my preferences but it won't let me do it. What's up?

:Wismike, maybe the users you've tried to email haven't supplied an email address. When I went to your user page and clicked "Email this user", I got the following notice:
:*This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.{{unsigned|Wismike}}

:You can send me a test e-mail if you want. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:08, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

*Users need to supply their email on the preference page in order to send emails to other users. Even if the other user has it enabled, you need to have done it as well. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:20, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== What's wrong with Ishi Press? ==

I can't put ishi press dot com as a ref for Woody Allen marrying his stepdaughter. Spam filter blocks it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:42, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== Outages? ==

There seem to be times when the entire site is protected. What's going on? -[[User:Pipkin|Pipkin]] 16:34, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, indeed there is. Editing, except by those with special rights, is usually turned off over-night (generally 1:00AM to 6:00AM) East Coast United States time. This is due to the high degree of vandalism at the hands of [[deceit|deceitful]] Liberals. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:43, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== [[Uncyclopedia]] and [[Encyclopædia Dramatica]] ==

I think these two articles serve no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever, and as written are basically nonsense and inccurate to general knowlege about their subjects. Also it is to note that the alternate spelling of [[Encyclopædia Dramatica]], [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]] has been salted. --[[User:WikiLeon|WikiLeon]] 20:59, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

*Your several posts about this has been noted. The articles will stay. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:48, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== I may have found some nonesense. ==

I am here to report what might be vandalism. I'm not sure, but someone called User: Clavicle made an ususual edit on [[William Shakespeare]]. The edit was on the list of Shakespeare's historical plays. He wrote *[[Austin Kenn]] (1999). I happen to know about Shakespeare's histories and had never heard of the play before. I also knew that Shakespeare died in the 1600s not any period after 1999. This sounded fishy and later on (some months later) when I recieved no reply on the discussion page about this, I investigated. I found that this User: Clavicle had put the play in just in one edit (without putting it in any good order.) He didn't have a page for me to contact him about this, so I decided to try to report this unusual edit. I admit I'm wording it badly and akwardly, but I just thought I'd explain this small case. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:52, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:The user was already blocked for an unrelated offense. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:02, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

*Hopefully that vandalism has been removed? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:15, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I removed when I saw it. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 13:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Article Categorization ==

Many of the articles on accounting seem to be government accounting related. Nothing wrong with this, but I believe they should be in a different category, say, Government Accounting.

I would like to make this change, but, feel it would be impolite to simply make the change without contacting the author. However, I cannot seem to do so.

What is the right thing to do? Should I just create a new category (if I know how to do that) and make the changes?

*You go to my user page, find the link to my sandbox on categories, and plead your case to Azi. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:45, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

== Edit to page "gossip" ==

I made an edit to the [[gossip]] page, which has now been reverted. The nature of my edit was to clarify that although gossip is inherently negative, the fact is that the word has multiple connotations. The positive connotation: "gossip" can have a perfectly normal social context as innocuous chatter between groups of people who are interacting. The negative connotation: what was on the page before and now.

I'm used to seeing trollers blocked and edits reverted - most "permanent" edits are made by the sysops etc. But I take great personal offence when the sysop who reverted my edit, "BethanyS", flies off and says: "Don't go around trolling or I will personally block you from this site forever." I believe that to be completely injustified, absolutely insulting to my ideological position as a conservative (the implication being that I'm some sort of liberal who goes around Conservapedia making silly edits) and a baseless assault on my personal character without even considering the reasoning of my edit. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 09:27, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

== Before I even start posting! ==

I was an avid user in Wikipedia, (Quality) not edit warring and Spam.
Can I move my articles that I improved from Wikipedia?
I am conservative or Liberal, I just hate biased garbage and I am looking to focus mainly on history. (I could care less about politics and hypocrisy). I don't like politicians in general and I don't have a rpoblem with any race or religion.
Is this going to be a problem or should I go my own way, now before I waste my time?--[[User:Validquest|Validquest]] 15:26, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

: In this context, one can always copy and reuse one's own work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Couldn't create account ==

I tried to create an account but could not find a button to click to do that. I searched around and eventually found a FAQ that account creation was enabled only at certain times of day. It would be helpful if you put that notice right up front on the login/create account screen so people won't wonder why they can't find how to create an account [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] 08:42, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

== problem ==

Please help. I tried to look up Christopher Columbus and what displayed was about 1 inch of text followed by a white space covering the rest of the screen with a Go to WP instead listed. I then tried to just email a screenshot of the problem to the administrator but there is no email address. I had to creat an account just to notify 'someone' of this problem. This was my first visit to Conservapedia and I am not sure if I will return, it has been somewhat of a hassle just to try and be kind to report a problem. {{unsigned|DebM}}

:Thank you Deb! I reverted the page and blocked the user. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:10, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks Deb! That vandalism was recent, and rare in escaping detection. Thanks to HelpJazz for correcting it. Welcome and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Problem at Wikipedia ==

I noticed as I was looking at pro life groups on wikipedia they had the "abortion" logo and tag at the bottom, but planned parenthoods page did not
this seemed strange
~Andrew Infanger

== Lesbians ==

I notice that Lesbians is one of the "most wanted" pages, with 7 links to it. This
seems odd to me for a family friendly website. Is this an error, or something I'm misunderstanding? Please clarify, thank you. --Eliza Newton.

*Please sign all posts, Eliza, with four tildes (~). I guess family-friendly means different things to different people. Questions about sexuality are pretty normal, and one thing you can count on CP for is information being presented in a family-friendly manner. Lesbians exist, so ignoring them isn't going to be informative or instructive as to the perversion it is. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:58, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Breaking News" RSS Feed? ==
Hello.

This is my first time interacting here. I'm a member of my school's college conservatives and am working on building their web site. I'm just wondering if by chance Conservapedia has plans to provide an RSS feed of its "breaking news" section"? Do you know if it would be as simple as installing a plug-in of some kind such as "Wikifeed"? Thanks! [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 11:33, 15 November 2007 (EST)

== Silly spelling error ==

I suppose this is the correct area to send this message. In the "Wikipedia" article under the "Scandals and Decline" section, paragraph 2, line 3: "which could affect, in thier (sic) words, "'life and death,'". I believe it is supposed to be "their", not "thier". It would be easier if I could just edit the page myself like on "Wikipedia".

Thank you.
-Kriegor191
:The correct place would have been the [[talk:Wikipedia|Wikipedia talk page]], but I see that it's been fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out. And please sign your posts by typing four tildes ({{tt|<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>}}), or using the signature button on the editing toolbar. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:15, 4 December 2007 (EST)

== Serious? ==

I was just wondering, is this meant to be a serious site or a parody of conservatism?

~Sabazi
:Is that meant to be a serious question or a not-so-subtle dig at the site? And please see my comment to the previous poster about signing your posts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:16, 4 December 2007 (EST)

That was a serious question. I couldn't tell, though I take it from your response that it is?

[[User:Sabazi|Sabazi]] 16:34, 4 December 2007 (EST)Sabazi (is that the right way to sign?)
:Yes, it is serious. What makes you think otherwise? And that was the right way to sign, except that there is no need to append your name because it puts it anyway. ''Just'' the four tildes is enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:04, 5 December 2007 (EST)

== Question about Ten Most Viewed Pages ==

Your ten most frequently viewed pages includes 9 entries featuring the word "homosexuality." This seems strange to me, especially as some of the entries are relatively new. Is there a possible alternative explanation for those sites showing up on the Top Ten, besides their popularity? I don't understand much about computers, but, for example, perhaps people have set up computers that repeatedly open up web pages on a particular site, just to skew the numbers?

Thank you. {{unsigned|Harpers}}
: I don't think the server logs would have that information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::Recommendation: Maybe you guys can track possible abuse using www.sitemeter.com or google analytics? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 18:54, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==Page move request==
Could someone please move [[Ann Widdicombe]] to Ann Widdecombe (correct spelling). [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 13:57, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 14:59, 5 December 2007 (EST)

== Account Creation suggestion ==

Although I saw the comment that account creation is only allowed at certain times, it might be a good idea to let potential users know what these times are. It took me several attempts over two days to eventually "strike lucky". {{unsigned|Unclebill}}

:I agree. It took me a few times to realise that you could only make an account at certain times during the day. I was trying to find how to make an account last night and gave up. Luckily, I found out an hour or so ago.--[[User:Joel|Joel]] 20:39, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::Sorry you both had troubles registering. I'm sure the relevant people will take note of your issue and maybe something will be added to the registration page [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:45, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:::Agreed with all of the above, but I'm not sure where the info should be added.
:::*The registration page is (if I recall correctly - my memory is acting up right now...) not accessible when account creation is disabled, so it would be of little use there ("If you can read this, you can register" is amusing, but not terribly helpful :P).
:::*On the Login page, it might look a bit distracting (as the majority of users already has an account, so the info would be of little use for them).
:::Maybe our techies can hack up something to the effect of always having the "Register account" link available, but having it point at a "We're sorry, but account creation is currently disabled. Please try again at X o'clock in timezone Y" page? (I believe we have a Help page to that effect, but I also believe it's not exactly prominently linked for users who are new to the site). --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:53, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Admin Question ==

How is it possible to become an Admin to help keep people from being stupid? {{unsigned|Sohsowski}}
:Admins aren't here to do that. Admins carry out essential maintenance of the site. One tip might be: "not to register an account and then throw mud at one's fellow editors" however :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:23, 25 December 2007 (EST)

==Logo request==
I'd like to create a link to Conservapedia on my websites. Can you provide a jpg of your logo? {{unsigned|Usmale}}
:[[Image:Conservapedia_logo.png|right|100px]] Current Conservapedia logo - Copyright 2007 Philip Beach --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::Um... no? It looks similar, but it's definitely different. [http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/conservlogo.png The actually used file] - different "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" font, and slightly different "Conservapedia" lettering. Can be easily seen when you look at the positions of the "v" and the last "a" in relation to the background. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 17:17, 31 December 2007 (EST)

{{clear}}

== Found A Cuss Word ==

In the Userbox Index, there is a cuss word in a userbox in the uncategorized section.

It's called User lies and stats

In your third commandment, your call for family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language pages.

a kid could easily stumble into it.

I'm just trying to help Conservapedia.

'''Edit:'''

Opps, I didn't realized that I doubled posted, I thought that it didn't make it, sorry. Delete the other one please.

{{unsigned|EkulR29}}
: I see that Fox has deleted the template, and I've now deleted the link to it in the uncategorised index. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany

2007-12-31T22:17:33Z

JakeC: /* Logo request */ ...that is many things, but not the logo I'm seeing.

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center></noinclude>
=General Messages=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive1|1]]

=="A small thing"==
A small thing...the article "River Trent" is unable to be edited because of a "spam filter". Um...what gives? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:24, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

I fixed it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Page Creation ==

Hello,

A few days ago a small group of us tried to create a page on a local conservative activist named J.R. Hedrick to have the page deleted. We read the guidelines and adjusted our page and were hoping we could ask the conservapedia staff to reconsider. We currently have the page wewantjr.homeip.net if you could take a few minutes check out the website see our reasoning and message and reconsider it would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or would like a shortened verstion of our reasoning feel free to email us at wewantjr@yahoo.com.

*Sorry, this is an encyclopedia, not Vanity Fair. For inclusion, one would have to be of national prominence, not a "local hero". Sorry. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:59, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Can't email other users ==

I try to email other users, I am logged in and I do have a valid email address in my preferences but it won't let me do it. What's up?

:Wismike, maybe the users you've tried to email haven't supplied an email address. When I went to your user page and clicked "Email this user", I got the following notice:
:*This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.{{unsigned|Wismike}}

:You can send me a test e-mail if you want. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:08, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

*Users need to supply their email on the preference page in order to send emails to other users. Even if the other user has it enabled, you need to have done it as well. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:20, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== What's wrong with Ishi Press? ==

I can't put ishi press dot com as a ref for Woody Allen marrying his stepdaughter. Spam filter blocks it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:42, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== Outages? ==

There seem to be times when the entire site is protected. What's going on? -[[User:Pipkin|Pipkin]] 16:34, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, indeed there is. Editing, except by those with special rights, is usually turned off over-night (generally 1:00AM to 6:00AM) East Coast United States time. This is due to the high degree of vandalism at the hands of [[deceit|deceitful]] Liberals. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:43, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== [[Uncyclopedia]] and [[Encyclopædia Dramatica]] ==

I think these two articles serve no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever, and as written are basically nonsense and inccurate to general knowlege about their subjects. Also it is to note that the alternate spelling of [[Encyclopædia Dramatica]], [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]] has been salted. --[[User:WikiLeon|WikiLeon]] 20:59, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

*Your several posts about this has been noted. The articles will stay. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:48, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== I may have found some nonesense. ==

I am here to report what might be vandalism. I'm not sure, but someone called User: Clavicle made an ususual edit on [[William Shakespeare]]. The edit was on the list of Shakespeare's historical plays. He wrote *[[Austin Kenn]] (1999). I happen to know about Shakespeare's histories and had never heard of the play before. I also knew that Shakespeare died in the 1600s not any period after 1999. This sounded fishy and later on (some months later) when I recieved no reply on the discussion page about this, I investigated. I found that this User: Clavicle had put the play in just in one edit (without putting it in any good order.) He didn't have a page for me to contact him about this, so I decided to try to report this unusual edit. I admit I'm wording it badly and akwardly, but I just thought I'd explain this small case. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:52, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:The user was already blocked for an unrelated offense. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:02, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

*Hopefully that vandalism has been removed? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:15, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I removed when I saw it. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 13:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Article Categorization ==

Many of the articles on accounting seem to be government accounting related. Nothing wrong with this, but I believe they should be in a different category, say, Government Accounting.

I would like to make this change, but, feel it would be impolite to simply make the change without contacting the author. However, I cannot seem to do so.

What is the right thing to do? Should I just create a new category (if I know how to do that) and make the changes?

*You go to my user page, find the link to my sandbox on categories, and plead your case to Azi. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:45, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

== Edit to page "gossip" ==

I made an edit to the [[gossip]] page, which has now been reverted. The nature of my edit was to clarify that although gossip is inherently negative, the fact is that the word has multiple connotations. The positive connotation: "gossip" can have a perfectly normal social context as innocuous chatter between groups of people who are interacting. The negative connotation: what was on the page before and now.

I'm used to seeing trollers blocked and edits reverted - most "permanent" edits are made by the sysops etc. But I take great personal offence when the sysop who reverted my edit, "BethanyS", flies off and says: "Don't go around trolling or I will personally block you from this site forever." I believe that to be completely injustified, absolutely insulting to my ideological position as a conservative (the implication being that I'm some sort of liberal who goes around Conservapedia making silly edits) and a baseless assault on my personal character without even considering the reasoning of my edit. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 09:27, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

== Before I even start posting! ==

I was an avid user in Wikipedia, (Quality) not edit warring and Spam.
Can I move my articles that I improved from Wikipedia?
I am conservative or Liberal, I just hate biased garbage and I am looking to focus mainly on history. (I could care less about politics and hypocrisy). I don't like politicians in general and I don't have a rpoblem with any race or religion.
Is this going to be a problem or should I go my own way, now before I waste my time?--[[User:Validquest|Validquest]] 15:26, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

: In this context, one can always copy and reuse one's own work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Couldn't create account ==

I tried to create an account but could not find a button to click to do that. I searched around and eventually found a FAQ that account creation was enabled only at certain times of day. It would be helpful if you put that notice right up front on the login/create account screen so people won't wonder why they can't find how to create an account [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] 08:42, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

== problem ==

Please help. I tried to look up Christopher Columbus and what displayed was about 1 inch of text followed by a white space covering the rest of the screen with a Go to WP instead listed. I then tried to just email a screenshot of the problem to the administrator but there is no email address. I had to creat an account just to notify 'someone' of this problem. This was my first visit to Conservapedia and I am not sure if I will return, it has been somewhat of a hassle just to try and be kind to report a problem. {{unsigned|DebM}}

:Thank you Deb! I reverted the page and blocked the user. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:10, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks Deb! That vandalism was recent, and rare in escaping detection. Thanks to HelpJazz for correcting it. Welcome and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Problem at Wikipedia ==

I noticed as I was looking at pro life groups on wikipedia they had the "abortion" logo and tag at the bottom, but planned parenthoods page did not
this seemed strange
~Andrew Infanger

== Lesbians ==

I notice that Lesbians is one of the "most wanted" pages, with 7 links to it. This
seems odd to me for a family friendly website. Is this an error, or something I'm misunderstanding? Please clarify, thank you. --Eliza Newton.

*Please sign all posts, Eliza, with four tildes (~). I guess family-friendly means different things to different people. Questions about sexuality are pretty normal, and one thing you can count on CP for is information being presented in a family-friendly manner. Lesbians exist, so ignoring them isn't going to be informative or instructive as to the perversion it is. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:58, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Breaking News" RSS Feed? ==
Hello.

This is my first time interacting here. I'm a member of my school's college conservatives and am working on building their web site. I'm just wondering if by chance Conservapedia has plans to provide an RSS feed of its "breaking news" section"? Do you know if it would be as simple as installing a plug-in of some kind such as "Wikifeed"? Thanks! [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 11:33, 15 November 2007 (EST)

== Silly spelling error ==

I suppose this is the correct area to send this message. In the "Wikipedia" article under the "Scandals and Decline" section, paragraph 2, line 3: "which could affect, in thier (sic) words, "'life and death,'". I believe it is supposed to be "their", not "thier". It would be easier if I could just edit the page myself like on "Wikipedia".

Thank you.
-Kriegor191
:The correct place would have been the [[talk:Wikipedia|Wikipedia talk page]], but I see that it's been fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out. And please sign your posts by typing four tildes ({{tt|<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>}}), or using the signature button on the editing toolbar. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:15, 4 December 2007 (EST)

== Serious? ==

I was just wondering, is this meant to be a serious site or a parody of conservatism?

~Sabazi
:Is that meant to be a serious question or a not-so-subtle dig at the site? And please see my comment to the previous poster about signing your posts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:16, 4 December 2007 (EST)

That was a serious question. I couldn't tell, though I take it from your response that it is?

[[User:Sabazi|Sabazi]] 16:34, 4 December 2007 (EST)Sabazi (is that the right way to sign?)
:Yes, it is serious. What makes you think otherwise? And that was the right way to sign, except that there is no need to append your name because it puts it anyway. ''Just'' the four tildes is enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:04, 5 December 2007 (EST)

== Question about Ten Most Viewed Pages ==

Your ten most frequently viewed pages includes 9 entries featuring the word "homosexuality." This seems strange to me, especially as some of the entries are relatively new. Is there a possible alternative explanation for those sites showing up on the Top Ten, besides their popularity? I don't understand much about computers, but, for example, perhaps people have set up computers that repeatedly open up web pages on a particular site, just to skew the numbers?

Thank you. {{unsigned|Harpers}}
: I don't think the server logs would have that information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::Recommendation: Maybe you guys can track possible abuse using www.sitemeter.com or google analytics? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 18:54, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==Page move request==
Could someone please move [[Ann Widdicombe]] to Ann Widdecombe (correct spelling). [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 13:57, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 14:59, 5 December 2007 (EST)

== Account Creation suggestion ==

Although I saw the comment that account creation is only allowed at certain times, it might be a good idea to let potential users know what these times are. It took me several attempts over two days to eventually "strike lucky". {{unsigned|Unclebill}}

:I agree. It took me a few times to realise that you could only make an account at certain times during the day. I was trying to find how to make an account last night and gave up. Luckily, I found out an hour or so ago.--[[User:Joel|Joel]] 20:39, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::Sorry you both had troubles registering. I'm sure the relevant people will take note of your issue and maybe something will be added to the registration page [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:45, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:::Agreed with all of the above, but I'm not sure where the info should be added.
:::*The registration page is (if I recall correctly - my memory is acting up right now...) not accessible when account creation is disabled, so it would be of little use there ("If you can read this, you can register" is amusing, but not terribly helpful :P).
:::*On the Login page, it might look a bit distracting (as the majority of users already has an account, so the info would be of little use for them).
:::Maybe our techies can hack up something to the effect of always having the "Register account" link available, but having it point at a "We're sorry, but account creation is currently disabled. Please try again at X o'clock in timezone Y" page? (I believe we have a Help page to that effect, but I also believe it's not exactly prominently linked for users who are new to the site). --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:53, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Admin Question ==

How is it possible to become an Admin to help keep people from being stupid? {{unsigned|Sohsowski}}
:Admins aren't here to do that. Admins carry out essential maintenance of the site. One tip might be: "not to register an account and then throw mud at one's fellow editors" however :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:23, 25 December 2007 (EST)

==Logo request==
I'd like to create a link to Conservapedia on my websites. Can you provide a jpg of your logo? {{unsigned|Usmale}}
:[[Image:Conservapedia_logo.png|left|100px]] Current Conservapedia logo - Copyright 2007 Philip Beach --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::Um... no? It looks similar, but it's definitely different. [http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/conservlogo.png The actually used file] - different "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" font, and slightly different "Conservapedia" lettering. Can be easily seen when you look at the positions of the "v" and the last "a" in relation to the background. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 17:17, 31 December 2007 (EST)

{{clear}}

== Found A Cuss Word ==

In the Userbox Index, there is a cuss word in a userbox in the uncategorized section.

It's called User lies and stats

In your third commandment, your call for family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language pages.

a kid could easily stumble into it.

I'm just trying to help Conservapedia.

'''Edit:'''

Opps, I didn't realized that I doubled posted, I thought that it didn't make it, sorry. Delete the other one please.

{{unsigned|EkulR29}}
: I see that Fox has deleted the template, and I've now deleted the link to it in the uncategorised index. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Angles

2007-12-31T21:01:38Z

JakeC: One less fact-tagged article

The '''Angles''' were a [[Germanic]] people that formed part of the [[Anglo-Saxons]], along with the [[Saxons]] and [[Jutes]]. They migrated to [[England]] in the 5th century A.D.<ref>Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language - [http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O29-SAXON.html Saxon]</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:European History]]

Help talk:Editing

2007-12-31T20:39:04Z

JakeC: Adding nowiki tags since this was not a call for sources.

==More Wiki?==
How about putting some more obscure wiki in the article?
the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> for <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> might be helpful.
Telling people how to add the talk to their sig might be a nice thing to do too. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 20:43, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

How do I create a new page? [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 12:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:I figured it out. I just did a search on "Toastmasters". Since the page didn't exist, it gave me a link to create a new page. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 12:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Formulae ==

Anyone else having trouble getting maths to display? It seems I can only reference formulae which have already been rendered into PNG, like so:

<math>i = \sqrt{-1}</math>

That works, because someone has already got it to work over at the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Sandbox Sandbox]. Presumably the image is cached. However, if I try to produce something new, like this:

<math>i = \sqrt{-4}</math>

Odd. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 09:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Some web browsers support math, some do not. Same with MathML. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:No, ALFa, that is not the problem. I can paste the exact same formula on Wikipedia and Conservapedia, and it works on WP but not on CP. I get the same message as Tsumetai. [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 21:57, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Stub ==

How do I mark an article as a stub?

type {{stub2} } down the bottom of the text, without the space in the second set of parentheses.

Thanks.

==Header formatting==

Does Conservapedia have a MOS like Wikipedia? For example, do headers use sentence case (They are like this) or title case (They Are Like This)? [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:52, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:Conservapedia has a [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]], but it's quite rudimentary and doesn't cover your question. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Images from Wikimedia Commons ==

I just noticed I can make a ''link'' to an image on Wikimedia Commons by using the form <nowiki>[[commons:image:Northwest passage.jpg|Northwest Passage routes]]</nowiki> which gives a working link [[commons:image:Northwest passage.jpg|Northwest Passage routes]] but I can't work out how I can actually embed the image in the [[Northwest Passage]] page instead of linking to it. Any ideas? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:04, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

:It appears that this is not possible. From [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:First_steps/Reuse here] (my emphasis):
{{QuoteBox|In general, to embed a Wikimedia Commons media file in '''Wikipedia or another Wikimedia wiki''', just include it in the same way as if it were to be stored locally there.}}
:"Wikimedia" wikis are Wikipedia in its various languages, Wiktionary, etc. It does not include all sites using wiki software. But in the future this might change (my emphasis again):
{{QuoteBox|There is a proposal to allow '''non-Wikimedia wikis''' to easily access Commons material - meta:InstantCommons. This feature does not yet exist, so at the moment files must be separately uploaded to other wikis.}}
:However, as indicated in that last quote, taking a copy of a picture there and uploading it to Conservapedia ''is'' allowed:
{{QuoteBox|You are always welcome to download files you are interested in for reuse as long as you follow the license conditions provided alongside the files.}}.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:56, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Mitch Kapor

2007-12-31T16:01:38Z

JakeC: Redirecting to Mitchell David Kapor

#REDIRECT [[Mitchell David Kapor]]

EFF

2007-12-31T16:01:02Z

JakeC: Redirecting to Electronic Frontier Foundation

#REDIRECT[[Electronic Frontier Foundation]]

Talk:Homeschooling

2007-12-31T15:48:05Z

JakeC: Leonardo da Vinci homeschooled?

==Private Tutoring==

Does private tutoring really count as homeschooling? I don't see why it should. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 17:01, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

==Homschoolers at harvard.==
I read it some were, but it is true that 10% of students in a classroom at Harvard were homseschooled. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 15:38, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:For a claim like that, I doubt "I read it somewhere" works; finding a citation shouldn't be hard if it's true, though. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::I will try to find it.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 15:42, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Great! Find a citation *first*, then feel free to add it to the article. Since only about 2% of kids are homeschooled, it would be astounding to find 10% at Harvard. Also note that 10% in a particular classroom is not the same as 10% of the Harvard student body. If your statement is true, then it deserves much more prominence in the article. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:45, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Alright I found the information, but I was wrong. 10% of the Students accepted are homeschooled.:) so am I.... not going to Harvard though. so if you still want the link i can get it, or if not, no problem. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 15:53, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::::First, make sure it's 10% of accepted students are homeschooled, not 10% of homeschooled applicants are accepted. Then go ahead and add it, just make sure you quote it properly (very important for statistics) and include the citation, including the title, etc. so it will show up nicely in the references section. Thanks for adding to this article!--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:56, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
Who are you by the way mom? I mean you sound like you have been here longer than I have, and thats a long time.ok here is the link: [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/03/21/schoolhouse_rocked/ homeschoolers at Harvard] --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 15:59, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
: I'm a homeschooling mom, of course! <smile>. Will, the statistic was what I suspected. It said that homeschoolers have an acceptance rate of 10%, which is the same as the general acceptance rate at Harvard. On the one hand, it doesn't show homeschoolers doing any better than anyone else, but on the other hand, it does show they can do *as well as* anyone else. Why don't you do a bit more research and write a paragraph about homeschoolers getting into college? The one in the article is a good model - I bet you can find a few other sources too, and come up with something quite worthwhile! Now I'm off to do my housework, but will check back to see what you've come up with! --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:04, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

That Boston Globe article is excellent, it's a real "find." I'm going to follow Hsmom's lead and let Will N. draft something rather than do something with it myself.

I can't figure out exactly what the sentence means: "At Harvard, the acceptance rate of the general applicant pool is about 10 percent, which mirrors the success of home-schoolers." I read it the same way Hsmom does, but it's not perfectly clear.

However, it says specifically that the acceptance rate of homeschoolers at ''Williams College'' (a famous, excellent, old, small liberal arts college) is 20 percent. And [http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-11-02-collegerates_x.htm this article] says that William's general acceptance rate is 19.2%. In other words, a homeschoolers are exactly as successful in gaining admission to Williams as anyone else.

The key point to be made, which should be supported with well-chosen quotations from the Globe article, is that homeschoolers are just as successful at being admitted to major colleges as others, and that these days college admissions offices are familiar with homeschooling and have no problem with it. I like the line: "We read home-schoolers' applications just like any other application. They don't get any special consideration, but they're not discriminated against, either. Their applications are interesting, and they've certainly done independent work their whole lives."

If homeschoolers are about as successful at getting accepted as the general population, and if homeschoolers currently amount to something like 2% of all students, then ''presumably'' the percentage of Harvard students who were homeschooled would be 2%. 2% of 6700 = about 130 in all. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:01, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

----

I would dispute saying Patton was a Christian as he believed in reincarnation (show me where this is in line with scripture)
Brigham Young was a Mormon, not a christian.

:Mormons consider themselves to be Christians.

:The official name of their church is ''The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints'' ("LDS Church" for short).

:See material I've just moved to [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Mormons' relationship to Christianity]].

:One dictionary definition of "Christian" is "Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus." It seems to me that Mormons meet that definition.

:Who ought to make the judgement, among all the denominations that regard themselves as Christian, which are "really Christian?" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:10, 18 January 2007 (EST)

:P. S. The question of what Mormons believe is sure to receive a lot of discussion in a year or so, since Mitt Romney, a Mormon, is running for President. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:14, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Are you a Mormon? Not to be prejudiced against you if you are but just wondering.
Will N.

*No, I'm not a Mormon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:37, 18 January 2007 (EST)

:I probably should explain more. I did react to the phrase "a Mormon not a Christian." What went through my mind, and what I knew ''off the top of my head'' was: "Whoa! That's not right. Mormons consider themselves to be Christians, and the church is even called Church of ''Jesus Christ'' of the Latter-day Saints." I also got just a little bit of steam up, because there '''is''' some discrimination against Mormons—assuming Mitt Romney runs I think we'll have plenty of chance to see this soon—and saying that Mormons aren't Christians sounds a little like an attack.

:So, after I wrote what I knew off the top of my head, from my experience with Wikipedia and with college, etc. I've found that if you want to convince other people, instead of just telling them what you think, it helps if you can show them ''why'' you think that. So I decided to do a bit of very quick research. I figured that Mormons probably get asked this question a lot and that the official LDS church website would probably have something to say about it.

:First I found the passage I put in quotation marks above, the one that begins "Jesus Christ is the Son of God." I probably should have stopped there, but when I saw that they actually have a "Frequently Asked Questions" page with answers to the questions "Are you Christians" and "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a Christian church?" I couldn't resist putting that in, too. I probably put in too much. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:45, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Ben Franklin was a Deist --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:58, 18 January 2007 (EST)

:Yes, that's right... no time to look further but I'm pretty sure Franklin did not believe in the divinity of Jesus and did not belong to an organized Christian church. Guess the whole list needs checking? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:45, 19 January 2007 (EST)

==Homeschooled or not?==

I made a minor edit to the Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart entry today reflecting the fact that he was homeschooled. This was almost immediateley changed back by dpbsmith, with the explanation that "he wasn't homeschooled as we know the term today"

Now, this is all well and good, except that in the article for omeschooling, his name is on the list of famous people who were homeschooled, with an internal link to theMozart article!

So which is it? Was he homeschooled or not? And please, this is isn't an attempt to start a big discussion of the meaning of homeschooling etc. I'm just asking for some consistency between articles here. Either a person was homeschooled, in which case their entries should be amended to reflect that fact, or they should be removed from the list of "Famous people who were homeschooled."

I'll wait a bit to see what the consensus is, but if their names are still on that list in a few days, I'm going to fix those articles to reflect that fact.
--[[User:TrueReaganConservative|TrueReaganConservative]] 13:40, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds—Emerson.

:The thing is that ''this'' article is sort of a hash. I haven't wanted to take this sorry article entire, shatter it to bits and remould it nearer to my heart's desire because I think it's here as a sort of inspiration to the students who use the site. It looks to me like one of those "X pride" lists where X is any group that is a little out of the mainstream and wants to encourage its members that it's OK.

:The quickest way to fix ''this'' article would be retitle the actual list something like "High-achieving Christians who were educated at home."

:This isn't really a factual article about homeschooling, it's a point-of-view piece that says that being educated at home not only does not put you at a disadvantage vis-a-vis public or private schools, it can be an advantage. ''This is very arguably true'' and the list is evidence in support of it.

:What the list is ''not'' is a list of people who have undergone "Christian homeschooling."

:Homeschooling is a sort of movement, mostly in the U. S. I think, that began more or less in the 1970s. Around that time there was a noticable drop in public confidence in the public schools. Maybe I remember it had something to do with John Holt? ''How Children Fail?''

:"Homeschooling" to me does not mean simply being educated at home. It means that parents have ''actively opted out'' of an ''existing system of compulsory public schooling,'' and educate their children at home in order to assert direct personal supervision of the content and values that their children are being taught.

:Calling Mozart (say) "homeschooled" is like calling Thomas Jefferson "a Republican" or William Gladstone "a Liberal" or asserting "Jimmy Carter and Joseph Stalin were both Georgians." Technically true, but confusing at best. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:08, 27 February 2007 (EST)

::I'll defer to the consensus view, but I don't see why Mozart should be eliminated. He was homeschooled in a Christian manner. What's the big deal about observing that fact? I don't think there has to have been compulsory education in his day to make this observation meaningful. At a minimum, Mozart is an example of someone who learned at home and excelled afterwards. Probably his home education has something to do with his work. This is information worth preserving, and let readers debate as they wish. As Fox News says, "We report. You decide."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:35, 27 February 2007 (EST)

==George Bernard Shaw==
'''George Bernard Shaw'''... hmmm... I don't think he would have cared for being labelled as a Christian. You can make out a case that he did accept some of the moral teachings of Jesus ''as Shaw, personally'' interpreted them. But in his will, he wrote:

:My religious convictions and scientific views cannot at present be more specifically defined than as those of a believer in creative revolution. I desire that no public monument or work of art or inscription or sermon or ritual service commemorating me shall suggest that I accepted the tenets peculiar to any established church or denomination nor take the form of a cross or any other instrument of torture or symbol of blood sacrifice.[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,813999,00.html]

If he was a Christian, he was an awfully complicated and unusual Christian. He certainly did not belong to any organized denomination. He wrote that there was “not a single established religion in the world in which an intelligent or educated man could believe."

He did write that "Christianity might be a good thing if anyone ever tried it." And he wrote that "Christianity as a specific doctrine was slain with Jesus, suddenly and utterly." That is, he did not think any organized Christian religions actually practiced the teachings of Jesus.

He wrote a lot about Christianity in his Preface to ''Androcles and the Lion.'' I'm not going to try to summarize it, partly because I haven't read it through in a long time, but also because Shaw's ideas are so very original and unorthodox that they are really hard to pigeonhole.

He dealt with religious themes in his plays ''Saint Joan,'' ''Major Barbara,'' and ''Androcles and the Lion,'' and in their prefaces, but if you can tell "which side" he's on after reading those plays, you're better than I am.

He also dealt with evolution, in the play ''Back to Methuselah'' and the Preface to it—in a way which will not please either evolutionists or creationists. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:10, 20 January 2007 (EST)

I question the inclusion of '''Mark Twain,''' similarly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:32, 20 January 2007 (EST)

== Recent additions ==

Harpie Snark recently added John Walker Lindh, Adam Yahiye Gadahn, Charles Fletcher Lummis, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Christopher Paolini to the list. I deleted them when reverting some vandalism.

I'm restoring Charles Fletcher Lummis and Christopher Paolini on his say-so.

Franklin D. Roosevelt attended Groton, an elite private prep school.

John Walker Lindh is a Taliban member and Adam Yahiye Gadahn is an Al-Qaeda member. I don't think they should go onto the list without a pretty good source citation, on the grounds that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," or, in this case, surprising claims require good evidence. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:Christopher Paolini is the author of the Inheritance Trilogy (Eragon, Eldest, and a third book yet unreleased). I know he was home schooled, but have never seen anything about his beliefs. I asked to judge by his writing, I would tend to think he is not a Christian based on some elements of his books such as the atheism of the elves. So if anyone has a source for this, please post it. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 19:45, 23 February 2007 (EST)

::Raw results:

::There's a source for his being home-schooled, anyway: [http://www.bookbrowse.com/biographies/index.cfm?author_number=934 A profile of Christopher Paolini], "He was home-schooled by his parents, Kenneth Paolini and Talita Hodgkinson, through an accredited correspondence course at American School, Chicago, Illinois from which he graduated with his high school diploma at 15 years of age." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:16, 23 February 2007 (EST)

::Gadahn apparently was home-schooled: [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/05/27/CALIF.TMP 'Average American boy' accused as terrorist], Adam was the oldest of four children, all of whom were home-schooled.

::A lot of Google hits on Lindh being home-schooled, but it's all blogs... Some stuff about in Google Books about Lindh "beginning life as a Christian" but turning to Islam "in high school."

:[http://knowledgehouse.info/famous.html This page] credits Lummis as begin home-schooled but does not itself cite its sources... No clear whether or not this is supposed to be a list of home-schooled ''Christians...'' FDR listed, Groton not explained... She also lists Paolini... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:27, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Sources: Adam Yahiye Gadahn: [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070122fa_fact_khatchadourian New Yorker] John Walker Lindh: [http://www.blessedcause.org/BlessedCause%20Exclusives%20II/ReelingFromLiesofHM.htm blessedcause.org] Franklin D. Roosevelt: [http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/roosevelt-franklin.htm National Park Service] [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 14:30, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:Good. Thanks. I appreciate it. I'm removing the Wikipedia references because Wikipedia itself does not consider Wikipedia articles reliable sources that can be cited in other articles.

:FDR: I'm adding a note to the FDR entry, because it seems to me to be a borderline case; I don't think private tutors and Groton would be everyone's idea of what is meant by "Christian homeschooling."

:Lindh: I don't really know what to make of the [http://www.blessedcause.org/BlessedCause%20Exclusives%20II/ReelingFromLiesofHM.htm blessedcause.org BlessedCause] reference, both because I don't understand what the site is about... but in any case, I do ''not'' see where it identifies Lindh as being ''Christian'' homeschooled. In fact if I understand the article it says there's a dispute about where he went to school, and says that according to Houghton Mifflin, he went to a public middle school in Marin County—an assertion which the site attacks. The Wikipedia article says he was homeschooled starting at age 12, but does not say he was ''Christian'' homeschooled. Wikipedia's own source for that item (wrongly formatted in the article) is a web page entitled [http://www.rickross.com/reference/islamic/islamic56.htm The Making of John Walker Lindh]. I read it as saying that he was in and out of public schools, and I do not see anything to suggest that his homeschooling resembles what is meant by "Christian homeschooling."

:Gadahn: The source you cite says, pretty clearly I think, "Adam also joined several Christian homeschool support groups. (At the time, nearly all such groups in the region were Christian," so I don't see any question that ''he'' was "Christian homeschooled." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:13, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:Actually, there's a problem of definition here... this article has never defined exactly what the criterion is for inclusion in the list. Gadahn would be a good example of someone who clearly did undergo "Christian homeschooling," and certainly was "homeschooled," but surely was not "a Christian" and therefore not a "homeschooled Christian." I think this could use some discussion. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:36, 26 February 2007 (EST)

::That strikes me as what will be viewed by our critics as pretty obvious nitpicking and cherrypicking of sources. Reading the sources I provided, it's clear that all three had Christian upbringings and were homeschooled, despite their subsequent failings. As for Adam Gadahn, "''The Gadahns homeschooled Adam''" and "''Adam also joined several Christian homeschool support groups''" are clear and explicit. There's no ambiguity there; Adam Gadahn was Christian homeschooled. And the source, The New Yorker, is as good as they get. [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070122fa_fact_khatchadourian] If we'd rather not have in the list those who were homeschooled but may be viewed as casting it in a poor light, then let's just come out and say that and not pretend that sources say something other than they do or rely on turns of semantics to contrive justifications for an incomplete list. If our ideas are indeed that strong and compelling, then they can easily withstand being scrutinized in full light of all facts, and to act otherwise by ignoring or dismissing unfavorable facts only undermines our position and claims and invites greater scrutiny. Better to just put all the cards on the table, deal with them and let the chips fall where they may. As I've said before on my talk page, either CP is going to have an accurate and complete article on homeschooling or it's going to have to censor information from it's articles which may be considered unfavorable to its stated orientation, it can't always have both. This is as good an article as any to choose which it's going be, right here, right now. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 13:07, 27 February 2007 (EST)

: I agree that it is hard given this evidence not to list Gadahn. The others are less persuasive. We need to resolve whether this is a list of Christians who were homeschooled, people who were Christian homeschooled, people who are Christian who happen to have been homeschooled, or Christians who were Christian homseschooled (I think that covers the 4 obvious possibilities). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:30, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:: I commented on Harpie's talk page but now realize that the debate is here. I'll only respond here now about this issue.

:: As anyone familiar with homeschool support groups knows, simply hanging around a loosely affiliated group does not make one a "Christian homeschooler" any more than living in a neighborhood makes one a member of the majority religion. The description of Gadahn is clear that he attended Christian homeschooling groups out of necessity, not by choice. This does not make him a Christian homeschooler any more than attending Georgetown Univ. made Bill Clinton a Catholic college student. As to Lindh, there is nothing Christian about his homeschooling or his own religion, so that's not even close.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:44, 27 February 2007 (EST)

::: Notice that if we can agree to let the title of the actual list be "High-achieving Christians who were educated at home," that includes Mozart and excludes Lindh and Gadahn. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:07, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:::Frankly the only thing necessary for a run-of-the-mill homeschooler to be a Christian homeschooler is intent on the part of the parents to provide a proper Christian education and action by them to keep them out of school and deliver a superior quality education at home themselves. Reading the New Yorker article it seems clear that this was the intent of the Gadahn's for young <s>Azzam</s> Adam, no matter how terribly they failed: [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070122fa_fact_khatchadourian] Now arguing that Adam Gadahn was not Christian homeschooled because he didn't chose to but rather was compelled to is a red herring; many Christian homeschooled children would prefer to be playing ''Left Behind: Eternal Forces'' rather than studying math, so by that standard not many Christian homeschooled children would qualify as being Christian homeschooled. Meaning this rationale again opens us up to the lefty criticism that we exclude unfavorable facts from our articles, in other words, engaging in partisan, ideologically-motivated censorship. So if Aschlafly as the owner of this site really wants to exclude Gadahn as he seems to, we'd better set to work coming up with a reasonable-appearing justification for doing so that has at least a veneer of scholary fairness; regardless of what our motivations are, I'd think we'd want to avoid appearing to be censoring unfavorable facts in order to further our agenda. Thoughts? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 19:58, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:::: Harpie, there's no "censorship" or "exclu[sion]" here. The New Yorker article simply does not support the claim that Gadahn was a Christian homeschooler. The article says that, out of necessity, Gadahn was forced to associate with homeschool "support groups" for some of his teenage years. That association not necessarily even education. Every indication is that Gadahn was not Christian then, and is not now either.

:::: Also, I might add, nearly 99% of Christian homeschoolers start early. It seems to me that both Gadahn and Lindh were latecomers to homeschooling long after their personalities and attitudes had formed. Often the latecomers are just passing through and are not influenced much by homeschooling. Contrast that with Mozart.

:::: I think Dpbsmith has proposed an ideal solution. Certainly he captures the intent of the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:28, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:::::Kind of like a book about "Famous Irish That Don't Drink". This ''is'' a brilliant solution! Now I understand how to handle situations like this. Since we don't engage in censorship or exclusion, we just need to find the right way to frame the issue that by necessity keeps any unfavorable facts out. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 12:25, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I love your sarcastic enthusiasm-- it '''''really''''' strengthens your points more than talking straight could ever hope to. Even so, Ashlafly has a good point; Dpbsmith accurately capptured the intent of the list.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 12:43, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, they say a little bit of honey makes the medicine go down better. Look, I've been in conservative political PR now for nearly 20 years and know a little something about crafting credible, effective messages, and we'd be a lot more credible and better off in the long term were we to follow the rationale I provided above. Our goal should not be to just get out the message, but to get out a credible and compelling one, and this subject and article is just one of many that will face this same issue. If we go around trumpeting our own version of reality while ignoring the one that is shared by all we run the risk of being caricatures of our own cause and ultimately all too easily dismissed by those we hope to convince. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 13:34, 1 March 2007 (EST)

==Expand this article==
I'm not the person to do it. I know nothing about homeschooling, sent both of my kids to public schools (and state universities), hope I've got stuff sorta-kinda right, hope I haven't stepped on any toes, but, this should be an article where there's ''lots'' of expertise available. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:12, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Let me be more emphatic. There could be a '''lot''' more factual material about homeschooling here. Resources. Books. Tips on dealing with the authorities and how to jump through the legal hoops (I assume there are still some to jump through). There's an obvious opportunity here for people to add encyclopedic material that is informed by their personal experience and expertise. Say someone wants to homeschool in New Jersey or whereever. What office do you go to? What forms do you fill out? etc. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:39, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I don't think this is a good place to try to compile info about state homeschooling laws. There are other places that specialize in that. On the other hand, I agree that the article needs some serious work. Some thoughts:

Parents take a more active role in the education of their children when they homeschool. I'm uncomfortable with this general statement - while in some (many) cases it is true, there are lots of active parents with kids in public or private school (especially small church schools, I'm guessing), and there are homeschooling parents who simply hire a tutor (or several) and let them have at it.

The primary reason for homeschooling is to give the child a better education. A close second in reasons, however, is to avoid the culture of public school and its many adverse effects of hostility to Christianity and parental control, political bias, boredom, confusion, depression, etc.
In fact, different families have different reasons for homeschooling, usually more than one. Religion may (or may not) be a factor; so might the quality of education. But there are other reasons - a child who is not being well-served by the public schools, a child who has a special talent or interest they wish to focus on, a family who wants to travel with dad on business, a family who lives in a very rural area far from schools (or who is sailing around the world, etc.), and so on. Various surveys have been done trying to rank the reasons, but I think we'd be better off with a list of possible reasons rather than trying to rank them. Homeschoolers are notoriously hard to count or survey.

In the United States, opting out of public schools is not new. When Thomas Edison's public school teacher said he was "addled," Edison's mother took him out of public school and taught him at home. But because of compulsory education laws—the first was passed in Massachusetts in 1852, and by 1918 every state had them—schooling at home was a violation of truancy laws, and was rare until the 1970s. 
On the other hand, *lots* of kids were educated at home in earlier centuries, and certain cultures (Native American?) may not have had "schools" at all back then. Also, the 1852 date sounds too late to me, though I could be wrong - can we get a cite there?

:I just added one. There seemed to be one there already. Another, which reads well but not quite sure of the source, is [http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/compulso.html Compulsory Education]. Apparently Horace Mann—whose name is instantly familiar to me as an "educator," but of whom I know little more—was active in getting them to do it. Massachusetts had ''public'' schools much earlier, but apparently they were not compulsory. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Also - is there a reason for listing Christian homeschoolers? Why not just list people who were educated at home (in one form or another), and then give a brief explaination of their situation - e.g. Sandra Day OConnor, educated at home when she was young as the ranch she lived on was very remote, or whatever.

A lot of thoughts - hope they are helpful. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Prominent homeschooled Christians? ==

By your own definition, you have to "opt out" of formal education to be considered "homeschooled." Thus, I'm curious what system DaVinci, Washington, et al, opted out of.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:That's why, some time ago, I changed the title of the '''list''' to "High-achieving Christians who were educated at home." Homeschooling as we know it in the United States essentially began in the 1970s. This very interesting article on [http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/SAI/homeschool/index.html Homeschoolers: Estimating Numbers and Growth] suggests that there were about a million homeschoolers circa 1998. However, in the "late 1970s and early 1980s" it says "about 10,000 to 15,000" children received their education at home. At a very rough guess, today's U. S. adult population probably includes less than 100,000 people over 21, probably less than 25,000 people over 30, and practically none over 40. Not a large population, and not enough time to become spectacularly high achievers... yet. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:34, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I changed the definition part to remove the "opt out" wording - it is somewhat an attempt to address your concern above, and also an attempt to put the emphasis on what homeschoolers *do* (learn outside of school), than what they *don't do* (go to school). Not perfect, but a step in the right direction, I think. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:35, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree. I think that this kind of simplistic list can be a bit meaningless. Better would be a list of people with unconventional educations or minimal formal education with a brief explanation of their circumstances. For example, you could say something like "Benjamin Franklin - had one year of formal schooling, apprenticed with his brother as a printer." (Or whatever - not sure of the details on Franklin, but you get the idea.) I also think that whether the person was Christian could be handled similarly in the brief note, rather than in the heading. In addition, I don't think *anyone* should be on the list unless there is a *citation* to a source explaining their education. See my addition of Andrew Wyeth as an example. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:57, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:The nature of the list just boggles my mind. It ignores the point raised by AmesG (which I still read into it despite the "educated at home" part) that "homeschooling" needs a formal alternative to have a meaningful definition. Also, why only Christians? I'm still boggled... [[User:Human|Human]] 22:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Drawbacks ==

I'm moving this here for discussion. As it stands, it seems to me to be pure, unsupported personal opinion:
:Homeschooling is not without its drawbacks. Studies have noted that children who are schooled at home tend to enter the collegiate and working words less socialized than their public and private schooled counterparts. [http://justenough.wordpress.com/2006/10/25/homeschoolers-are-indeed-weird/] This lack of legitimate socialization can produce difficulties in homsechooled childred engaging in meaningful relationships with individuals outside of their family. Additionally, while the public school playground can be seen as a barbaric atmosphere to most kids who are schooled at home, it is important to note that these exigent circumstances can produce valuable conflict prevention skills that pay dividends in all facets of life.

No doubt there are drawbacks to homeschooling. The claim that "children who are schooled at home tend to enter the collegiate and working words less socialized than their public and private schooled counterparts" is, however, referenced only to a blog entry by someone identified only as "Tammy," no other identification or credentials—''and it does not support the statement.'' The title of the entry is "Homeschoolers are indeed weird," but she does ''not'' say homeschoolers are less socialized—that's apparently [[User:Huey gunna getcha]]'s ''interpretation.'' She means "weird" in a good way: tolerant of different opinions and not afraid to express individuality.

The sentence about the "public school playground" providing "valuable conflict prevention skills" is plausible but unsupported. (By the way: are parochial school playgrounds, or non-school playgrounds very different?)

A friend once remarked that he was astonished whenever anyone made reference to "the happy sounds of children at play." "Haven't they actually paid attention when they pass a playground?" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:Good catch! I had read that article earlier today and put removing that section on my "to do" list - you beat me to it! FWIW, when looking at homeschoolers and socialization, it's also important to consider that some children are not odd because they are homeschooled, rather, they are homeschooled because they are odd. Homeschooling can be an understanding "safe haven" for those odd kids for whom school may be "barbaric" indeed. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:48, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

i was almost kicked off my baseball team cause i was homeschooled and i was playing for the middle school. i was fortunate to be kept on. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 20:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

http://learninfreedom.org/socialization.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/zysk1.html
http://www.hslda.org/research/ray2003/HomeschoolingGrowsUp.pdf
A few of the thousands of references on Homeschooling and Socialization. As an educator and homeschool parent I have searched for years to find data that supports the claim that homeschoolers are lacking in good social skills. Having met hundreds of HS kids from all ages, I never found one that wasn't able in a wide variety of social situations. Indeed ''all'' of the HS teens I met were a delight to talk with and had no problems talking with adults on a wide range of topics, unlike thier Public or Private or Parochial schooled peers who always seem so sullen and distant around adults they don't know - and even those they do. After searching the academic journals and every other source I could look at, I found a lot of research on HS and Socialization and none that found widespread negative effects. While someone may find a kid here and there as an anecdote to say HS is isolating and promotes poor social development, I could probably come up with dozens of Public, private and parochial school kids to show the alleged deliterious effects of those types of schooling on the social skills of kids. Third Day May 8

==Snipping George Bernard Shaw and Mark Twain==
I'm removing

*[[George Bernard Shaw]]
*[[Mark Twain]]

Both men had complex opinions that varied during the course of their lives, but calling them "Christian" is a stretch. My reasons for excluding Shaw are given above. As for Mark Twain, he did write a sympathetic book about Joan of Arc. However, his writings are replete with sarcastic and dismissive remarks about organized religion. He refused to let "Letters from the Earth" be published until after his death. In Mark Twain's Letters, we read:

:From a gentleman in Buffalo Clemens one day received a letter inclosing an incompleted list of the world's "One Hundred Greatest Men," men who had exerted "the largest visible influence on the life and activities of the race." The writer asked that Mark Twain examine the list and suggest names, adding "would you include Jesus, as the founder of Christianity, in the list?" To the list of statesmen Clemens added the name of Thomas Paine; to the list of inventors, Edison and Alexander Graham Bell. The question he answered in detail.

Twain's answer was that if the compiler of the list added Jesus, he should also add Satan: "From A.D. 350 to A.D. 1850 these gentlemen exercised a vaster influence over a fifth part of the human race than was exercised over that fraction of the race by all other influences combined. Ninety-nine hundredths of this influence proceeded from Satan, the remaining fraction of it from Jesus."

Twain has been labelled "deist," "agnostic," and "atheist." Gary Sloan suggests ([http://www.writerscramp.ca/archives/mark_twain.htm Mark Twain's Covert War with his Maker]) that he believed in a ''malignant'' God, and says "Viewing Satan as a heroic rebel against the real Archfiend, Twain came to identify with the fallen cherub and often used him as a mouthpiece." Perhaps his views were so complex that he was all of these things and a Christian at the same time, but he was certainly not a Christian as the term is ordinarily meant. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:But if they were homeschooled, shouldn't they be in the "other" section of the list? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Sure. That section didn't exist when I removed them; it was a single list of Christians. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Doing. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Cleaning up the list - putting uncited people on the talk page==
The list of homeschooled people for whom there are no citations has been here for too long, IMHO. I am moving these people here, to the discussion page. I hope this is OK with all of you. As each person's education is researched and cited, we can add them back to the list, preferably with a brief sentence explaining who they are and what form their education took (as we have now already for several people). As discussed above, I think it will be easier to describe the religious beliefs of each person individually (if needed in this context), rather than try to decide if they are generically Christian or not. Please jump in and research one of these people so we can build up this article. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

: I left in Adam Yahiye Gadahn, John Walker Lindh, George Bernard Shaw, and Mark Twain, because their entries had *something* other than their names, and because they were discussed quite a bit here; however these can/should be improved by adding a brief description of who they are/were, adding a brief description of their education, and/or adding citations, preferably ones that describe their education. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:29, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::Cleaned up the George Bernard Shaw entry.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:41, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::If it were up to me I'd make this list contemporary (20th century, maybe 19th too) personalities. As it was pointed out earlier, as the homeschooling term is used today, the majority of these wouldn't count. Also, way back in the day, practically everyone was homeschooled. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Do we really need this comprehensive a list? Isn't it enough to point out a few folks who were homeschooled? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:28, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Folks, I saw that list from a source and have reinserted. I took out the ridiculous Lindh reference and other liberal bias. For example, the entry did not even say that most homeschooling today is done to preserve the Christian faith! Frankly, this entry looked like something one would see on Wikipedia. We're not trying to be like Wikipedia here. Thanks and I'll try to find citations for the names I reinserted. Help is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I saw that list from "a source," too, but it was just that: a list. Some homeschooling-related site. It did not say where the list came from nor did it give any sources at all. I think the list may be just bouncing around the Internet. What was ''your'' source? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:44, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::''For example, the entry did not even say that most homeschooling today is done to preserve the Christian faith!'' I'm not sure I agree with this. It is not supported by the citation given for that paragraph. In fact, religion was *third* in the list of reasons for homeschooling provided in the citation, with only 29.8% citing it as their most important reason. If you are going to assert this, it would be best to add an additional citation that backs it up. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:14, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0053.html According to the US Census, 33% cited Religion as a motivation for HS. My citation is older than the one used in this article. Mine says 33% cite religion (not Christianity, but Religion) and the more recent survey cited by ASchafly says 29% cite Religion. Homeschoolin is becoming more and more popular and common and the fastest growing group of HSers are not citeing religion as thier motivation. This is a very interesting development. May 8 [Third Day]

:: OK, fine, I'll look for citations and add them. But I've personally taught over 120 homeschoolers, and I'd say religion is the motivation for 100 or so of them. The other reasons given, such as avoidance of drugs in school, are not even factors for the vast majority of homeschoolers.

:: Also, I will find more citations for the 61 people under the "arguably homeschooled" list and move them to the higher list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:55, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm guessing that your classes are taught from an Evangelical Christian perspective, which would make it less likely that non-Christians would sign up for them. You may also know other Christian homeschoolers from church and other social activities. In addition, Christian homeschooling groups often ask members to sign a statement of faith, effectively excluding those who aren't Christian - if one of these groups is your main contact with the homeschooling community, you will get a very skewed impression of the homeschooling population. So it makes sense that the majority of homeschoolers you know are Christian and that they homeschool "to protect the Christian faith of their children and to preserve their family values." For many Evangelical Christian homeschoolers, this is a good thing - they want to raise their children in a community of people who share their beliefs and values. But there have always been homeschoolers who are doing it for reasons of educational philosophy (wanting more of a child-led approach, or stronger academics than their local public school, or logistics (like if the family travels frequently due to Dad's job), or issues with their particular child (like Aspberger's syndrome), etc.), and this category is growing as homeschooling becomes more mainstream. (Growing Without Schooling, a secular homeschooling magazine, started publication in 1977.) In addition, some of those who homeschool for religious reasons are not Christian - they may be homeschooling to protect the Jewish faith of their children, for example. Certainly personal experience is a useful data point, and surveying homeschoolers can be quite difficult. Perhaps you can find some research to support your claim. Let's just be careful when we extrapolate based on our own experiences. We need to set a good example for our students.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:12, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: Your comment has some truth but lacks a sense of proportion. Parents who homeschool to keep their kids off drugs are about 1/1000th as many as parents who homeschool for Christian purposes. Your comments and edits to the entry seem to avoid recognizing the obvious: the bulk of homeschoolers are doing it for Christian reasons. There is a whole college devoted to this market (Patrick Henry College). How many colleges are there for atheistic homeschoolers? Our entries need to reflect reality, and reality includes proportions. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I completely agree that keeping kids off of drugs does not, in my experience, drive a lot of parents to homeschool. (On the other hand, I do not live in the inner city - my experience might be different than families in whose neighborhoods drugs are a more serious presence.) I would still disagree, though, that the bulk of homeschoolers are doing it for Christian reasons. I know many Evangelical Christian homeschoolers who are homeschooling to preserve their children's Christian faith. However, I also know many homeschoolers of other faiths, and many who are Christian or Catholic but for whom faith is not among their reasons for homeschooling. I wrote the "reasons" paragraph based on the study I cited. I believe someone above cited another study, which also found that it was not the case that a majority of homeschoolers did so for religious reasons. I am willing to believe that my personal observations and these two studies are not representative of the homeschooling population, if we can find something to back that up. These are certianly not the only studies out there, and I think it would be good if we can find some other references to compare to them. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:40, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Arguably Homeschooled ==

How do you define homeschooled? Had some education at home? A formal school education was available but did not attend? Dropped out of school at age something? Without such a definition, many of the names on the list are frankly, silly and/or wishful thinking. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

An example of this - Mark Twain is listed on the list. From the biography of Mark Twain[http://www.marktwainhouse.org/theman/bio.shtml] it reads:
<blockquote>In 1847, when Sam was 11, his father died. Shortly thereafter he left school, having completed the fifth grade, to work as a printer's apprentice for a local newspaper. His job was to arrange the type for each of the newspaper's stories, allowing Sam to read the news of the world while completing his work.</blockquote>
In 1847, a 5th grade education was quite sufficient for day to day life and working as an apprentice for a local newspaper was a reasonable continuation of his education. It is not homeschooling. It would probably be more useful to first put the person on the talk page and figure out if they were homeschooled and then added to the main page rather than put on the main page without refrence and then removed when they don't fit the definition (whatever that may be). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:24, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]. I have found several times in the past that someone on a list of this kind was not actually educated at home. I think, if we are going for a high level of accuracy that befits an encyclopedia, we should do the research ourselves first, using the talk page to discuss. Then we should add the person to the list, and be sure to explain how each person was educated. I don't think we need to have a strict definition of homeschooling; rather, we should describe each person's experience. The result will be a list with an interesting variety of approaches to education.

I've added Mark Twain's famous quote, which is proof enough.

More generally, these lists abound on the internet. I've added a cite. No one really disputes that most or all of these people, and others too, were homeschooled. We can continue to fill in cites, but there is no need to censor this info in the meantime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." I don't think this is proof that he was homeschooled, only that he sees the difference between schooling and education, and realizes that education can come from places other than school. I'd like to know more about his education before adding him to the list. (But your sandbox, etc, so I'll leave him there.)

::I agree that lists such as these abound - but here, a higher standard exists. It is not censorship to be sure something is accurate before adding it to the article proper, and the information is available to all on the talk page while the research is being done. Students who want to use these people as examples in their work should know enough about the individual's education to be sure it is indeed an example of what they are writing about. Brief descriptions of the person's education, along with a cite or two about it, will be very useful to our readers. A list without this information, not so much. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::"Sam was always a good-hearted boy," his mother once remarked, "but he was a very wild and mischievous one, and, do what we would, we could never make him go to school. This used to trouble his father and me dreadfully, and we were convinced that he would never amount to as much in the world as his brothers, because he was not near so steady and sober-minded as they were." At school, he "excelled only in spelling"; outside of school he was the prototype of his own Huckleberry Finn, mischievous and prankish, playing truant whenever the opportunity afforded. "Often his father would start him off to school," his mother once said, "and in a little while would follow him to ascertain his whereabouts. There was a large stump on the way to the schoolhouse, and Sam would take his position behind that, and as his father went past would gradually circle around it in such a way as to keep out of sight. Finally, his father and the teacher both said it was of no use to try to teach Sam anything, because he was determined not to learn. But I never gave up. He was always a great boy for history, and could never get tired of that kind of reading; but he hadn't any use for schoolhouses and text books." <ref>The Project Gutenberg EBook of Mark Twain, by Archibald Henderson
[http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/6/8/7/6873/6873.txt]</ref> I'm not sure that I would consider this to be homeschooling, especially as his truancy was against his parents' wishes, though he certainly had an autodidact's view of education. I have added a fuller discription of his education to the article, so that readers can decide for themselves. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:53, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:I'm breaking my self-imposed examtime exile to ask this question. Isn't it kind of facetious to say that most of those people were homeschooled, when no formal schooling existed? It's sort of like making a big fuss out of someone from the 1600s being a creationist - of course he was, there was no alternative! Or, like saying, "Jesus didn't believe in global warming." Well... of course not. The controversy didn't exist back then. It creates an idea of conscious choice and rejection of an idea, when there was no such thing. Example: Joan of Arc? There were no formal schools in France at the time. Put another way, could you name someone from before 1700 who was ''not'' homeschooled until college? Just seems a little facetious to me. K, back to the books.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 00:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: The point is not to say that someone succeeded by rejecting public school, but that someone succeeded from homeschooling. The latter observation is true and meaningful regardless of whether public schools existed. We don't care as much '''why''' someone was homeschooled as whether it was effective.

:: Sure, I can think of people who lived before 1700 but were not homeschooled: the illiterate, of whom there were many.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:11, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Sure, that's true. But the point that others are making is that the tone of the article suggests that you're suggesting that they rejected public schools, or were part of the homeschooling "movement." Would you mind if I clarified it, to better express your point, or would you like to? Perhaps something like, "Even before public schools were active, homeschooling produced many successful people worldwide. Here are some examples"? -'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 01:15, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::A previous version had such a statement - I think something like that should be included. I would also argue that the statement "a disproportionate number of achievers have benefited from being homeschooled" has not been cited or proved, and I'm not sure it's accurate or (from a historical perspective), even meaningful. (See the Harvard discussion above, though of course college admittance is not a great measure of success in life - but that's a whole 'nother conversation.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: The problem with your approach is that most of the people on the list did reject formal or public school, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:53, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't think that's true for many of the historical figures. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I think the list, if it actually describes the education each person had, shows that there are a wide variety of approaches to education which can be successful. This can be very useful in an age where educational standardization is being pushed - having all kids learn the same material in the same grade, etc. It's also nice for homeschooled kids to see that they are not so much an oddity as part of a long line of people who did a significant amount of learning outside of school. There's a reason you often see lists of successful minorities - it is very helpful to members of the minority group to havfe these role models, even if their lives aren't exactly parallel. I agree that it's problematic to call it "homeschooling" before, say, the last 50-100 years, but "educated at home", or "educated outside of formal schools" usually fits. At the same time, I think a long list of names without individualized information about their education is not particularly useful, and quite frankly lowers the standard of research and accuracy here. Again, we are setting an example for the students, homeschooled and not, who we expect will use this information in their work. If we expect them to present work that is well-researched and cited from credible sources which are themselves clearly well-researched, shouldn't we be doing the same?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

#In place of the list ''in the article'', how about tagging each person's biography page with [[:Category:Homeschooled]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:36, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
#Anyone educated before 1850 was probably not given "[[compulsory education]]" in the Mann or Dewey sense. In ''[[Little Women]]'' Mrs. March kept Amy home and had Jo teach her. Nothing unusual about that. We need an article on [[Primary education]] or [[History of education]] that gets into that. What proportion of children were educated, and how well? When and where? The one-room schoolroom, or a huge mega-school divided into grades by age? How about [[Educational reform]]s or "fads" like [[Whole language]] and its attack on [[phonics]], the [[New math]] and its ineffective ways of teaching [[arithmetic]]? (I'm tutoring some of my friends' kids, and it's a nightmare trying to counter the knuckleheaded strategies they mandate for doing "[[word problem]]s". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:41, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: It's enlightening to have the list in one easy-to-access place. It's striking. You might add your Little Women point also.
::: Arguably, the category would be easier to access than an article and would be dynamically updated as new biographies were added. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: As I said last night, the point is not that these individuals rejected public school (though many did), the point is that they achieved based on homeschooling. Why they homeschooled is a separate, and less important, issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I like the idea of a "homeschooled" category. However, I also like the list we are beginning to create here, assuming that we are careful to include a brief description of each person's education. It's very informative and inspiring to see the wide variety of ways these people were educated.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Christopher Paolini ==
[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], could you explain why you deleted Christopher Paolini from the list? He is a modern homeschooler, a best-selling author of a YA book series, and was clearly homeschooled. The list entry (copied below), was detailed and cited. Isn't this the kind of thing we want in the list? I haven't read his books -- perhaps there is an issue with their content I am unaware of? I'm not trying to challenge this decision, I just want to understand it. (Or perhaps it was a mistake?) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:27, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::* [[Christopher Paolini]] (1983-), the author of the Inheritance Trilogy (Eragon, Eldest, and a third book yet unreleased). He was home-schooled by his parents, through an accredited correspondence course from the American School in Chicago, Illinois, from which he graduated with his high school diploma at 15 years of age. <ref>Book Browse Author Biography: Christopher Paolini[http://www.bookbrowse.com/biographies/index.cfm?author_number=934]</ref>

:::Originally, it was a list of "High-achieving Christians who were educated at home" (well, actually it was "homeschooled Christians" but I proposed the title change to bypass issues about the meaning of the word "homeschooled.") This was the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&oldid=10078 original list]. Paolini was added later, and there was some issue about whether he was Christian. I don't know whether that's why Aschlafly didn't include him, or whether Aschlafly just wanted to go back to a list whose sincerity he trusts... some people had fun from time to time adding names of individuals educated at home who are better described as "notorious" than as "high-achieving." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:57, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The list could have come from [http://www.home4schoolgear.com/famoushomeschooler.html here] or [http://www.christianhomeschoolers.com/hs_famous_homeschoolers.html here] or [http://www.homeschoolacademy.com/famoushomeschoolers.htm here] or [http://www.itwillpass.com/facts_famous_homeschoolers.shtml here]. There's probably one source for all of them but none of them credit it, much less give references for the individuals named being educated at home.

::::I've seen many of these lists over the years, almost none with explanations.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 17:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Of the few I fact-checked, some had problems. All of these Web lists, for example, list Franklin D. Roosevelt without comment, but Groton is not ''my'' idea of being educated at home. Conservapedia's article is currently adequately clear about Roosevelt's education. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:03, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Yes - exactly. That's why I keep going on and on about how important it is to give a brief description of each person's education - it shows the Conservapedia reader/user what form the person's education took (leaving the *reader* to decide if it counts as "homeschooling" for the reader's purposes), and in researching the brief description, we are also validating the list. I think it's just way more useful if it has been annotated in this way.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 17:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

==Reference 6==
I don't understand reference 6 in the article. What does it refer to? [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 11:25, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:I think it's supposed to say "''ibid.''" I think there is a wiki markup that can be used to refer to a previously cited link, which is useful in case someone puts another footnote in between the 1st and 2nd cites, screwing up the "''ibid''" concept. But I forget how to do it. [[User:Human|Human]] 11:59, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: "id" is short for "ibid". It's supposed to refer to the preceding reference, though it possible another reference was inserted between the two.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:11, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Use the "name" feature of the ref tag. Format the first reference like this, with the actual reference text:
*<nowiki><ref name=cp>[http://www.conservapedia.com Conservapedia], main page</ref></nowiki>
Format subsequent references like this:
*<nowiki><ref name=cp/></nowiki>

Repeated instances of the same reference name show up in the text with the same number. In the references section itself, the entry will contain links back to all the places in the text where the named reference appeared.

Example:

'''Markup:'''

<nowiki>
Some examples of wikis include Conservapedia<ref name=cp>[http://www.conservapedia.com Conservapedia], main page</ref>, the FoxPro wiki<ref>[http://fox.wikis.com FoxPro wiki], main page</ref>, and the CaptainWiki sailing wiki<ref>[http://captainwiki.com/ CaptainWiki], Cruising guides and sailing blogs</ref>.

Conservapedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia with an emphasis on the conservative point of view.<ref name=cp/>
</nowiki>

'''Result:'''

Some examples of wikis include Conservapedia<ref name=cp>[http://www.conservapedia.com Conservapedia], main page</ref>, the FoxPro wiki<ref>[http://fox.wikis.com FoxPro wiki], main page</ref>, and the CaptainWiki sailing wiki<ref>[http://captainwiki.com/ CaptainWiki], Cruising guides and sailing blogs</ref>.

Conservapedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia with an emphasis on the conservative point of view.<ref name=cp/>

==Disproportionate?==
There have been two introductory sentences to our list of prominent homeschoolers:
*''Throughout history, a disproportionate{{fact}} number of achievers have benefited from being homeschooled. Here is a growing list of some of them:''
*''Throughout history, some high-profile people have been educated at home, though it should be noted that prior to the 19th century most children worldwide were educated within their family. Here is a list of some of them:''
:I think the first sentence is problematic because it makes a claim that is not supported by any kind of citation (''disproportionate''). I also think it would be hard to prove such a claim, because people's education was so varied before the twentieth century. For example, I don't mind including Mark Twain in our list of people educated outside of formal schooling, because I think he is an interesting case of someone who didn't have much of a traditional school-based education, yet went on to become a writer whose works are still in print a century later. However, I think many people of his time had only a 5th grade education, so if we were going to seriously look at the numbers, I don't think we could count him as "homeschooled". Can we work together here to come up with a sentence we can all agree on? Here's my first attempt (below) - please feel free to use it as a starting point for creating something better. Let's work on this here on the talk page until we reach consensus. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:47, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
*''Throughout history, some prominent people have received some or all of their education outside of formal schooling. (Note that prior to the 19th century, many children were educated at home.) Here is a growing list of people whose educational backgrounds were quite different than today's norm.''

==Spelling of Homeschooling==
[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] - Can I get some advice - I think you're probably the best person to ask. The Williams article uses "''home-schoolers''", which is largely rejected by the homeschooling community (at least in my experience). Should it get a (sic), especially since the article here uses ''homeschoolers''? (This whole spelling thing is a pet peeve of many homeschoolers.) Oh, and nice job on the college paragraph - and a double super nice job on the Mothers Day article! --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:49, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks!

:Re the "spelling thing:" it's an issue I was unaware of. What's disliked about the hyphen? For what it's worth, the American Heritage Dictionary says:
::'''homeschool'''
::VARIANT FORMS: or home-school
::VERB: Inflected forms: home·schooled, home·school·ing, home·schools
::TRANSITIVE VERB: to instruct (a pupil, for example) in an educational program outside of established schools, especially in the home.
::INTRANSITIVE VERB: To provide educational instruction in a homeschool.
::NOUN: A school operated outside established educational institutions, especially in a home.
::OTHER FORMS: homeschooler
::[http://www.bartleby.com/61/30/H0253050.html]

:Their giving "home-school" as a "variant" would justify a ''[sic]'', so let's do that. Unfortunately there's another question: is a homeschooler a ''teacher,'' as their definition suggests, and, if so, what is the right word for a homeschooled ''pupil?''
:Anyway, sure, for now let's just put in the [sic] without explanation... until someone feels like writing a section on terminology and usage. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:37, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::''What's disliked about the hyphen?'' OK - not sure if I can write this well enough to make sense, but here goes. It's kind of like breastfeeding vs. breast feeding. It's the difference between a noun modified by an adjective, vs. a noun with a separate meaning. That is, breastfeeding is more than just feeding at the breast, more than just a different kind of feeding - it also provides antibodies to protect against disease, it has beneficial effects on mom's body, etc. Thus it deserves a noun all to itself. Same with homeschooling. It's more/different than just schooling that happens at home. Homeschooling includes opportunities and approaches to education that are dramatically different than what you'd find in school. Homeschooling is also often integrated into family life, so much so that it is often impossible to differentiate between the two. For example, reading a book for pleasure - for school kids, this is a "home" activity that has nothing to do with school. For homeschoolers, it is both school and not-school, wrapped up in each other (though of course both sets of kids obviously learn from reading on their own). In fact, homeschoolers talk about people doing "school at home", which generally describes trying to re-create the school model in the home without taking advantage of any of the benefits unique to homeschooling. It is not generally used in a positive context. "Home schooling" or "home-schooling" is often seen in articles written *about* homeschoolers by someone else - many spell checkers will flag "homeschooling", and many journalists will insist that their style guidelines don't allow "homeschooling". Nonetheless, almost everything written *by* homeschoolers uses the one-word form. It's one of those "call members of a minority what they want to be called" issues. (BTW - not trying to make a value judgment here - though I enjoy homeschooling, and it's been good for my kids, I think different kinds of schooling are appropriate for different kids & families - there is no "one best way" to educate children, IMHO.)
::As to who is the homeschooler, I would use "she is homeschooled" or "she is homeschooling" or "she is a homeschooler" to refer to the student; "she is homeschooling" or "she is a homeschooling mom" or "she homeschools her kids" to refer to the mom. "She is a homeschooler" referring to the mom is less common, I think because mom can't homeschool without the kids, but I would hesitate to call it incorrect - I would prefer "she is homeschooling" or "she homeschools". "They are homeschoolers", referring to the family, is appropriate. I guess when you're referring to the students and teacher(s) collectively it's right to call them all homeschoolers, but not so much the teacher by herself. (Excuse the sexist language here!)
::Note that in some states there is language that comes from the laws in that state. In some states, homeschoolers must be enrolled in some kind of "umbrella school" which provides oversight - technically, these are private school students. In Britain, homeschoolers are "educated otherwise" (if I remember right), from a phrase in their law. In Pennsylvania law there is no such thing as homeschooling - children are "home educated" or "privately tutored" or "enrolled in a public cyber-charter school" - this last one is very controversial, as most independent homeschoolers insist that students in schools run by the government are not homeschoolers, even if they do school at home. (Got that?! Public cyber-charter schools are essentially publicly-funded internet-based correspondence schools.) The idea here is that we must be careful not to confuse, especially in the mind of the general public and the legislature, traditional self-funded homeschooling and publicly-funded school-at-home. The concern is that such confusion could lead to more governmental oversight - if government money is being spent, then accountability (and control, and standardization) soon follows, and with accountability homeschoolers tend to be forced into doing things in a very school-at-home way, which many of us feel takes away the most effective parts of homeschooling. But that's a whole 'nother can of worms. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Got it. Well articulated. The points about publicly-funded officially-supervised schooling at home is interesting. I think these topics ought to be touched on in the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:36, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== Notice something ==

Notice that all the famous people home schooled are very old or even dead? Hard to imagine Stephen Hawking being home schooled.

:Homeschooling as a modern phenomenon has only been around for a short time. As most people who become famous for Great Things do so later in life, it will be a while before the results of this Grand Experiment emerge. In addition, many Christian homeschoolers aspire to paths that don't typically result in fame, such as missionary work, etc. Still, point taken - we should add some modern folks.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:39, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Realizing that homeschooling is primarily an alternative to public schools. Most homeschooling parents homeschool their children because for whatever reason they are dissatisfied with the public schools. I think that it harms the credability of this website to smack the label of homeschooling on anyone who predates public schools as we now think of them; ''most'' people back then would fit the loose standard for "homeschooled" on this page. For example, Jesus is listed as "arguably homeschooled". There is really can be no evidence for this and even if ther was his education would probably not fit our idea of homeschooling today--[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 16:49, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

==Daniel Webster - Homeschooled? Or not so much?==

I'm not convinced that Daniel Webster can be described as "homeschooled", even though he got some college-prep tutoring. Here's what I've found about his education, combined with what [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] has written. FWIW, the Dartmouth site is the most extensive, with lots of useful quotes from primary sources; the Notable Names site ''("updated as weather permits")'' seems the least scholarly, but I'm not finding much contradiction. There is a heck of a lot of schooling here, at a level way beyond most people of his time. I welcome everyone's thoughts.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:::*[[Daniel Webster]] (1782-1852), prominent U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, recognized as one of the greatest orators in history. As the author of the first American dictionary, he is considered the father of the English language in America. Born in Salisbury, N.H., he attended district schools<ref>Biographical Directory of the United States Congress: Daniel Webster[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=W000238]</ref> as a young lad.<ref>Daniel Webster And the War on the Second Bank of the United States, By Paul J. Rastatter[http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2004_winter_spring/webster.htm]</ref> He attended [[Phillips-Exeter Academy]] for about nine months in 1794. <ref>Notable Names Database Weblog: Daniel Webster[http://www.nndb.com/people/445/000024373/]</ref> Webster was then tutored by the Rev. Samuel Wood to prepare him to pass the rigorous oral exam required for entrance to Dartmouth.<ref>Dartmouth: Daniel Webster: Class of 1801:
Scholarly Pursuits[http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/1801/scholar.html]</ref> In August of 1797<ref>Dartmouth: Daniel Webster: Class of 1801: The Road to Dartmouth[http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/1801/scholar.html]</ref>, at the age of 16,<ref>Daniel Webster And the War on the Second Bank of the United States, By Paul J. Rastatter[http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2004_winter_spring/webster.htm]</ref> he enrolled in Dartmouth College, from which he graduated in 1801. <ref>Dartmouth: Daniel Webster: Class of 1801[http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/exhibit.html]</ref>

: Why doesn't this prove that Daniel Webster was homeschooled for high school? In addition, the passing reference about attending "district school" before that would not have amounted to much in the 1700s, particularly in New Hampshire. Those schools were not full-time school like today, and he would likely have learned the basics at home. The other links to Webster don't even mention the "district schools."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

::I've been a bit confused about when he was at Exeter - looking into it further, according to a biography he wrote in 1829, he entered in May, 1796 and he left in Jan 1797.<ref>OLD STURBRIDGE VILLAGE - Online Resource Library: Daniel Webster, Autobiography, 1829[https://www.osv.org/learning/DocumentViewer.php?Action=View&DocID=1077]</ref> He was with Rev. Woods for no more than 7 months - he started in Feb 1797 and by Aug 1797 he had entered Dartmouth. As to the district schools, it sounds like his family went to great lengths to have him attend them. From the same source: ''My father seemed to have no higher object in the world, than to educate his children, to the full extent of his very limited ability. No means were within his reach, generally speaking but the small town schools. These were kept by teachers, sufficiently indifferent, in the several neighborhoods of the township, each a small part of the year. To these I was sent, with the other children. When the school was in our neighborhood, it was easy to attend; when it removed to a more distant district* I followed it, still living at home…When it removed still further, my father sometimes boarded me out*, in a neighboring family, so that I could still be in the school.'' I don't think we can ignore this, even if he, like many "youngest kids", learned to read from his mother or siblings at home. I can see your point, but I think it's a stretch to include him. Let's hear what other folks think.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:27, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

: The Phillips-Exeter dates look wrong. People don't start high school in May at age 17. Nor would it make sense for Rev. Woods to tutor Webster for only a few months. There is at least a three year gap there to prepare for college, as one would expect, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:25, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

::He would have been about 14 (1796 minus 1782), which jives with a couple of other sources which mention his age but not the year. The 1794 date comes from the Notable Names Database Weblog article, which doesn't look particularly scholarly and includes no citations. We could work it out more accurately if we looked up his birthday. [Why don't I do that! He was born January 18, 1782, which would make him 14 in May of 1796 when he entered Exeter (according to the autobiography quote), and 15 (give or take a few days) when he left. He would have started with Rev. Wood at 15, and been almost 16 (well, 15 1/2) by the time he began Dartmouth in Aug 1797.] I agree that May sounds like an odd time to start school, but I believe the British system, on which Phillips-Exeter may have been modeled, has different terms (semesters) than we are used to. 14 is the right age for high school today, and I do believe Dartmouth as to the dates he was there. Perhaps we can find more information to verify or refute the Exeter dates. Don't forget that Rev. Woods had planned to have Webster for longer: ''Mr. Wood put me upon Virgil and Tully; and I conceived a pleasure in the study of them, especially the latter, which rendered application no longer a task... In the spring I began the Greek grammar, and at midsummer Mr. Wood said to me: "I expected to keep you till next year, but I am tired of you, and I shall put you into college next month.'' <ref>Dartmouth: Daniel Webster: Class of 1801:
Scholarly Pursuits[http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/1801/scholar.html]</ref> He also said that he was ''miserably prepared, both in Latin and Greek'', which is not surprising if he only studied for a few months! (Same source)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:48, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah, here we go. Phillips Exeter themselves put the date as May 14, 1796, age 14. <ref>Phillips Exeter Academy: Academy Chronology[http://www.exeter.edu/libraries/4513_4622.aspx]</ref>--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

==The Wright Brothers - Homeschooled? Or not?==
The article says:
:::*[[The Wright Brothers|Orville and Wilbur Wright]], inventors of the airplane. They did attend some school, but also learned at home from their father, who was a conservative minister, and their mother, who was the top mathematician in her college class.<ref>http://www.first-to-fly.com/History/Just%20the%20Facts/family.htm</ref> Neither Wright Brother earned a high school diploma, let alone college, and Orville Wright left high school after his junior year.<ref>http://www.first-to-fly.com/History/Just%20the%20Facts/trivia.htm</ref>
:Looking at the sources given, I saw that both brothers went to school, that Wilbur earned a high school diploma (but never picked up his certificate), and Orville left after 11th grade. While their parents taught them some interesting things (as do all good parents), I didn't see anything that implied that this was ever in lieu of going to school. While I'd love to claim these two as "one of us" (homeschoolers, that is), the sources given don't seem to give me any grounds to do so. Am I missing something? I'd like us to have a strong, well-researched list of people with interesting educational backgrounds. I welcome everyone's thoughts. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:22, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
==Update==
I have cleaned up the two lists of homeschoolers based on the discussions above. I have removed the Wright Brothers and Daniel Webster - if further research and discussion in the sections above shows them to be homeschoolers, we can add them back in. I have also moved two people from the first list to the second, because they didn't have any explanation of their education or any references. Because of our experience with the Wrights and Webster, we must view anyone on a "Famous Homeschooler" list we find on the internet with skepticism - they ''may'' have been homeschooled, but we should be careful to document their actual education before adding them to the first list. It would probably to be a good idea to change the paragraph introducing the second list to make it clear that these people have not been researched or verified as homeschoolers. By the way, thanks to everyone who has contributed to this article - I think it is shaping up nicely!--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:23, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Joan of Arc ==
I've been researching Joan of Arc's education, and I'm not sure it qualifies as homeschooling, at least as we think of homeschooling today. She was taught religion and domestic skills by her mother, as are most girls, then and now. She could not read or write, and I found nothing about her going to school or being taught any academic skills. So while (like most children of her time) she did not go to school, and while I have great respect for traditional women's skills and the way they have been passed from mother to daughter for centuries (regardless of whether the daughters also went to school or not), I don't think I would consider this to be "homeschooling" - it is, IMHO, "mothering" or "raising your daughter" - the kinds of things that most mothers do for their daughters. Below are a few quotes. Thoughts? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:07, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:''As a child she was taught domestic skills as well as her religion by her mother. Joan would later say, "As for spinning and sewing, I fear no woman in Rouen." And again, "It was my mother alone who taught me the 'Our Father' and 'Hail Mary' and the 'Creed;' and from none other was I taught my faith."''<ref>A Short Biography of Saint Joan of Arc[http://www.stjoan-center.com/#bio]</ref>

:''She never learned to read or write but was skilled in sewing and spinning...''<ref>New Advent - Catholic Encyclopedia - St. Joan of Arc[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08409c.htm]</ref>

:''"It was from my mother that I learned the Pater Noster, the Ave Maria, and the Credo", and "to sew linen fabrics and to spin wool, and when it comes to spinning and sewing I fear no woman..."''<ref>Biography of Joan of Arc[http://joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_biography.html]</ref>

That is homeschooling. There is no requirement that homeschooling include a particular curriculum. Joan of Arc should be included. It is not true that most mothers teach religion, the Pater Noster, the Ave Maria, the Credo and skills to their public-schooled children. I'll revert the deletion of her name, even using your cites above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

::''It is not true that most mothers teach religion, the Pater Noster, the Ave Maria, the Credo and skills to their public-schooled children.'' I'm not sure what you mean here - do you mean that most mothers don't teach religion at all? Or that most mothers of public-schooled children don't? I'm talking here of religious families. If those mothers (and of course fathers) don't teach their children religion, who does? I think that, in a devout home, most kids learn the Lord's Prayer etc. (or whatever prayers are appropriate for their religion) from their mother or their father - hearing their parents say them daily, during mealtime and bedtime prayers, etc. They also hear it from other family members and in church. It's woven into the fabric of their family life. I think that's even more the case in Joan of Arc's time. In a devout home, children learn these things even before they are of school age. In addition, girls throughout history learned spinning and sewing because that was their job in the family - the same way children today learn to load the dishwasher or to mow the lawn. Is it homeschooling? I can see both sides of it, and if you feel strongly that Joan of Arc should be included, then that's OK with me. But in terms of our list of famous homeschoolers, I don't think it makes sense to individually list all those people from earlier times who learned religion and basic life skills (and maybe even a trade) from their parents and never even had the opportunity to go to school. Perhaps it would be best to address it by writing a paragraph explaining that learning by your parents' side was the norm for the vast majority of people in those days - going to school was only for the elite. We could rename our list "Prominent people of the Modern Era who were educated at home" - well, "of the modern era" isn't great, but I'm sure we could think of something better - "Of the last 350 years" perhaps. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:29, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Joan of Arc was homeschooled. This isn't complex. No, most parents of public-schooled children do NOT teach their children the things that Joan of Arc learned at home. Were most children who went on to achievement homeschooled at the time of Joan of Arc? I don't know, but that fact does not affect whether Joan of Arc was homeschooled. She was.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:53, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, by this logic you could include every human being prior to about 1700, and even most humans after 1700. In Joan of Arc's time, there were no public primary schools, therefore nearly everyone was educated by their parents. [[User:NonXtianConservative|NonXtianConservative]] 14:42, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

:: No, that doesn't follow. Not everyone who failed to attend a [[public school]] was homeschooled. Ever heard of [[Plato's Academy]]? That was a few years before 1700.

:: The point of this entry is not to criticize [[public schools]] anyway. But if you want to insert a ''supported'' statement that [[public schools]] did not exist before 1700, please go ahead and do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:45, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Plato's academy was the equivalent of secondary and post secondary education, not primary education. Children learned to read and write from their parents, and so it follows that if their parents couldn't read or write, then the children almost certainly wouldn't be able to either.

:::Even into Joan of Arc's time, formal education was the province of the noble classes and what little group schooling existed was conducted by the church, not the state. Since most people were not members of a noble family, they would not have been educated in a group setting, but instead instructed by their parents. It wasn't until the advent of state sponsored public schooling that formal education became more widespread.

:::I realize that your goal is to present homeschooling as superior to public schooling, and you think that by presenting these towering giants of history as homeschooled that it helps your case, but the truth is that what you call homeschooling was the de facto method of learning for the vast majority of humanity the world over, and the handful of great individuals that arose from it are a measure of statistics, not of the superiority of the home-school. Certainly, if you're the child of a Bill Gates or a Richard Feynman you might get more at the foot of your parent than in an average public school, but if you're the son of Joe Ditchdigger or Jane Grocery Bagger then you're likely better off in a public school. A parent who is not well educated themselves is unlikely to be able to instruct their children to become better educated than they are. [[User:NonXtianConservative|NonXtianConservative]] 15:56, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

== George Washington Carver ==
Yet again, when researching someone on the "Arguably Homeschooled" list, I've come up with little support for the argument. George Washington Carver, born a slave, didn't go to school until age 10, but I'm not sure I would call his education before this "homeschooling". More accurately, his education was delayed until he could attend school. The lack of schooling is '''not''' the same thing as homeschooling. What do you all think? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:26, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
:''Carver was born a slave near Diamond, Missouri, during the American Civil War (1861-1865). Around age ten he left the farm where he was born and traveled through the Midwest doing odd jobs to support his education. Carver studied constantly and attended schools wherever possible, finally graduating from high school in Minneapolis, Kansas, in 1885. That same year he passed the entrance examination at Highland College in northeastern Kansas. But when school officials learned he was black, he was prevented from attending. In 1891 Carver was admitted to the Iowa State College of Agricultural and Mechanical Arts (now Iowa State University) in Ames. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in 1894, becoming the first black to graduate from the college. After graduation, Carver was appointed to the faculty as an assistant botanist. While teaching, he pursued his master’s degree, studying fungus diseases and classification of plants. In 1896 he received his master’s degree. That year, at the invitation of American educator Booker T. Washington, Carver became the director of agricultural research at Tuskegee Institute, where he remained for the rest of his life.''<ref>MSN Encarta Encyclopedia - George Washington Carver article[http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574196/Carver_George_Washington.html]</ref>
:''He began his formal education at the age of twelve, which required him to leave the home of his adopted parents. Schools segregated by race at that time with no school available for black students near Carver's home. He moved to Newton County in southwest Missouri, where he worked as a farm hand and studied in a one-room schoolhouse. He went on to attend Minneapolis High School in Kansas. College entrance was a struggle, again because of racial barriers. At the age of thirty, Carver gained acceptance to Simpson College in Indianola, Iowa, where he was the first black student. Carver had to study piano and art and the college did not offer science classes. Intent on a science career, he later transferred to Iowa Agricultural College (now Iowa State University) in 1891, where he gained a Bachelor of Science degree in 1894 and a Master of Science degree in bacterial botany and agriculture in 1897.'' <ref>George Washington Carver, By Mary Bellis[http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa041897.htm]</ref>

==Leonardo da Vinci==
Here is another from the Arguably Homeschooled list for whom I've been able to find little evidence of homeschooling. Perhaps further searching will turn up more. Until then, I suggest we take da Vinci off the list. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:00, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
:''In Vinci Leonardo went to school. Vasari told that teachers of Leonardo da Vinci were despaired about all the questions and doubts of Leonardo. Leonardo learned at school to write, to read and to calculate. Also he was taught in geometry and Latin. Later Leonardo tried to improve his knowledge in Latin, because he thought that he didn't learn enough at school in Latin. Perhaps this is the reason why Leonardo did his notes in Italian. Leonardo lived in Vinci until 1466. With the age of 14 Leonardo moved to Florence where he began an apprenticeship in the workshop of Verrocchio.''<ref>Leonardo da Vinci[http://www.kausal.com/leonardo/childhood.html]</ref>

==Our "Arguably Homeschooled" list is proving to be very inaccurate.==
While I understand the logic of having the list in the article, I am finding so many people on the list to have educational backgrounds that I would not consider to be homeschooling that I think we need to reconsider. I suggest we move the list back to the talk page - the level of error is just too high to consider this list credible. Once researched, people who are shown to actually have been educated at home can be put on the "Prominent people who were educated at home" list, along with an explanation of their education and citations showing the facts. Thoughts? Opinions? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:00, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:Indeed. Some very basic fact checking shows that a number of the people on the list were clearly not homeschooled. Both were added by Mr Schlafly. Andy, are you just pulling these names from your nether regions, or did you bother to check if what you were posting was actually accurate? I notice you've removed some of my additions, who were certainly homeschooled since they lived in countries without formal education systems. Why was this done, Andy? Because they weren't Christian? I thought Non Christian Conservatives were welcome here... that's what your front page says. [[User:NonXtianConservative|NonXtianConservative]] 22:11, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

==Famous Dropouts vs. Famous Homeschoolers==
This reference <ref> Education Reform.net - List of Successful Dropouts [http://www.education-reform.net/dropouts.htm]</ref>, currently in the Arguably Homeschooled section, is a list of dropouts, not a list of homeschoolers. While some overlap is possible, and a few people on the list are indeed arguably homeschooled, most are not. I do not think we should be equating dropouts with homeschoolers. I think we should keep the reference here on the talk page, to get ideas for adding to the list of Prominent People who were Educated at Home. I think it may be a good idea to remove it from the Arguably Homeschooled section. Thoughts? Input?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:40, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

==Henri Poincaré==
I am a bit confused about Poincare's education. While I have found several references stating that his mother tutored him, it's unclear whether this was just during his illness with diphtheria. It's unclear when he was ill, or how long he was ill. He entered school at age 8 and stayed there 11 years, going on to higher education after that. Most of the references I found seem to rely on (or copy) the entry from the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is not clear. Personally, I'm not comfortable calling him "homeschooled" without further clarification of his education. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:47, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

:''Henri was "... ambidextrous and was nearsighted; during his childhood he had poor muscular coordination and was seriously ill for a time with diphtheria. He received special instruction from his gifted mother and excelled in written composition while still in elementary school." In 1862 [when he would have been about 8] Henri entered the Lycée in Nancy (now renamed the Lycée Henri Poincaré in his honour). He spent eleven years at the Lycée and during this time he proved to be one of the top students in every topic he studied. Henri was described by his mathematics teacher as a "monster of mathematics" and he won first prizes in the concours général, a competition between the top pupils from all the Lycées across France. Poincaré entered the École Polytechnique in 1873, graduating in 1875. He was well ahead of all the other students in mathematics but, perhaps not surprisingly given his poor coordination, performed no better than average in physical exercise and in art. Music was another of his interests but, although he enjoyed listening to it, his attempts to learn the piano while he was at the École Polytechnique were not successful. Poincaré read widely, beginning with popular science writings and progressing to more advanced texts. His memory was remarkable and he retained much from all the texts he read but not in the manner of learning by rote, rather by linking the ideas he was assimilating particularly in a visual way. His ability to visualise what he heard proved particularly useful when he attended lectures since his eyesight was so poor that he could not see the symbols properly that his lecturers were writing on the blackboard. After graduating from the École Polytechnique, Poincaré continued his studies at the École des Mines.''<ref>Jules Henri Poincaré[http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Poincare.html]</ref>

:: It is completely clear that he was homeschooled at least until age 8. The date of entry in the Lycee high school seems too early, and it seems unlikely he spent 11 years in high school. Regardless, he was homeschooled in learning the fundamentals of reading and math, and likely learned far more from his "gifted" mother.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

== Citation needed ==
''Throughout history, a remarkably high percentage of accomplished people were homeschooled...''
[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], much as I, as a homeschooling mom, would love to believe this, we simply cannot state it in the article without backing it up with a citation. Everything we post here must be true and verifiable. We must always cite and give credit to our sources. We must be careful not to post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry like this. These are Conservapedia's rules, not mine, and they are good ones. Let's show our students that we are serious about the rules by leading by example - we must stick to the rules if we expect others to do so. Thus, we need a credible citation for this statement. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:59, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

: That sentence introduces the paragraph and list of examples that support it, with citations. 4 out of the top 4 modern mathematicians were homeschooled. That's 100% of the smartest group of achievers. The person considered the greatest president (Abraham Lincoln) was homeschooled. That's 100% of the top. The greatest female military leader was homeschooled. That's 100%. It's not just one citation that backs up the sentence, it is many citations and examples.

: Hsmom, your repeated objections, like your objection above to the undisputed fact that Joan of Arc was homeschooled, are getting tiresome. Add some content to the entry rather than object to the facts, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:06, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

== Joan of Arc ==

Is it really accurate to say that Joan of arc was "homeschooled" in the sense of the word that this article is about. Not a lot of kids - and even fewer girls - of the lower classes got much schooling of ANY type during the Middle Ages. Most, if not all of children's education, what precious little of it there was for French peasants, would have been at home. [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 17:40, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

: OK, so Joan of Arc and many others were homeschooled in her class and time period. That doesn't detract from the point: Joan of Arc was homeschooled and then became one of the greatest military leaders of all time.

: Your criticism has been raised by others in the past, all of whom view this entry as tit-for-tat, homeschooling versus alternatives. But that's not what this entry is about. This entry simply proves that homeschooling has been extraordinarily successful in its own right, regardless of alternatives. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:46, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== Fair Inclusion ==

I've been trying to add William Bonney (Billy the Kid) and John Wesley Hardin, two famous American outlaws, and they keep getting deleted. I don't understand why. Both are certainly prominent, and both are homeschooled at least to the same extent as inclusions like Lincoln, Twain, and Joan of Arc. Obviously they don't paint a rosy picture of homeschooling, but doesn't blocking their entry present only one side of the argument (the pro-homeschooling side)?

: Provide some evidence for your claims, as required by our [[rules]]. Homeschooled means schooled at home, not running away from home. Obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:58, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

::Don't be a jerk, dude. This site lists "prominent" home-schooled individuals, not all of them. Also, this is not your site. Why do you think it should play by your rules?

:: Many of the people on this list were not obviously schooled at home. Twain is a clear example. Lincoln read at home but was not "schooled" by anyone, and people like the Roosevelts and Shaw studied with professional tutors, clearly not an analogy for the parent-lead homeschooling of today. Bonney's school experience is essentially a direct parallel of Twain's, and Hardin was taught by his father, just like Mozart. If your complaint is truly a source issue, I'm happy to go dig up a biography or two, but short of that I can see no reason for not including these two. For most of history people didn't have anything like modern access to public schools, which means that for most of history bad people got their education in pretty much the same way as people like Joan of Arc. Just trying to be fair here.

::: So you're saying that Lincoln schooled himself at home??? Could be ... but that's still homeschooled. Private tutors is also homeschooling, as many of us homeschoolers can attest. You seem to be saying that Hardin and Mozart were taught by their fathers. That's not homeschooling? Of course it is.

::: I'm open to unbiased improvements to the article. I don't know the details of Twain, for example. I do know that 5 out of the top 5 mathematicians post-Napoleon were homeschooled, and there are few if any errors on this list. If you can make unbiased improvements by adding information, please do. If you can't believe the list, then perhaps you want to open your mind a bit first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:37, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== Reason for rollback ==

Don't insert {{fact}} when the statement is supported the sentences that follow it. When in doubt, use this page to express your opinion rather than senseless inclusion of multiple {{fact}}--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:48, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

:Well, since you mention it, I was wondering why you removed the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> from the statement saying Ansel Adams is the best photographer of the twentieth century. It's certainly a very bold and opinionated statement (maybe someone is more a fan of [[Alfred Stieglitz]]) and I figured it needed backing up.--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 00:22, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:: The next sentence supports the statement. Open your mind a bit, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:33, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, perhaps we can reach a compromise. Instead of adding a {{fact}}, why don't we just add the word 'arguably' to the sentence. That way, we're both happy. Eh?--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 00:39, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: My friend, open your mind instead. The quote proves that Ansel Adams was homeschooled. All that is needed is a cite for the quote. The list of the others is also extremely well supported. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:47, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh ho, it seems we have found the root of our contention. You see, I'm not saying that Ansel Adams wasn't homeschooling. I don't doubt that he was. I'm just saying that the statement that he was the 20th century's 'finest artist' is not a fact (in the same way that "Bananas are the tastiest fruit" is not a fact), and should be changed to show it's opinion. It's semantics, I know, but that's how I roll, with mild [[OCD]].--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 00:55, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Oh how petty. Your own quote is wrong ("finest artist") and yet you're going to quibble about Conservapedia's statement here???? Everyone knows that Ansel Adams was the "the finest photographer of the 20th century." Nitpick something else, please. Or improve some entries here first and then return with more experience. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:13, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Alright, whatever. Anyway, I found the site the actual quote is from. I think I cited it right, but, you know, I'm inexperienced about the matter.--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 01:18, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Thanks much. I apologize for overreacting a bit. Let's improve this fascinating entry further. In Christ, [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:36, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

== What's with the [sic]? ==
Referring to the quote from the Williams College admissions officer... Is the [sic] there because of the possibly-incorrect dash in home-schoolers? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:45, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

== C.S. Lewis ==

Assuming that homeschooling refers to the primary method of schooling that a child received, Lewis' homeschooling was only through age 10. Under those circumstances, would it be more appropriate to remove him from this list? Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:17, 13 December 2007 (EST)

: Being homeschooled through age 10 is significant, as that teaches the reading, math and thinking skills used the rest of one's life. The education Lewis received from his homeschooling was probably almost equivalent to a high school education today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:32, 13 December 2007 (EST)

== Related article request ==

Please create the following ancillary articles and incorporate some of the following within the main article:

*[[Homeschooling Resources]]
*[[Christian Homeschooling]]
*[[Homeschooling Materials]]
*[[Online Homeschooling]]
*[[Homeschooling Programs]]
*[[Homeschooling Information]]
*[[Homeschooling Help]]
*[[Homeschooling Supplies]]
*[[Homeschooling Curriculums]]
*[[Classical Homeschooling]]
*[[Homeschooling Software]]
*[[Homeschooling and Math]]
*[[School Violence]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:34, 13 December 2007 (EST)

== Leonardo da Vinci homeschooled? ==

Could somebody explain how Leonardo da Vinci was homeschooled? Here is his current entry in the list of "Prominent people who were educated at home":
{{cquote|Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519), Italian artist, inventor, and all-around "Renaissance man". Leonardo went to school in Vinci, where he learned to write, to read and to calculate, and was taught geometry and Latin. At 14, Leonardo moved to Florence where he began an apprenticeship in the workshop of Verrocchio.}}
Right now, this entry sticks out, so I'd be happy if somebody could clarify... --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 10:48, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Bobby Darin

2007-12-30T21:15:37Z

JakeC: Barebone wikilinking and bolding

A frail '''Walden Robert Cassotto''' entered the world on May 14, 1936 in [[New York City]]. Rheumatic fever as a child would damage his [[heart]], with doctors concerned he wouldn't live much beyond his teens. With an early interest in music, he would master several musical instruments, including the piano, guitar, harmonica and drums. Graduating from high school with a genius-level [[IQ]], he attended college on a scholarship for a year, but would cut short his formal education to perform in small nightclubs in the Bronx and in the Catskill’s.

At twenty years of age he recorded unsuccessfully for Decca Records and a year later in 1957 signed with Atco Records where the following year a song he wrote, “Splish Splash” leaped to the top of the charts peaking at #3 nationally. Before the year ended he would return with, “Early in the Morning” and a top ten hit, “Queen of the Hop”. 1959 would began with another song penned by Bobby Darin, “Dream Lover” that peaked at #2 and would be followed by his biggest chart topper, the multi million selling worldwide hit, “Mack The Knife”.

The decade of the 60’s began with Bobby hitting the top ten with “Beyond the Sea”, followed by “Clementine”, “Won’t You Come Home Bill Bailey”, “Artificial Flowers”, “Lazy River”, “You Must Have Been a Beautiful Baby”, “Irresistible You” and in 1962 after moving to Capitol Records, “Things”, “You’re The Reason I’m Living” and “18 Yellow Roses”. Bobby recorded his final top ten hit in 1966, “If I Were A Carpenter” for Atlantic Records.

Darin had a wide range of talent and an overwhelming need to make it big in show business, winning two [[Grammy Award]]s in 1960 for “Best New Artist” and “Record of the Year” for “Mack The Knife” that would also become a Grammy Hall of Fame winner.

Headlining in [[Las Vegas]] at The Sands, The Hilton and The Flamingo, Bobby would play to sell out crowds at the famed Copacabana in New York, breaking even the attendance records of Frank Sinatra.

As a talented actor, Bobby Darin appeared in more than a dozen [[motion picture]]s and was nominated for an Oscar for his 1963 performance in the file "Captain Newman M.D." He also received a Golden Globe for Most Promising Male Newcomer, for his role in “Pressure Point”.

In 2004, actor Kevin Spacey directed and produced a film about the life of Bobby Darin, “Beyond The Sea”.

Inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1990, he was also honored with a star on the [[Hollywood]] Walk of Fame.

Following open heart surgery to repair a heart valve, Bobby Darin died at 37 years of age on December 20, 1973. He had hoped his legacy was “to be remembered as a great entertainer and a human being”.

In 2007 Bobby Darin was inducted into the Hit Parade Hall of Fame.

==External Links==
*[http://www.bobbydarin.net/main.html Official Bobby Darin Website]

[[Category:Musicians|Darin, Bobby]]

Perry Como

2007-12-30T21:11:33Z

JakeC: Barebone wikilinking and bolding

'''Pierino Ronald “Perry” Como''' was born in Canonsburg, [[Pennsylvania]] on May 18, 1912, the middle child in a family of 13 children.

As a singer, the inﬂuence and style of [[Bing Crosby]] was evident. Throughout a career spanning more than half a century Perry recorded exclusively for the RCA Victor label after signing with them in 1943. He sold millions of records for RCA but he also pioneered a weekly musical variety television show which set the standard and proved one of the most successful television history.

His weekly [[television]] shows and seasonal specials were broadcast throughout the world for which his popularity seemingly had no geographical or language boundaries. He was equally at ease in live performance or in the conﬁnes of a recording studio. His appeal spanned generations and he was widely respected for both his professional standards and the conduct of his personal life. In the ofﬁcial RCA Records Billboard Magazine memorial, his life was summed up in these few words: “50 years of music and a life well lived. An example to all.”

Perry's first top ten was "Long Ago and Far Away" in 1944.

In 1945 Perry Como’s pop ballad “Till the End of Time” (based on Chopin’s “Polonaise in A-Flat”) was his ﬁrst chart topper, followed by more than a dozen number one hits including,“Prisoner Of Love”, “Surrender”, “Chi-Baba, Chi-Baba”, “A-You’re Adorable”, “Some Enchanted Evening”, “Hoop-De-Doo”, “If”, “Don’t Let The Stars Get In Your Eyes”, “No Other Love”, “Wanted”, “Hot Diggity (Dog Ziggity Boom)”, “Round And Round” and “Catch A Falling Star”

With nearly 150 recordings on the Hit Parade, among Perry’s top ten hits were, “When You Were Sweet Sixteen”, “I Wonder Who’s Kissing Her Now”, “Forever and Ever”, “Ko-Ko-Mo”, “If I Loved You”, “A Bushel And A Peck”, “They Say It’s Wonderful”, “Because”, “Far Away Places”, “Papa Loves Mambo”, “Magic Moments”, “I’m Always Chasing Rainbows”, Bali Hai”, “Tina Marie”, “Kewpie Doll”, “Glendora” and “It’s Impossible”.

With his beloved wife of 65 years, Roselle, departing life in 1998 Perry lived quietly in their home in Jupiter Inlet Colony, [[Florida]] until he too died quietly in his sleep on May 12, 2001, just six days before his eighty-ninth birthday.

In 2007 Perry Como was inducted into the Hit Parade Hall of Fame.

Nat "King" Cole

2007-12-30T21:07:39Z

JakeC: Barebone wikilinking and bolding

'''Nathaniel Adams Coles''' was born in Montgomery, [[Alabama]] on March 17, 1919.

Inspired by the playing of [[Fatha Hines]], Nat Cole began his performing career in the mid 1930s while he was still a teenager, and adopted the name '''Nat “King” Cole''' presumably from the nursery rhyme about “Old King Cole”.

In 1944 his ﬁrst hits as a [[vocalist]] were “Straighten Up and Fly Right”, “It’s Only a Paper Moon” and “Sweet Lorraine.” In 1946, his first #1 chart topper, "I Love You For Sentimental Reasons" and “The Christmas Song,” still an annual holiday favorite, began to create his "velvet voice" image.

His stature as a popular icon was cemented during the 1950’s with “Nature Boy, “For Sentimental Reasons”, Nat’s signature song “Unforgettable”, “Mona Lisa”, “Embraceable You”, “Walkin’ My Baby Back Home”, “Get Your Kicks on Route 66”, “Smile”, “Pretend”, “If I May”, “Darling Je Vous Aime Beaucoup”, “A Blossom Fell”, “Answer Me My Love”, “Forgive My Heart”, “To Young To Go Steady”, “Night Lights”, “Ballerina”, “Send For Me”, “Looking Back” and “Non Dimenticar.”

As the 1960’s progressed, Nat once again found success with Hit Parade toppers, “Ramblin’ Rose”, “Dear Lonely Hearts”, “Those Lazy-Hazy-Crazy Day of Summer” and “That Sunday, That Summer”.

Over a period of 23 years, Nat King Cole landed on the Hit Parade 118 times with 21 top ten hits.

With more than 50 albums to his credit, Nat Cole’s unparalleled sale of records helped fuel much of [[Capitol Records]]’ success it the labels early years and is widely acknowledged to have played a signiﬁcant role in ﬁnancing the distinctive Capitol Records building on Vine Street in [[Los Angeles]], [[California]]. Completed in 1956, the world’s ﬁrst circular ofﬁce building was and is known by many as “the house that Nat built.”

Nat “King” Cole was the ﬁrst [[African American]] to have his own radio program. He repeated that success in the late-1950s with the ﬁrst truly national television show starring an African-American.

At just 45 years of age, Nat “King” Cole, a heavy smoker, died of [[lung cancer]] in February 1965 while still at the height of his singing career.

In 2007 Nat "King" Cole was inducted into the Hit Parade Hall of Fame

Chubby Checker

2007-12-30T21:03:16Z

JakeC: Barebone wikilinking and bolding

While he was raised in [[South Philadelphia]], '''Ernest Evans''' was born in Spring Gulley, [[South Carolina]] on October 3, 1941.

Adopting the name '''Chubby Checker''', he would become a star after recording the multi million seller “The Twist” and popularizing a [[dance]] craze that would sweep the world.

He is the only artist in Hit Parade history during the rock era to have the same recording reach #1 twice, in 1960 and again in 1962.

Capitalizing on other dances Chubby hit with “The Hucklebuck” in 1960, “Pony Time” and “The Fly” in 1961 and “Limbo Rock” in 1962.

Among his 35 visits to the Hit Parade, were “Let’s Twist Again”, “Jingle Bell Rock”, “Slow Twisting”, “Popeye The Hitchiker”, “Dancin’ Party”, “Birdland” and “Loddy Lo”.

In 2007 Chubby Checker was inducted into the Hit Parade Hall of Fame.

Quechua

2007-12-30T20:34:48Z

JakeC: So I told myself, "Hey, let's find some sources for Quechua - how hard can it be?"... I'll be more careful with such questions next time.

'''Quechua''' is a [[Native American]] language of [[South America]]. It was spoken by the [[Inca]]s<ref>[http://www.quechua.org.uk/Eng/Main/i_INTRO.HTM#HistoryUpToConquest Introduction to the Indigenous Languages of Latin America] (Origins: History up to the European Conquest)</ref> and still survives in areas that were inhabited by the Incas, including [[Peru]], [[Bolivia]], [[Ecuador]], and [[Colombia]]. However, it should be noted that the language predates the Incas by centuries.<ref>[http://www.quechua.org.uk/Eng/Main/i_MYTHS.HTM#DidQuechuaComeFromTheIncas Popular (and damaging) Myths about Quechua] (Did Quechua Come from the Incas?)</ref>

An interesting aspect of Quechua is that it uses a three-vowel system, omitting "e" and "o".<ref>[http://www.zompist.com/quechua.html A few words on Quechua]</ref> The grammar is mainly isolating, making it typologically similar to [[Chinese]]. The exception is for mood and aspect, which are typically marked by adjectival inflection.<ref>[http://www.zompist.com/kitgram.html The Language Construction Kit] - "Is your language inflecting, agglutinating, or isolating?"</ref> The language also includes question particles.<ref>[http://www.zompist.com/kitgram.html The Language Construction Kit] - "How do you form yes-no questions?"</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Languages]]

Four Noble Truths

2007-12-30T19:48:22Z

JakeC: Answering "fact" with an external link.

{{stub}}

The '''Four Noble Truths''' are four central teachings of [[Buddhism]], declared by [[Gautama Buddha]]. They are:
# Life means suffering
# Suffering is caused by attachment to fleeting things
# The elimination of attachment is possible
# The [[8-Fold Path]] is the means by which to do this.

==External Links==
*The Big View - [http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html The Four Noble Truths]

Debate:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?

2007-12-30T19:33:20Z

JakeC: "nowiki" tags for the "fact" calls since they weren't used to actually specify something that needs to be cited. This debate title also led to the category table having odd dimensions.

{{debate}}

==Yes==

If im to be asked, i have seen few pretty questionable bans, but i can now remember only two specific ones that fit the queastion. Those are the bans of Catwatcher and Jacobin when editing article Deceit. Both where banned for 3 days, if i remember correctly. Jacobin for deleting the uncited claim that liberalists dont teach that deceit is wrong and Catwathcher from adding <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> to the claims in the article. Didn't know where to search for the logs anymore, but if anyone can find those and provide more about the reason of the bans, please feel free.

Furthermore i think the 90%/10% rule is used here mostly to shut up the people presenting inconvient questions or atleast scare them to be quiet. and i think examples from that are plenty. Most reasent in my opinnion is Mr. Aschlafly:s response to Hacker at his talk page regarding the series of questions Hacker made. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:00, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

My Evidence (for what it's worth):

See [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=119239&oldid=119227| this edit]] to which the response was:

:"Catwatcher, you've been warned before. This time I see that defaced my entry on deceit. This is not Wikipedia. Ideological, unjustified edits like that will result in blocking your account.--Aschlafly 17:58, 20 April 2007 (EDT) "

and [[User talk:Aschlafly#Response_to_accusations_of_ideology | and my reply]] which resulted in a three day ban. The ban was ostensibly for "sarcasm", the reason being that I claimed not to know any liberals. Actually this is true. I live in Britain, and we do not have the same liberal/conservative split which seems to underpin this wiki (in fact its hard to tell these days who is on what side of the political divide!) We have Liberal Democrats, who are a different kind of liberal, and not the same as U.S. liberals. I was actually doing what I usually do in debate, that is playing [[devil's advocate]], and I did not deserve a ban, much less a threat to have my account blocked. I did not get a chance to say any of the above, as the ban was imposed with immediate effect. In Britain, if such behaviour occurred in the workplace or school, we would call it bullying. That statement will now probably get me another ban or, more probably, a block; but there you go, that's conservapedia --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:08, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

One can be banned on this site merely for asking a question. A few days ago, there was a new user on the site named “Thammersmith” or something like that. He claimed to be a student at Liberty University and the powers that be at Conservapedia were considering him making him a Sysop. Aschlafly discovered that “Thammersmith” (or something like that) was actually at the U of Wisconsin, Madison, and commented that the student could expect a visit from campus security. I merely asked “why do you think that UW Madison campus security will do anything? He did nothing illegal, nor anything that had an adverse affect on the campus community.” Within 30 minutes, without giving me a reason, my account was blocked, and my question deleted. So, for asking a simple question, one can find themselves kicked off this site. 1048247

#"Asking a simple question" is not the same as "pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements".
#That comment was not a "simple question". It contained an assertion that faking one's identity is not illegal. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:08, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::But is it illegal on this site? That doesn't make sense. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:11, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I noted that "Thammersmiths" (or whatever his name was) act was not illegal. I was surpirsed that Conservapedia seemed to think that UWM would do anything about it. I work on a university campus, and thought that odd.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 14:21, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:Making up an online idenity is not illegal. I do believe however making threats against someone is. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Right. And "Thammersmith" did not threaten anyone--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 17:15, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry ... didn't mean to imply he did, I was referring to the threat of a visit from campus security. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 17:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

No Problem. I thought the notion that campus security would visit the student strange, and perhaps, if one wanted to view it this way, it could be considered a form of cyber-bullying.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 17:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:It was fairly clear that [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] was blocked for questioning accuracy and verifiability. Of course some other excuse was given. I couldn't find it in the rules though. I was threatened with the 90/10 [[rule]] for inquiring about it. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=127442&oldid=127424]
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 17:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::It seems to be a common practice among some sysops, see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGeo.plrd&diff=122364&oldid=122360 here].
::[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 06:52, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==No==

I'm a refugee from Wikipedia, and
I've been at Conservapedia for five weeks. After a mere six days, I was made a sysop. I have worked closely with TK to manage (quell?) a lot of the senseless clamoring about alleged systemic bias here.

As far as I know, not a single person has ever been "blocked" for expressing disagreement with a conservative position. Conservapedia welcomes opposing views.

However, mean-spirited attacks on people or their beliefs are not tolerated. I have asked critics to tone down their rhetoric. I have used the {{tl|remove personal remark}} template to encourage clean debate. I have spent countless hours emailing and instant messaging, begging people to be nice.

When users refuse to follow the civility guidelines, they must be excluded from the discussion - at least temporarily. I disagree here with our project director Mr. Schlafly on the length of user blocks. When people act like kids, I think we should treat them like kids and give them a "time out".

Both Mr. Schlafly and TK have taken me to task more than once, because I have been too kind and accommodating. It's just the way I am: I have taught Sunday School and am training Sunday School teachers. The bishop of my church says, "You can't make people change." You can count on the fingers of one hand the users whom I have "blocked" but who have chosen to make a turnaround (like St. Paul?) and adhere to the rules of this web site.

I hope that contributors will be polite at all times. I also hope that contributors will describe views which run counter to U.S. conservatism, but that they will do so in accordance with the guidelines established by this site.

Please see [[:Conservapedia:Guidelines]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:01, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:''As far as I know, not a single person has ever been "blocked" for expressing disagreement with a conservative position. Conservapedia welcomes opposing views.'' Honestly, mr. Poor, have you seen the history of the [[Deceit]] page? Were the blockings of Jacobin, Catwatcher and AmesG at all unrelated to them removing or adding "<nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>" to the unsubstantiated claims made in that article? Or am I entirely mistaken here? --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 15:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Golly, I'm pinned down behind enemy lines and taking fire. Now what'll I do? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Change sides, its fun here on the dark liberal side ;) [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:38, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Don't shoot back because tracers work both ways. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 17:40, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Harry Potter

2007-12-30T19:26:14Z

JakeC: /* Criticisms */ One less article tagged with "fact". Replaced somewhat vague paganism allegation with sourced criticism of how children may actively explore it.

[[Image:67486ruy.jpg|right|thumb|British edition of '''Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone'''.]]
The '''Harry Potter''' books are a hugely popular <ref> The author has sold 350 million books and counting, been translated into 65 languages and had her work made into highly successful movies. [http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3811481&page=1 ABC News] </ref> series of seven popular fantasy novels by [[J.K. Rowling]] about three children at a British boarding school: Harry, Ron and Hermione. The children grow from age 11 to 17 in the books, giving them appeal to a broad range of readers including children and teenagers, but also appealing to adults.

==Harry Potter==
'''Harry Potter''' is the [[protagonist]] and the plot of each book focuses on Harry's adolescence and fight against the [[antagonist]] wizard Lord Voldemort. The books combine elements of whimsy reminiscent of [[Alice in Wonderland]], the strange adult immaturity of [[Through the Looking Glass]], and the implacable good vs. evil fight of [[Lord of the Rings]].

When Harry was a mere baby, [[Voldemort]] murdered his parents, and he never found out that his parents were [[wizard (fiction)|wizard]]s until his 11th birthday (it came as a giant surprise). [[Hagrid]] took him to [[Diagon Alley]] for robes, books and wand; then on to [[Hogwarts]], a boarding school for wizards and witches. He had many adventures there learning [[magic]] and using it to fight the forces of the [[Voldemort|wizard]] who killed his [[parent]]s when he was an [[infant]]. Along the way, Harry learns about life and [[death]] and grapples with questions of [[morality]] and [[friendship]]. There are seven books in total to the series.

The books have been fabulously successful, selling 300 million copies, and [[Forbes]] estimates that they have made Rowling the first billion-dollar [[author]] in history.<ref>[http://www.forbes.com/maserati/billionaires2004/cx_jw_0226rowlingbill04.html J. K. Rowling And The Billion-Dollar Empire].</ref> To date, five of them have been made into movies, the sixth to begin filming September 2007.

The Harry Potter series of [[book]]s are sizable volumes. The 870 pages of ''Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,'' even though printed in large type, contain 255,000 words—about twice as long as ''A Tale of Two Cities.'' The "Lexile" measure of reading level puts the series between 880L and 950L,<ref>For comparison: Charlotte's Web 680L, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland 890L, Moby Dick 1200L</ref> comparable to sixth-grade texts<ref>[http://www.lexile.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?view=fa&tabindex=4&tabid=22 The Lexile framework for reading].</ref>

== Christian Themes in Harry Potter ==

This section contains information and spoilers that should not be read by someone who wants to be "surprised" by the end of the series in '''''Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows'''''.

Despite some criticism from mainline Christians who oppose Harry Potter for allegedly endorsing witchcraft, the series includes some demonstrably Christian themes. Specifically, Harry's death and rebirth at the end of Book VII ("Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows") is reminiscent of the rebirth of Christ: just as the savior of humanity was reborn, so Harry Potter, as the fictional savior of the magical world, is reborn. Further, this rebirth carries a special, significant guardianship trait: as Christ died to forgive the sins of humanity, resulting in salvation for all mankind, so Harry's death grants a protective magic to himself and to his friends, not unlike the "Deep Magic" written of in [[C.S. Lewis|Lewis']] [[Chronicles of Narnia]]. Harry Potter, then, teaches the nobility of sacrifice, and the underlying importance of love, two deeply Christian themes.

Harry's mother also gave up ''her'' life to save Harry's life. It is by his mother's love that Harry is protected from Voldemort's power. This specifically pushes The theme of Jesus giving his life on the cross for our sins. By his love people in this world can be saved eternally.

==Criticisms==

The Harry Potter series is written in a way that embeds fantasy and wizardry into a real world setting. This makes it hard for children to distinguish between fantasy and reality, leading to some of them potentially exploring witchcraft, Wicca, and paganism. In fact, the Pagan Federation in Britain has received a flood of inquiries from young Harry Potter fans.<ref>About.com: Agnosticism/Atheism - [http://atheism.about.com/od/harrypotter/i/witchcraft_2.htm Does Harry Potter Promote Wicca or Witchcraft? Is Harry Potter a Pagan Book?] (page 2)</ref>

In 2002, a Presbyterian publishing house published ''The Gospel According to Harry Potter: Spirituality in the Stories of the World's Most Famous Seeker,'' in which "glimmers of the Gospel" are illustrated by reference to the Potter books. The author acknowledges she was "replicating the techniques used by anti-Potter critics to look for exactly the opposite of what they were looking for." She notes that Rowling, although "reserved" in announcing her religious beliefs, "openly declares her faith in God and attends the Church of Scotland."<ref>Neal, Connie (2002), ''The Gospel According to Harry Potter: Spirituality in the Stories of the World's Most Famous Seeker,'' Westminster John Knox Press (an imprint of Presbyterian Publishing, Inc.), ISBN 0-664-22601-9; "replicating the techniques of anti-Potter critics," p. xiv; Rowling's beliefs, p. xii.</ref>

In 2003, a [[Vatican]] representative said the books, "aren't serving as the banner for an anti-Christian theology.... I don't think there's anyone in this room who grew up without fairies, magic, and angels in their imaginary world." <ref>Sink, Mindy (2003), "The Split Verdict on Harry Potter,"
''The New York Times,'' March 8, 2003, p. B6; representative quoted is Rev. Don Peter Fleetwood, who "helped draft a Vatican document on New Age phenomena."</ref>

Some expect children's' literature to present characters that are idealized role models, and to teach simple, explicit life lessons. However, the world of Harry Potter is one in which adult authority figures are complex, imperfect, and occasionally ludicrous (as they are in ''Alice in Wonderland.''). Some teachers in the series are boring, or outright incompetent, while others are supportive and protective (like [[Dumbledore]] and [[Lupin]]).

==Notable Ban Attempts==

On the week of April 10, 2006, Georgia mother of four, Laura Mallory, filed an appeal with the Gwinnett Board of Education in an attempt to remove the Harry Potter series from Gwinnett schools. Ms. Mallory (Who, by her own admission, has never read any of the Harry Potter books) stated on the appeal form that she wished the books removed due to their "evil themes, witchcraft, demonic activity, murder, evil blood sacrifice, spells and teaching children all of this.".<ref>[http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=32&url_subchannel_id=&url_article_id=14074&change_well_id=2]</ref> The local board of education denied the request, as they felt the banning of Harry Potter would necessitate the banning of all books with reference to witches, including plays like [[Macbeth]] and even stories like [[Cinderella]].<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15127464/ Georgia mom seeks ban on Harry Potter]</ref> Ms. Mallory has since appealed the ruling twice to no avail.<ref>[http://www.wtvm.com/Global/story.asp?S=5022462&nav=8fap]</ref> <ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16204853/from/]</ref> <ref>[http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/011807dnentpotterprotest.a89cec.html]</ref>

Similar concerns have been voiced by Christian cartoonist [[Jack Chick]], pastor and author [[Dave Hunt]], the British group [[Christian Voice]] and various others. None of these have resulted in any form of legal action.

==Series titles==
*[[Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone]] (original title as published in England and all other English speaking countries other than U.S.A: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone)
*[[Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets]]
*[[Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban]]
*[[Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire]]
*[[Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix]]
*[[Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince]]
*[[Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Harry Potter universe]]
[[Category:Book]]

Template talk:Fact

2007-12-30T19:08:33Z

JakeC: /* I need some sysop attention here (REALLY URGENT) */

Given the frequency of this template's use, the unlikelihood that it will change in the future, and how often it has been a target of vandalism... it would probably be a good idea to protect this. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Good Idea! Done.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== I need some sysop attention here (REALLY URGENT) ==

Could a sysop ''please'' close the "noinclude" tag? It's a small thing, but it has horrible consequences. See for example [[Template:Examples of Liberal Bias]] where the documentation gets added after every Fact Tag. To show that it's really this template that's causing it, I'll attach it once below this post. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 13:58, 30 December 2007 (EST)
:Update: Fixed. Thanks, Ed! Were you patrolling the recent changes or did you just notice this issue around the same time I did? --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 14:02, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::patrolling, using software I myself designed ... --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:05, 30 December 2007 (EST)

:::Now I have to imagine some sort of Red Alert claxon rigged to your computer which goes off whenever the Recent Changes contain the words "urgent" or "sysop"... --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 14:08, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Template talk:Fact

2007-12-30T19:03:24Z

JakeC: /* I need some sysop attention here (REALLY URGENT) */ "nowiki" for the fact template itself to remove it from the "Articles with unsourced statements" category

Given the frequency of this template's use, the unlikelihood that it will change in the future, and how often it has been a target of vandalism... it would probably be a good idea to protect this. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Good Idea! Done.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== I need some sysop attention here (REALLY URGENT) ==

Could a sysop ''please'' close the "noinclude" tag? It's a small thing, but it has horrible consequences. See for example [[Template:Examples of Liberal Bias]] where the documentation gets added after every Fact Tag. To show that it's really this template that's causing it, I'll attach it once below this post. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 13:58, 30 December 2007 (EST)
:Update: Fixed. Thanks, Ed! Were you patrolling the recent changes or did you just notice this issue around the same time I did? --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 14:02, 30 December 2007 (EST)
===Example===
<nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> (Not needed since it's fixed now)

Template talk:Fact

2007-12-30T19:02:06Z

JakeC: Thanks, Ed!

Template talk:Fact

2007-12-30T18:58:25Z

JakeC: I need some sysop attention here (REALLY URGENT)

User talk:JakeC

2007-12-30T03:04:54Z

JakeC:

{{Welcome}} --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:07, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Hi. Good point about the [[Pizza Hut ad]]. And I liked [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Papyrus&diff=prev&oldid=359583 this rewrite]. Welcome, and keep up the good work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:00, 29 December 2007 (EST)
:Thanks, and glad you liked the rewrite (though it wasn't much, really). I tend to hit "Random Page" a lot in short breaks, so you can expect me to do some more small cleanup in articles every now and then. But don't worry, I'm working on more notable content contributions, too. :) (It should be noted, though, that one could spend months just touching up the existing articles. And while it's not in the same league as writing epic new articles, it helps the overall image of the site, I think.) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 22:04, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Heavy metal music

2007-12-29T22:49:20Z

JakeC: Folks, there is an easy solution: Citations.

{{uncited}}
'''Heavy Metal''' was developed around 1969 and 1974 from Psychedelic and Blues Rock and Classical music. The aural aspects of metal generally revolve around highly-amplified guitar distortion, fast guitar solos and harsh vocals.

== Heavy Metal music and Spirituality ==

While Anti-Christian sentiments are quite common amongst the extreme metal sub genres, especially black and death metal, there is a large amount of heavy metal with an overtly Christian message (i.e, As I Lay Dying, Believer, Stryper) and several musicians of the genre are openly Christian, though very few outside Christian metal could be called fundamentalists. Such musicians include: Tom Araya, Dave Mustaine, Dave Ellefson, Chris Jericho, Max Calvera, and Dan Spitz. Some popular ensembles to this effect are [[Underoath]], [[P.O.D.]], [[He Is Legend]], and [[Norma Jean]]. One of the most popular Christian Metal labels is [[Tooth and Nail Records]].

== Criticism ==

While some metal bands may claim to be Christian, most of metal bands are opposed to Christianity. The "Devil-Horns" hand signal is a common gesture made in metal culture. This is done by placing your ring, and middle finger together along with your thumb and then raising your index and pinky fingers. This is done to look like the horns of [[Satan]]. Worship of Satan is prominent among several heavy metal bands. Many bands create giant props of Satan for their concerts accompanied with flames and fireworks in order to recreate the conditions of [[Hell]]. Besides Satanic criticism, Heavy Metal music has been known to promote violence, sex and suicide among youths.

== Sub Genres ==

'''The following are sub genres of heavy metal:'''
*[[Black Metal]]
*[[Death Metal]]
*[[Thrash Metal]]
*[[Speed Metal]]
*[[New Wave Of British Heavy Metal]]
*[[Doom Metal]]
*[[Folk Metal]]
*[[Viking Metal]]
*[[Power Metal]]
*[[Progressive (or Avant-Garde) Metal]]
*[[Gothic Metal]]
*[[Swedish Death Metal]]
*[[Satan's Fire Metal]]

== Heavy Metal Bands ==

'''The following artists are considered to be heavy metal:'''
*[[Metallica]]
*[[Pantera]]
*[[Megadeth]]
*[[Ozzy Osbourne]]
*[[Black Sabbath]]
*[[Rob Zombie]]
*[[Marilyn Manson]]
*[[Spinal Tap]]
*[[Opeth]]
*[[AC/DC]]
*[[Alice Cooper]]
*[[KISS]]
*[[Slayer]]
*[[Anthrax]]

[[Category:Music]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-12-29T19:18:41Z

JakeC: /* Another example of Wikipedia silliness */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== "Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D." ==

Here is Wikipedia's policy:

"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it)."

Much of the world has been using the so-called "Common Era" indicator for some time. This is the same reason that Wikipedia occasionally allows British spellings (i.e. colour or fibre) and use of the metric system in articles - hardly evidence of bias. A ''restriction'' of the usage of C.E. or B.C.E., on the other hand, would be Western-centric and biased.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*Archibald, your posting borders on the pedantic! How many articles, using AD or BC actually remain that way? Editors are constantly changing to the secular-progressive CE. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:*A "Pedant" is one who focuses on trivialities while ignoring the big picture. This word does not apply to my post. Wikipedia policy tries to avoid ANY date suffixing to avoid this type of controversy. The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system. Nevertheless, Wikipedia neither supports it nor discourages it. This cannot be bias. To research your claim, I jumped to five random historical articles on Wiki. Three used AD/BC dating, and two used no dating (just writing, for example, "The year 1300"). In my experience editors who terraform an article to change its dating system are usually disciplined. If I attempt to go through an article and append "AD" to every date, you can be sure my edit will be reverted by an editor. Again, Wiki neither discourages not supports any counting system.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 00:00, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::'''"The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system"'''
:: Huh? I doubt this is true, but if it is it is an example of enforced [[politically correct]] speech and nothing more. I ''never'' heard of "C.E." until about 1996, and even then in 1996 it was only in the context of a [[pagan]] writer openly hostile to the [[Christian]] basis of Western culture. If it is in common usage today, I would ask why, who decreed that it should be in common usage, who is promoting it, and what their real agenda is? "C.E." is a [[neologism]]. It was not in significant usage prior to the past few years, and probably not used at all before the 1990s. Use of neologisms is bias. I would go so far as to say that anything that came into common usage after about 1988, when the political correctness movement started becoming a significant force affecting the culture, is suspect because of the probable influence of [[multiculturalism]] and other aspects of the P.C. movement, and should be questioned at best and in most cases not used at all. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 22:39, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:" 'C.E.' is a [[neologism]]." That's true, and it's also true that "Common Era" dating catches on mainly with people who wish to remove references to Christ from daily life. (Laughably futile, as the date itself - still a reference to Christ's birth - is absolutely ingrained in the system.) Still, though prefer to continue using "A.D." and "B.C." because I see no reason to change, some tiny percentage of Wiki articles use "C.E." merely reflecting that a certain percentage of the population prefers that system.[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 09:56, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

== New #1 - WP's CP entry ==

Maybe add a line or two of how several sysops (Ed Poor, Karajou (editing as an anonymous IP), Mr. Martinez were the ones I spotted on the fly) edited the article and often tried to add their own bias to it, but apparently never, ever touched that claim you mentioned (which has been in the article since March or April, btw.)? (I didn't check each and every edit in the long edit history, but if my claim about the no-touching is wrong, I'll be happy to concede the point as soon as somebody shows me the diff), meaning that they apparently saw nothing wrong with it.

And sourcing aside, how can you say that CP is not supportive of YEC when you support sysops like Conservative and others, who openly push YEC in key articles, making it look like the most likely alternative while merrily bashing "evolutionism" and related old-earth concepts? CP seems to go to great lengths to make all issues connected to an old Earth look like some wild theory with no proof at all. If you wish to prove me wrong, be my guest. This is just my impression after a good while of lurking and posting. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:46, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::If I've added "bias" to an article, please give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Otherwise, I must assume you are simply making a personal attack for ideological reasons (as liberals habitually do). Ironically, liberals (when caught doing this) will then generally add insult to injury by claiming conservatives do what liberals actually do: again, without supplying actual examples. The term Democrats invented for this, the "politics of personal destruction", applies splendidly (or abysmally?) to liberals. I wish liberals would return to the roots of [[liberal education]] and use evidence and reason to make arguments, instead of groundless jabs. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:54, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::[meaningless blather omitted by sysop Ed Poor]
:::I stand by what I said, and exactly by what I said. What you or Andy try to put into my mouth is none of my business. If you feel like blocking me for that post, go ahead. But I feel you hurt me enough by slapping me around with your pretty little speech about ideological attacks and how liberals and Democrats attack without providing examples. But of course, that was anything but an attack or whatever. Here, just do it. I'll stand still. An hour? A day? A month? Or hey, maybe a permanent one! After all, Conservapedia has so many active editors left, it can easily afford to permanently block a guy who created, like, THIRTY or so most wanted pages within ten days. And oh, another block will do WONDERS for my motivation to help! Yes, all in the name of justice for my bad, bad attack. Do I sound bitter? ...can you be blocked for that? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:29, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Your motivation is not an issue. The only thing that matters is whether our readers can trust you. I asked you to give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Your response implied that you hadn't made the allegation at all. Then you went on an emotional tangent and (as I predicted) followed up your denial with a tit for tat attack, as if your failure to provide examples of your false accusation is excused by my not giving fresh examples of what is common knowledge: that liberals (like you) make ideological attacks without providing examples.

::::I don't know if you really believe what you are saying or are simply hoping to confuse the reader with convoluted arguments. But you can take a week to think over what you have done. Perhaps you will choose to clarify whether or not you think I have "added bias" to any encyclopedia article. Unless you are prepared to give an example, you would do well to take that back. That is the only way you can regain trust: by admitting your error.

::::Unlike liberals, we conservatives are very forgiving people. Just admit your mistake, embrace the truth and join us! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:04, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

: Your first paragraph, even if true, would not be a defense for [[Wikipedia]], so it is irrelevant and I'll ignore it.

: Your second paragraph fails to address the essence of [[Wikipedia]]'s defamation as quoted in point 1: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project '''with the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... Young Earth creationism."

::This is a great example of the danger of ellipses. Maybe it was different when whoever wrote this, but here's what it says now: "Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project with the stated purpose of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially- and economically-conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity." This is a true statement that few CPers would argue with. Young Earth creationism is mentioned in the next sentence, which makes this "quote" pathetically misleading and its attempted point laughably meaningless. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 15:08, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

: It's not just that Wikipedia's statement is false. It is defamatory as it attempts to smear [[Conservapedia]] with a falsehood in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[liberal]] audience. You are right that [[Wikipedia]] has featured that defamation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::The editing participation is important because you are portraying something as bias even though your sysops implicitly seemed to endorse it. You know how they say: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - and your "good men" seemed to do nothing. As such, it is not so much me defending WP, but rather me pointing out that your most recent addition seems to be built on sand.
::And what is Conservapedia's "stated purpose" then? I was not able to find anything that clearly defines its goals, at least not something that seems to be compatible with what I observe here (and that is pro-YEC and anti-atheism that goes well beyond the point of being "neutral to the facts").
::Furthermore, looking at the site certainly does give the impression that CP supports YEC, regardless of what you state. If anything, at least think about that one.
::However, I will drop the issue. Giving things a brief look, nobody ever managed to make you remove just one point from the list (again, if there are examples that prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to admit my mistake). So I'm happy enough with the fact that you replied and the hope that you will maybe think about the perceived image of the site. You can have the last word if you please, I'll be off editing. :) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Bow out if you like, but [[Wikipedia]]'s smear of Conservapedia is false and defamatory, and you seem unwilling to admit it. You defend Wikipedia's claim that Conservapedia has a certain "stated purpose," but then complain that you can't find any stated purpose at all. Wikipedia and its many lies and smears are not making the world a better place. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::::My hopefully last comment in this section to reply to the words you put into my mouth. Never did I defend WP or stated that this is indeed CP's stated purpose. You also flat-out ignore any point I made that is not directly connected to the issue you focus on, which is incredibly sad.
::::I am willing to agree with you that YEC is not CP's stated purpose. However, you seem to be unable or unwilling to show me CP's stated purpose. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of your sysops speak much louder than your claims of what CP does or does not support. You can look away if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the impression visitors get. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Jenkins, I didn't put any words in your mouth. And I don't have to provide a "stated purpose." [[Wikipedia]] lies about [[Conservapedia]], and after a numerous postings here you still won't admit it. I can assure you that intelligent visitors here are quite happy with what they find, which is why we're growing every day. If you prefer Wikipedia's lies, suit yourself. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

RE your claim about Wikipedia's article JESUS H. CHRIST. It simply tries to be neutral, gives several examples and notes that it can be considered blasphemy. Get a life![[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Although this is the wrong place to bring this up, 'Alloco1' is right - the wikipedia page for 'Jesus H. Christ' mentions that the phrase is considered blasphemy.

== Answer to TerryH, re universal applicability of the Bible ==

Terry, thank you for the reply; I will address the issues line by line.

To begin, I suggested that the nature of the Bible as a moral document makes reliance upon it as a historical or scientific document dubious at best, and a mis-characterization or overzealous cross-application, at worst. You reply that the Bible is good for any use, citing, of course, the Bible in reply: “every word written herein is properly instructive in any application” (2 Tim 3:15-:17). First, this is a circular argument, relying upon the Bible to confirm the veracity of… the Bible. Second, it’s a mis-characterization of the quote. The quote from the King James Version is:

{{cquote|All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.}}

Analyzing that quote, it actually backs up my perspective – this quote from Timothy asserts the applicability of the Bible to any moral question, and anything that “furnish[es] [man] unto all good works.” In essence, you prove my point: the cited authority confirms the Bible’s intention to be used as a moral treatise… nothing more.

And yet your assertion of universal applicability may be assailed from yet another angle. To paraphrase the hon. Justice Scalia, applying the Bible to foreclose inquiry into all fields of study – through a combination of your Timothy doctrine, and literalism – would essentially be the “dicta that ate the discoveries of man.” Your theory would advocate a holistic return to biblical law, biblical science, biblical medicine, and biblical life. I don’t know about you, but I certainly prefer my Excedrin to the Bible’s silence on the issue of headaches. Your construction, since it ends in absurdity, must fail.

And finally on this point, if the Bible was truly meant as applicable to all of life’s little problems, what must we make of Mark 16:18, which informs the “true believer” that he may drink poison without feeling its effects? A wise man will not test this statement, but will realize that it is intended as a figurative expression. However, according to you, since the Bible is applicable to any discipline, and must be accepted or rejected wholesale and literally, we are forced to conclude that true believers, like yourself, may drink poison unaffected. Would you like to test your faith? I don’t advise you to.

Your remaining arguments may be disposed of summarily. The fact of the Bible’s historicity on some counts ‘’cannot ‘’ be extrapolated to its historicity on ‘’’all’’’ counts. It has recently been proven that Herodotus’ account of obscure points of Italian history (that the Etruscans traveled to Italy from Asia, and were not native Italians) is correct, contrary to the findings of earlier ethnographers/historians/anthropologists. By your argument, since Herodotus was here vindicated, we must assume that all of his other findings are correct too… and yet no Cyclops has ever been seen in Egypt, nor has a phoenix been found. Perhaps it’s best to agree that the Bible is not a historical document, regardless of its truth on point in some circumstances, but is instead a moral treatise, and a valuable one at that.

And finally, I cannot believe that you would argue that because you have never observed evolution between species, it must not have occurred! For by your reasoning, neither God, nor you, actually exist! After all, I have seen neither of you.

I await your reply.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 15:40, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
All right, here is my reply in one word: Nonsense.

Your argument amounts to nothing more than an argument from incredulity. And in the process you deny what the [[Bible]] is. Did you bother to read the teachings of [[Jesus Christ]], and how He repeatedly alluded to the creation of the world--in six days? Six days of the familiar type, that is--not six "geological ages" or whatever the pretended flavor of the month.

I challenge you to find ''one single historical incident'' that the Bible records in any detail, in which the Bible got it wrong in any detail that it expressed. And you know what? St. [[Paul]] was bitten by a poisonous [[snake]] on [[Malta]] and felt no bad effect. Or didn't you read? And beyond that: the word about the poison means that you don't have to fear that which brings death to the body. To be absent from the body is to be in the presence of [[God]].

Which, of course, might explain why Christians consistently defended and repeated their testimony to the things that they had seen--including the appearance of [[Jesus Christ]] after His execution--even while the [[lion]]s were tearing at their flesh.

I'll go further: a holistic return to Biblical law, science, and medicine might not be such a bad idea after all. Dr. Joseph Mercola ([http://www.mercola.com/]) recently stated that conventional [[medicine]] is good primarily for diagnosis and the treatment of acute trauma--and little else. And as a doctor myself, I have come to discover that he is correct. And I am in a direct position to know: I recently lost my wife to colorectal [[cancer]]. Her doctors had to admit when pressed that they had ''no'' confidence in their own prescribed courses of treatment--and another doctor told me flat-out that conventional medicine has no good treatment for colorectal cancer--at least not when it has spread to the liver.

On the other hand, I have conversed with the relatives of people who had cancer that was far less advanced--and they achieved ''cures'' through nothing more expensive or complicated than simply changing their diets to a diet that has a Biblical basis.

The only reason I am bothering to dignify your screed above with this reply is that I would not have any other reader of this page ignorant of the extent to which I stand ready to defend [[Bible|Scripture]].

There--now you really didn't have to wait long, did you?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:07, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
edit to add:First of all, my deepest sorrows and sympathies about the loss of your wife. Cancer is awful, and cannot always be cured; sometimes all you can do is pray. But sometimes prayer isn't enough, and modern medicine has made amazing strides and progressions over oddly archaic practices, and will continue to make such strides. I have no doubt that, given enough time, science will progress to a point where innocent victims the world over can be saved. Keep in mind the thousands every day who avoid death by a little but of luck, but a lot a bit of modern medicine.

That being said, you still didn't answer all the points. I assume them either conceded or unimportant, so I'm confident I win out in the long run.

But I'd like to direct everyone reading to Terry's concession - the logical stopping point of literalism is a fundamentalist, theocratic state, as you suggest that it wouldn't be "so bad." I think we can just about stop here. This idea - which I actually thought to be my "straw man," or slippery slope argument, because no-one could seriously be advocating that - is so patently ludicrous as to not need rebuttal. If that's your honest belief, I'll just say three last things:
#What makes a Christian fundamentalist theocracy better than an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy?
#The very idea of biblical law, medicine, etcetera, is wholly antithetical to American culture, democracy, and our founding principles. This nation has become great through the work of progressive thinking, and above all, science, technology, and respect for the pure pursuit of truth. Fundamentalism, and the stagnation of thought that it requires, has no place in such a society, except for the private beliefs of the individual, which are of course his or her own exclusively. Which leads me to the next point...
#Does your fundamentalist ideal society have provision for non-fundamentalist persons?

I realize this is not my best effort, but I honestly don't feel like my best effort is needed to reply you. A doctor who's forgotten so much of his training as to advocate Biblical medicine... well, ''res ipsa loquitor''.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 18:29, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
I concede nothing, first of all. Rather, your post barely rates the dignity of any kind of reply--and a point-by-point rebuttal is a dignity you have not earned.

I would like to answer your questions, however:

#A "Christian theocratic state" will only come to pass when [[Jesus Christ]] Himself returns to [[earth]] to set it up and run it. In that sense, of course that would be better than the New Baghdad Caliphate that [[Osama bin Laden]] wants to set up, because [[God]]--in the Person of Christ--''would'' be in charge, and not some pretended proxy with galloping paranoia.
#In your second point, you are essentially saying that American culture, democracy, and founding principles were and always have been secular. Only someone having a profound ignorance of American history would believe that. I refer you to Benjamin F. Morris' ''Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States'', now back in print after 140 years. And I repudiate the notion that "progressive thinking" has made America great. If anything, "progressive thinking" is dragging America down. I sometimes wonder whether the reason why America bears no mention in the book of Revelation is that America is to go up in smoke and flame and tear gas, and the forces of the Beastly regime ({{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=13}})--in all its secular inglory--are to [[parachute]] into America's largest cities "to restore order," induct all American residents into the New Secular Humanistic Order, and carve up America like a roast duck, to borrow a phrase from Sir [[Winston Churchill]].
#Yes, there would be a place for non-fundamentalist persons. It is just that that place would not include a position of power that forbids public prayer, proposes an anti-religious test for public office, forces taxpayers to pay for atheistic "education", [[abortion]], and other such bad policies, limits the term of a marriage to seven years (as a certain German member-of-Parliament has actually proposed), allows a man to divorce his wife for no better reason than that she will not grant him sexual favors on demand, allows a man to order the [[Terri Schiavo|death of his wife so that he can be with his "sweet patootie,"]] compels the military to allow open [[Homosexuality|homosexuals]] to serve therein, ''et cetera ad nauseam''.

And by the way: the rumbling you hear is the clearing of a Divine throat when you of all people, speak to ''me'' of all people, about prayer.

More to the point, don't talk to me about modern medicine. I know what it is capable of, and I know what it is ''in''capable of. You don't mess around with the Grand Design of the Master. But that is what modern medicine does. To give you an example: I got a mere two lectures on nutrition--and you'd think that doctors, of all people, would understand that the food you eat is as important to your good health as is the air you breathe. For all the training doctors get in human nutrition, you'd think the hoped-for future is one in which people simply take pills to get their daily ration of protein, carbs, and fats, same as they take vitamin pills today.

But of course, you never met a doctor who wasn't an evolutionist. And more to the point: your confidence in science is poignantly misplaced. I suggest a bit of classical literature to give you a sobering lesson on how science can go horribly wrong: ''Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus'' by Mary Shelley.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
Dude, Frankenstein is a novel, as in... fictional. Sure, maybe science ''can'' go horribly wrong, but religion ''does'' go horribly wrong. Crusades, justifying slavery, fundamentalism, et al. And those aren't fictional.

Terry, I didn’t think you would go this far, but I should have known better. I should have expected the Rapture to come in at some point. I would like to recapitulate for those just joining us, about the myriad uses of the Bible in human life. I believe that the Bible is a good moral compass – after all, “do unto others…” is a timeless aphorism, and a fine creed upon which to live. Similar lessons of generosity are obviously important. As the foundation of a religion, then, the teaching of Jesus are quite fine indeed.

However, I confine the relevance of any religious text to these moral/ethical/religious boundaries. Terry, however, goes a bit farther:
# Science: where observed facts conflict with the Bible, these should be willfully ignored, debated away with poor, easily refuted pseudo-arguments, and in every other sense marginalized. Cognitive activity on the source of human origins is appropriately limited when it transgresses beyond the Bible, and potentially tramples on points settled by this text.
# Law: the law should freeze societal norms as they existed two-thousand years ago. Full return to this system is favored, presumably complete with stonings for adultery (which is defined as lust), and theft.
# Politics: from Terry’s latest post, we learn that human political affairs are irrelevant – after all, the Rapture is around the corner! The United States will soon be laid waste by the loving army of God… after all, a two-thousand year old allegorical tale about one disciple’s hate for the Roman Empire says so. This idea actually passes beyond superficiality to become full-blown dangerous idiocy.
# Religion: the Bible explains all of religion, at face value, and requires no deeper quest for knowledge than a cursory read-through. After all, literalism will supply all the answers, all the time. So much for the liberal arts (I guess the term does have the word “liberal” in it).
# Medicine: see “science.”

In short, the answer to all of life’s questions – all of those issues which God endowed us with the faculties to resolve – are answered (and answered definitively, without further need of inquest) by the Bible. The life of the mind is justly circumscribed by the four corners of a six-thousand-plus year old document which makes no attempt to actually speak to some of these issues. Exploration beyond these lines is at best valueless, but at worst ungodly, blasphemous and sinful.

Terry, this actually saddens me. Religion ought to be a transformative experience, liberating the human soul to allow the mind to expand more fully, of the type explored by the early Church fathers. But your “faith” rewrites Christianity into a religion of repose, where all questions are answered, and humanity need now only sit and wait for the next step. Humanity, under this creed, would stagnate: the dying Keats described himself as a man whose name was “writ in water” – impermanent, fleeting, and inconsequential. To you, the entire human race, and indeed the human mind, might as well be writ in water, with such control and self-determination given up to an inflexible document.

What shallow faith, if so it can even be called! To think that God could be found more in blind obedience than in inquest and discovery! How… limiting!-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
----
Well, let [[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] be sad, if that's what he wants to be.

#I repudiate the notion that I am ignoring observed fact. ''What observed fact?'' The facts that ''I'' have observed is that many proponents of evolution have committed fraud, trying to show the existence of missing links that are still missing. [[Piltdown Man]], anyone? I also observe that, for the first time, proponents of evolution think they have scored a point by declaring that evolution is not a random walk. Well, you could have fooled a lot of people who have read [[Richard Dawkins]]' books.
::I tried to stay out of this, but Darwinian evolution was never portrayed as a random walk. At least not by supporters. I hope I can stay out of the rest of your discussion, and continue watching. [[User:Order|Order]] 12:25, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
#The particularly harsh penalties in Leviticus, for example, are in the context of a particular group of people who actually ''had the privilege of having [[God]] in a sample of His Glory actually residing in their camp.'' With that privilege came a tremendous burden. You do not approach a Holy God in the wrong way. Thankfully, [[Jesus Christ]] provided a bridge--and a different mandate to His followers. We do not ''set ourselves apart'' from the world, quite as the ancient Hebrews under [[Moses]] did--but we do refuse to participate in the world's muddy customs. And that's where the "societal norms" come in: those are ways of relating to one another that have stood the test of time. The decline of those "norms" has brought nothing but grief and a constant quest for a satisfaction that never comes--or when it does, it lasts no longer than does a [[drug]] fix.
#Yes, indeed, the [[Bible]] does contain prophecies that remain unfulfilled. Chief among them is that a one-world federation will take power. But it will have nothing to do with God's army. That battle will come later--at a site that [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] once declared to be a wonderful place to have a battle. But before then--if anyone reading this seriously thinks that the [[United States of America]] has become a dictatorial regime under its current President, [[George W. Bush]], let them think again. A leader is coming who will make [[Adolf Hitler]] look like a beginner, and [[Nero]] look like a total piker. Revelation was no allegory for attacks against [[Rome]]--it was a memorandum of things to come.
#Of course the [[Bible]] explains everything. And what does it profit a man to "explore" a smelly swamp?
#As I have said before--and as the archives of this page will show--I am better qualified to talk about what modern medicine can and cannot do, should and should not do, than are some people who pretend to be champions of scientific and medical knowledge.

And as for Frankenstein--well, even Mary Shelley would have been horrified at the spectacle of [[abortion]] on demand, high-tech designer babies, "treatments" for [[cancer]] that burn your body from the inside out and end up failing anyway, and certain research orientations that are just flat-out unmentionable on a family-friendly site. I further maintain that [[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]]'s confidence in science exactly mirrors that of the proud and arrogant Baron Frankenstein who decided to "bestow animation on lifeless matter" and ended up creating the eventual murderer of his wife and many of his loved ones.
----
Off of your #1, though, I wasn't aware that a few failures in the intellectual history of a movement impugned the entire thing. Of course we can cross apply that logic, and Christianity sure ends up looking pretty badly, after people like Eric Rudolph are factored in.

As for the rest, I really think enough has been said here. Your arguments have been broken down for the world to see how ridiculous they really are, and will speak for themselves, and conjure their own rebuttals in the mind of any reasonably sane person. Please enjoy your intellectually dead life.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 12:41, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

==Homosexuality==
Wikipedia has separate articles on Homosexuality, Gay, Queer, LGBT, Homophile, Lesbian, Gay pride, LGBT social movements, Pro-gay slogans and symbols, Men who have sex with men, Queer theory, Gay Liberation, Coming out, Gay slang, and about 50 other articles on the same subject, instead of one single article on [[Homosexuality]]. One single article is all that is needed on a non-normative fringe subculture. Giving that one topic 50+ separate articles smacks of promotion and of implying unwarranted normativity to the phenomenon. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 21:39, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:This site has about 10 articles on homosexuality. What should that tell you?-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
:Parrothead, from what I can tell that's a pretty typical number of articles for a subject. For a comparison, a quick look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Christianity Christianity Portal] shows that there are thousands of articles on Christianity, most of which quite substantial. A search for "Christian" returns 4.7 times as many articles as this ''entire wiki''. They range from the obvious (Presbyterianism, Jesus) to the greatest of detail (ecclesiastical ring, Geneva Bible, Augustine of Hippo, Psalms 28).
:Before I get accused of a cover up, yes, there is also an extensive portal for LGBT. Combining the results of <code>homosexual</code> and <code>gay</code> and subtracting the quotient of <code>homosexual gay</code> and two gives a mere 1.4 times the size of this wiki. Of course, search results are fuzzy (Hans ''Christian'' Andersen, Enola ''Gay''), but you get the point. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 20:59, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::I was commenting on Wikipedia, not Conservapedia. If Conservapedia has a few articles with a leftist bias they need correcting too to make them NPOV, but in any case Wikipedia is clearly even more leftist biased than this encyclopedia ever will be. And Conservapedia does have a few articles with problems, mostly due to trolls from the far left who want to see this project fail. My position is this: For any NPOV encyclopedia, [[Gay]] should be a disambiguation article and nothing more, disambiguating to [[happiness]] and [[homosexuality]] as well as things like [[Enola Gay]]. The traditional meaning of happiness should be first and not any neologisms such as it's use as a synonym for homosexuality. Queer should likewise disambiguate to [[strange]] and [[homosexuality]], again with strange first on the list and the neologism use a definite second. "LGBT" and "Men who have sex with men" should just plain redirect to homosexuality. Wikipedia's use of "LGBT", a [[politically correct]] "'wimmin' first" construction, instead of the more commonly used "GLBT" has also not gone unnoticed. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 19:55, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm going to skip the response to MichaelS's comment. The gay article focuses on the uses of the word "gay," both historical and modern. That's why the original meaning is defined in '''the second sentence''' and there is an etomology section. A link to both a disambigation page and the Homosexuality article is kindly provided in the italicized text about the main article. Basically the same thing happens over at the Queer article, except this time the definition that means strange is given in the first sentence.
:::Terms like GLBT/LGBT and Men who have sex with men are not redirected to homosexuality for a good reason. First of all, most of the terms you listed are not synonymous. GLBT includes transsexuals and bisexuals, and Men who have sex with men includes men who are not homosexual. The other problem is that reasonably good coverage of the subjects takes a separate article for each one. If all of the articles in Wikipedia on the subject of homosexuality were put into one article then it would take Internet2 to get a decent download speed. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 17:10, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

:::: ''"and Men who have sex with men includes men who are not homosexual"'' ?!? No, men who have sex with men is the very definition of homosexuality. I think what you mean here is it includes men who don't wrap themselves in the dominant "gay culture", to wit: rainbow flags, gay pride parades, drag shows, calling each other 'honey', feminine mannerisms and lispy speech, over the top campy attitude, obsession with divas, preference for Abba and the Pet Shop Boys over, say, Lynyrd Skynyrd and Hank Williams Jr., strong propensity toward mocking Christianity and treating it as something ridiculous, and obsessive identity politics and political correctness. Doesn't matter. If a man is having sex with another man he is, ''by definition'', a homosexual. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 07:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

*Postal, all are behaviors that are abominations before [[The Lord]]! You are at the wrong place if you think we are going to be held hostage by [[Wikipedia]] politically correct, revisionist terms. I invite you to make positive contributions, new articles, edits to them, and not on the talk pages! This is the fastest growing educational site on the Internet! Please stop this endless discussion over what the word "is" is, okay? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:56, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

If we have not done so already, we should put to rest the notion that "men who have sex with men aren't [[homosexual]]". This is a typical part of the [[homosexual agenda]], to spread confusion about the subject.

A "[[homosexual act]]" is what is forbidden by the Bible. Whether or not the motivation to commit this sin stems from upbringing or some (unknown!) innate factor is not important. If you are a "born [[kleptomaniac]]", you still have an obligation to resist the impulse to steal. Otherwise, societies everywhere will lock you up.

If homosexual behavior is due to your being crazy (as in [[kleptomania]]), you should be locked up in an [[insane asylum]]. If it's due to your wilfull defiance of what is right, you should be locked up in a [[prison]]. (That is, in any society whose laws derive from the Bible; everyone seems to approve of Islamic [[sharia]] law, so why not do the same thing here in Christian America?)

Whether or not there is validity to the notions that homosexuals are defined by [[sexual identity]], or [[sexual orientation]] or [[sexual preference]], the fact remains that homosexual ''behavior'' is sinful. When the temptation comes, you must dispel it! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:07, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

:Now that you've beaten a straw man, soaked it in gasoline, and burnt it on top of the highest hill in your general vicinity...

:The MSM article was just an example, it was not my core argument. If you would like to argue against me, I suggest you instead argue against these three sentences:

:#Wikipedia uses the Gay and Queer articles in a proper manner by giving an in-depth explanation of use of the words, both original and modern.
:#Decent coverage of the subjects related to homosexuality could not comfortably fit into a single article.
:#Some terms, such as '''L'''esbian '''G'''ay '''B'''isexual '''T'''ransgendered, are separate concepts and therefore require separate articles. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 00:28, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Please note that I did not mean ''should be locked up'' to be taken literally. Someday, when I'm running for Senate, this quote will be used against me. *sigh* I should have said ''bears the guilt'' instead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:04, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:Glad to hear you say that. Remember, locking up homosexuals has been tried before. I can think of one notorious example.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:29, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

==No Entry for liberal==

This is a continuation of the currently archived discussion under the same name. The original can be found under archive 9.

Ed Poor, there are many fallacies in your argument. 1st, you claim that Wikipedia doesn't have a liberal article, but it does. It has a page that references to many different schools of liberal thought. Yet you dismiss the obvious fact that it doesn't dismiss the existence of liberals, but actually goes so far as to list the many different liberal ideologies. How is this denying that liberals exist?

2nd, you claim that Archibalds' assertion that liberalism has seen many different changes throughout history is irrelevant because he should have realized "Mr. Schlafly" meant contemporary U.S. liberals. First off, how is Archibald supposed to know that? Second, if he were to know that then why do you choose to ignore the article (which I've mentioned) entitled Modern American Liberalism, which is listed only 4th on the liberal page?

3rd, how can you assume Wikipedia is an American literary institution that must abide by standards of the U.S. Democratic Party in it's usage of the term liberal, when you yourself have been forced to admit that the term liberal has many different geographic and time-based meanings? Do you decide to ignore the non-U.S. contemporary definitions of liberal and simply have liberal refer to modern U.S. liberalism? It does sound like there is an agenda here, but it's not on Wikipedia's part.

Lastly, why is Archibald a liberal? Is it because he is disagreeing with you? I'm just curious - since you seem to be the throwing the name around. I'm a libertarian with conservative leanings, but it doesn't mean I'm about to jump aboard the anti-Wikipedia "liberal" agenda bandwagon. Wikipedia, as a literary encyclopedia which covers worldly topics, is right on target here, and I see very little bias. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 19:32, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no

:This is a redirect to a "disambiguation page". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:06, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

:I would have thought that wikipedia didn't have a term for liberal because it is a world wide encyclopaedia and so has liberalism disambiguation. Also the brief definition given as evidence Wikipedia is biased is clearly not a NPOV and liberals in many countries think differently. Many liberal political parties in other parts of the world don't support tax payer paid abortion (whatever is wrong with that) and think that gun ownership should be a personal choice.
:Sweden for example has national service and at the end people keep the guns. Most people would agree that Sweden is one of the most liberal countries in the world if not the most liberal.[[User:Monkey998|Monkey998]] 23:44, 9 December 2007 (EST)
What's the difference between redirecting Buddhist to Buddhism and Liberal to Liberalism? It's not like they're doing anything to hide the Liberal entry - I mean, otherwise the redirect wouldn't exist.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:49, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== Ubuntu Christian Edition removed from Wikipedia ==

I am the developer of the [http://www.christianubuntu.com Ubuntu Christian Edition] which is a Linux distribution geared towards Christians. Recently Wikipedia removed our page and replaced it with a redirect to a list of Ubuntu based Linux derivatives. Ironically almost all of the other derivatives still have their own Wikipedia entries. They cited non-notability as the reason for the deletion/redirect. However, even they admit that this was "against the public opinion. It is also quite obvious that Ubuntu Christian Edition has gained plenty of notability to warrant its own page on Wikipedia.

Below are some links to the ongoing discussion on the Ubuntu Forums and the, now locked, AfD discussion.

[http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=567836 Ubuntu Forums Discussion] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ubuntu_Christian_Edition_%282nd_nomination%29 [Locked AfD Discussion]]

I would really like to have this added to the Examples of Bias in Wikipedia page. I would also like to have a page for Ubuntu Christian Edition. I believe if you take a brief look you will quickly see that it deserves its own page.

Thanks, Jereme Hancock--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:07, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

: I don't know anything about this, but suggest you post some entries here explaining what Ubuntu (what's the word mean?) is all about. Then others will revise and comment. This may be an example of bias on Wikipedia, but I'd like to hear others comment on this here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:41, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, will do!--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:59, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

'''What is Ubuntu''' 
Ubuntu is a community developed, linux-based operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers. It contains all the applications you need - a web browser, presentation, document and spreadsheet software, instant messaging and much more. Ubuntu is free software. You can learn more about what this means by reading our licensing. 
'''What is Ubuntu Christian Edition''' 
Ubuntu Christian Edition is a free, open source operating system geared towards Christians. It is based on the popular Ubuntu Linux. Ubuntu is a complete Linux-based operating system, freely available with both community and professional support. 
'''What does Ubuntu mean?''' 
Ubuntu is an African word meaning ‘Humanity to others’, or ‘I am what I am because of who we all are’. 

That is the basics. Thanks, Jereme--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:59, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

: Sounds interesting. You might elaborate on the Christian version, and how it differs from the main version, in [[ubuntu]]. I'm intrigued.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:06, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
::So am I. I am a Linux user myself--except that I use Fedora.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:20, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

But Wikipedia deletes non-notable articles all the time. Does this really count as an example of bias in Wikipedia? I admit the bias there is often worse than I thought, but do they actually consistently discriminate against Christians? Sorry, but I think Wikipedia may have been right in this case, unless there is some evidence to show otherwise. Besides, I think they have experts about this sort of thing there (?).
[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:56, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

: This article was notable by their own claimed rules for notability. You can see what the article looked like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ubuntu_Christian_Edition&oldid=162397757 here]. The article includes at least 4 sources. The deletion "discussion" can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ubuntu_Christian_Edition_%282nd_nomination%29 here]. The person who deleted is a clear liberal with an anti-Christian bias. He brags on his user page that he has donated to [[GLAAD]] the organization at the forefront of gay agenda. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:10, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Are you sure about that liberal part? According to his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alkivar#MY_ADMITTED_BIASES user page], he is a conservative libertarian, voted for Bush in '04 because he hated Bush less than Kerry, is a member of the NRA, and leans pro-life. He disclosed that he often disagrees with GLAAD, but donates because "homophobia is still rampant in the United States." He doesn't state a religion, but his edit history doesn't show a history of editing a significant number of religion-related articles, pro or anti. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 20:28, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

::: You are saying that he gave money to further the [[homosexual agenda]] and he is somehow conservative? [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 20:39, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

I apologize, I think I may have too freely given Wikipedia the benefit of the doubt, yet again. There doesn't seem to have been a clear reason for deletion. Off topic, though, do you believe that deviating from standard Conservative views on even '''one''' issue automatically exempts one from being a "true conservative"? If that were the case than no wonder there are so many liberals... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:54, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

: No, of course not, but giving money to GLAAD is extreme. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 21:13, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:: For closure's sake: I suppose I understand where you're coming from, then. At the very least he would be considered a highly unorthodox [[conservative]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:16, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
*I don't really know. Perhaps we should at least invite them to make a page here. Feebasfactor, could you set that up? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:05, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Sure thing. Upon reflection, they deserve it. :) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:33, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== possible bias ==

Numerous articles refer to the World War II Japanese American internment centers as "concentration camps"
--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 21:49, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

: Yeah, that's typical [[liberal]] bias. Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
:: Exactly what is a concentration camp?the preceding comment was made by [[user:KalleF|KalleF]]

they actually don't refer to them as concentration camps, but merely say that they have been called concentration camps
and they meet the definition of a concentration camp
if you were wondering

Britannica- a concentration camp is an internment centre established by a government to confine political prisoners or members of national or minority groups for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment.

Yep, thats Japanese-American internment

== Obvious bias in articles on media bias watchdog groups ==

In wiki, (MRC) Media Research Center is labeled as conservative in the opening sentence, while FAIR (Fairness in Accuracy in Reporting) has no label at all in the opening sentence. Any attempt to delete conservative from MRC or add liberal to FAIR results in being blocked or banned from wiki. Complete lack of consistency. Even within the article for FAIR, you are not allowed to mention the word liberal, but must use the milder word progressive, although conservative is all over the MRC article. [[User:Rhino7628|Rhino7628]] 08:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:I'm slightly amused to see how some people join Conservapedia only/primarily to complain about how they got slapped on the wrist (in this case for edit warring) on Wikipedia.
:I must also note that you have zero blocks on Wikipedia, despite your edit war and your apparent unwillingness of discussing (as seen on Talk:Media Research Center). So much for "results in being blocked or banned".
:Furthermore, the term "liberal" is even used in FAIR's intro section, and the article is a member of the category "Liberal organisations". So I don't see how the word "liberal" is banned in there. Oh, and the word "conservative" is also all over the official MRC site.
:However, we currently appear to lack entries for both MRC and FAIR, so please feel free to contribute! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:50, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the purpose of joining this website is because of an overwhelming number of liberal slanted editors on wiki, hence, this provides an outlet for those with neutral or conservative viewpoints. This is pretty much the mission statement of this website, and this particular situation further proves the value of Conservapedia. It's strange that you find that amusing since you are a member here as well. The reason that so many edit wars happen on wiki is because if somebody dares edit anything to be neutral or conservative, thier edits are reverted by the majority liberal editors, thus the purpose of conservapedia. And a simple view of the history of the 2 mentioned articles notes provides more than enough evidence that many are blocked and banned for the very reason of opposing these biased editors. And a simple scan of these two articles notes that conservative is blatantly put in the first sentence of the MRC article, but liberal or progressive is not in the first sentence of the FAIR article. Yes, I do plan to provide entries here for MRC and FAIR when I have the time to do so. [[User:Rhino7628|Rhino7628]] 18:43, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:::My reasons for joining are not political. I actually disagree with CP's right-wing view and the creationism stuff, but I try not to let that get in the way of my editing (which is why I often go to talk pages first to voice my concerns). I know that this is what CP does, and so I often move on, even while my consciousness is screaming at me. I mostly try to defuse overly broad or wrong claims and inserted opinions to improve the overall image this site projects.
:::Oh, and this site's mission statement is not neutrality. We don't do NPOV here. I'd love this site to be neutral, but it's not. Take a look at some of our hot-topic articles ([[Atheism]], [[Homosexuality]], [[Theory of Evolution]], etc.), and you will find that they are geared in very specific ways and that edits going against that way are removed because of their "liberal bias" (among other things).
:::Yes, I think you found a site that you can agree with (and I'm genuinely curious where you and CP will go with FAIR and MRC), just be aware that the things you complain about (like [[placement bias]]) also happen here, only in more extreme dimensions. And edit warring is a no-no on both WP and CP. :P --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 20:02, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

== Outdated info ==
Conservapedia attacks Wikipedia for displaying outdated information; shouldn't outdated claims on these pages be removed?[[User:KalleF|KalleF]] 08:45, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:I believe this has been brought up occasionally (check the first sections of Archives 7 and 8 of this talk page for more recent examples), and the answer generally seems to be "No." Personally, I would enjoy seeing the list being updated/trimmed/archived because it does CP's reputation little good to openly attack Wikipedia for things that have been fixed (or been rendered obsolete in another way) more than half a year or so ago. A shorter list with only the big and current/urgent items would hold the reader's attention longer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:09, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::I agree. A shorter list of more significant "biases" would do more to convince me than the paranoid diatribe currently available.[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 09:59, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia in its article Politics of Eritrea clearly describes the country as a "one-party state", so quit the garbage about Wikipedia refusing to recognize the fact.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:18, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins' edit ==

Number 80 really needs to be reworded. The wording suggests that Wikipedia let him link to an item on his store for over a year, when his conflict-of-interest edit was moved away from the body of the article in about '''1 1/2 hours''' with the chance of deletion. Meanwhile, his '''one''' previous edit to his page was a small factual error correction about being editor of four scientific journals and founder of a fifth (he was the editor of just two scientific journals and was not the founder of the fifth). Clarify wording? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 13:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

*Moved away? When? How long until resolution? What would happen there to me, an unknown, if I linked to and was selling some tapes of mine? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:16, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

::Considering that "User:RichardDawkins" edits apparently also broke numerous links, it's possible that the account had been hijacked (sounds more likely than Mr. Dawkins feeling the sudden urge after a year of inactivity to vandalize his own article). The people on WP are considering it, and one of them contacted Dawkins to check since these edits simply look odd.
::And there is a factual error in the entry: It did ''not'' take "well over a year after he first edited his own article" for somebody to notice it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins#Richard_Dawkins Talk page]
::That all aside, I don't see why Conservapedia is making a big deal out of it. After all, we have [[Special:Contributions/Stephenblack|User:Stephenblack]] editing [[Stephen Black]] and [[First Stone Ministries]] ("Reverend Stephen Black is the Executive Director of First Stone Ministries"). And here, people seemed quite [[User talk:Stephenblack|delighted]] about it - maybe he was even invited to join CP to edit his own article? Do I have to conclude that Conservapedia encourages people to edit their articles where they have a COI? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:54, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== grammatical note ==

"Arbitration Committe Chariman Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], who's official website..." should read "whose official website." [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 23:49, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
:And Committe should be Committee. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 21:04, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did." ==

Ouch. Is this a POV statement? Merely associating one with the John Birch Society is ''worse'' than McCarthy-esque destruction of someone's career and life because of perceived communist undertones? Knowing Conservapedia's user base wouldn't association with the JBS be flattery?[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 10:04, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps it should also be noted that three of those examples, as they remain in the present tense, are patently FALSE and have been so for some time. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:18, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Wikipedia removed the smear against the [[Democrat]], the deceased person and the baseball player. It left the smear against the most influential conservative group.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:23, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::While I disagree that the association between the John Birch Society and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons really constitutes a "smear" (regardless of the publication date, the assertion is properly attributed, and at the time Paul W. Leithart, a President of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, was in fact a member of the JBS), I will leave the definitions of what text and deeds at Wikipedia constitute "bias" up to you. I appreciate the adjusting of the tense in the example to be more factually and objectively correct. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:21, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::: Feebasfactor, as in our discussion about [[Richard Dawkins]], where you missed the point about how the purchase of a professorship is inappropriate, you seem to miss the point here. Guilt-by-association is wrong regardless of whether it is true. In fact, it is '''more''' wrong if it is true!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I think I understand... The association is not an example of "bias" because it is factually incorrect, but rather because it is unnecessary and misleading, presenting "facts" in such a way as to imply a false relationship and paint an unflattering picture of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. That seems to make sense; did I... get the point this time? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:40, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Right. It is "guilt by association" to smear one group based on the possibility that some of its members belong to another group found objectionable. Did you know that thousands of Democratic voters are communists???? Yet you won't see [[Wikipedia]] using guilt-by-association to smear [[liberals]]. Instead, the biased [[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association to smear [[conservatives]] only.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

==#82 is out-dated/incorrect==
It claims that the homosexuality category was not deleted and that the heterosexuality one was. However, the homosexuality one ''was'' deleted shortly thereafter. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Gay_Wikipedians&action=edit this link]. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 12:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:Someone please make this change this. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:09, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
::Here are the sources confirming this (please try to include clearer sources in future, we cannot follow up every claim or correction looking to verify it). The category was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians deleted] on October 10, 3 months after the previous decision, as per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians this] discussion. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:40, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::Also, the example to which this applies is currently example #86 (the last on the list). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:41, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I would suggest simply mentionning in the example that the homosexuality categories were eventually deleted as well. However, the fact that a distinction was ever made in the first place (between the validity of the heterosexual and gay categories) is still indicative of bias at Wikipedia. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)

== Factual corrections on Henry Liddell ==

I did some research on the accusations about the Henry Liddell article. Though Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 is used in many articles, it was not used in the Henry Liddell article. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Liddell&diff=3213370&oldid=3213308 edit] that first inserted the names and social distinctions of his grandparents wasn't from Encyclopedia Britannica. This first edit was made in 2005 by an anonymous IP shortly after the article was created. The IP address has not made any edits since. The accusation about Alice Liddell were moved up into the introduction in February. The grammar error was also fixed in February. Last week the years that he was dean at Christ Church were written into the article. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 19:44, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

: We didn't say that Liddell was based on the Encyclopedia Britannica, just that many entries are. And how do you know those edits didn't come from the Encyclopedia Britannica???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:: I know because I looked at the edit history in detail, compared versions, and saw the exact points where each relative was added in (they weren't all added in at once). Fascinating things, edit histories. That and the paragraph isn't in Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 00:14, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

==Interesting study of Wikipedians' political beliefs==
I studied the political beliefs of Wikipedians after reading that you said that they have a strong [[liberal]] bias. I found that, although it's mostly liberal, it's pretty evenly distributed ([http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Pol-access.PNG see graph]). This should be incorporated into the article. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:12, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
:That's interesting and surprising. And as an engineer I'll take graphs over words anyday :) Could I ask the methodology involved? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:29, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:: The graph makes it look like all three categories are comparable in size. They are actually vastly different in size. Factor size of the groups into this, and you'll see that the 3:1 ratio of liberals to conservatives as stated in the entry here is about right. The general [[U.S.]] public is 2:1 conservative-to-liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Andy's right that registered users vastly outnumber administrators and bureaucrats; in terms of quantity alone, the ratio of liberals to conservatives probably does approach 3:1. However, this study raises another interesting question: if Wikipedia's administrators and bureaucrats are surprisingly balanced in their political views, then why does Wikipedia seem to have such a [[liberal bias]]? Does this mean that the population of casual Wikipedia users is predominately [[liberal]]? In which case: how much is to blame on the sytem, and how much on the public? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:Are there really so few moderates among signed-in users? I'd be interested in the methodology as well.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 21:03, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I simply went by what users put on their userpages, so it's not completely accurate. Perhaps certain people with a particular belief tend to be less likely to pronounce it. That's definitely a downfall, but it's as accurate of a study as one can get limited resources.

Also, I don't find the bias too harsh. You should see what people put on Obama's and Clinton's pages. If Wikipedia was horribly biased, I wouldn't edit there, as I certainly find myself conservative. I think it's just that it's uncensored and open, which may make it more liberal.

However, if you researched for your facts, then I suppose you're correct. I just try to correct biases both ways everyday. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 09:29, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Another thing: as for the moderates in regular editors, I suppose they're more likely to put their beliefs on their userpages if they feel really strongly either way. And the opposite goes for admins/crats: they probably want to seem neutral, so make sure to state that they are if they are, and maybe not give their true beliefs to avoid conflict. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 09:31, 8 November 2007 (EST)

==Why does this matter?==
I don't understand why enumerating the examples of bias in Wikipedia matters that much, obviously every person has a bias of some sort, so every article written in wikipedia or otherwise has some degree of personal opinion. The general idea I get from reading this article is that Wikipedia as an entity is responsible for this bias, which is obviously incorrect since its the users provide the information it contains. maybe I don't understand what Conservapedia is about but it seems that this list is mostly filled with either misleading facts, isolated incidents, or gossip that has no place in a proper Encyclopedia.[[User:Morgoth|Morgoth]] 00:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

: Wikipedia doesn't admit its bias, and hence it is important to expose it. And, yes, groups or mobs can have biases too. Spend some time with the attendees at the Democratic National Convention and you'll notice they have a bias, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, everyone has a bias, but the stressing of Wikipedia's supposed 'non-negotiable' NPOV is in complete contrast to its strong liberal, anti-Christian leanings. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:39, 19 November 2007 (EST)

::: It does seem as if, considering that you have been working on this list of examples of liberal bias on wikipedia for over a year and you've only found 99, it seems as if you're either doing a very poor job or that there isn't very much liberal bias, especially since there are 2 million pages. In addition, if you were actually trying to objectively prove an overall liberal bias on wikipedia, you would have both a liberal bias page and a conservative bias page, but I guess that would be too unbiased for conservapedia

==Heavy Promotion of Liberals in Inappropriate Places==
I hope I'm not missing anything here, but while the "Boy Scouts v. Dale" articles still promotes liberal Evan Wolfson, I could no longer find the claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'" - it appears to have been changed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale]. Should I look for the appropriate version in the article history? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:Aha, here it is: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885] Compared to Conservapedia, I'm always suprised at how long it takes to fix these sorts of mistakes at Wikipedia. Then again, considering the political slant of the "mistakes" there, maybe I shouldn't be so surprised... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:35, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:: I updated this within minutes of this being pointed out here, and within weeks of the change on [[Wikipedia]]. That's quicker than the time it took [[Wikipedia]] to reduce (and not eliminate) its bias in that entry there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Upon rereading the unsigned comment above, it seems to agree that the [[liberal]] "mistakes" on [[Wikipedia]] are very, very slow in being corrected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I do! :-) And sorry about the signature. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:45, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

: My apologies. I realized after posting that I completely misread your additional (unsigned) comment. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:49, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== #2 (Prodigal Son) ==

Pretty much all of the entires on this list are misleading or trivial, so it seems kinda silly to pick on just one, but #2 is just blatantly false. The article on the "Prodigal Son" says nothing about rock bands or liberal media (?) shows like "Miami Vice". The ''disambiguation'' page does, but that can only be accessed through the main Prodigal Son page unless someone happens to include "(Disambiguation)" in their search, so don't pretend for a second that Wikipedia is trying to downplay the Biblical part.
--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 19:46, 8 November 2007 (EST)

: No, most of the entries on the list are not trivial. It does not even talk much about the vast percentage of [[Wikipedia]] entries that are silly rock bands or obscure places, for example.

: [[Wikipedia]] has changed many of its entries in response to this list, and perhaps the [[Prodigal Son]] was one of them. I'll look into this further. I'm sure our point about the [[Prodigal Son]] was correct when written.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 18 December 2007 (EST)

==Seigenthaler controversy==
WP's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction] says, "A variety of changes were also made to Wikipedia's software and working practices, to address some of the issues arising. ...The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales."

One of the 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales was Essjay, whom according to the ''New Yorker'' retraction, "was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team" and "Wales recently established an 'oversight' function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there." [http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote]

So in this alleged "reform," Jimbo appoints someone's whose honesty is certifiably questionable, and vests him with power to coverup abuses. Pulitzer Prize winning author Stacy Schiff names Essjay as Wales appointee; why can't Wikipedia's own entry on the Seigenthaler scandal clarify the facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:45, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:Technical correction: According to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia Oversight documentation] the oversight extension doesn't technically purge the text from the system. The removed edit stays in the database, but is hidden from regular users. Anyone with oversight permission or better (stewards, developers, etc.) can view the edit. There isn't an interface yet for reverting those edits, so one of the developers has to do a direct query to the database. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:15, 12 November 2007 (EST)

::I have evidence of non-Admins using oversight before oversight was ever established. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:40, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::I'm confused. What exactly do you mean by using oversight before it was established? And what does it have to do with the technical impossibility of a complete cover up? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 23:34, 21 November 2007 (EST)

== #81 ==

''Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."'' - If he had fixed it himself, then Wiki-libs would have blocked him in some manner, whether by cabals of libs 'outvoting' him under the guise of false consensus, or blocking him for editing his own article. It's idiocy to claim that someone can right the wrongs on Wikipedia if the biased libs there want the content protected to forward their agenda. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:34, 19 November 2007 (EST)

== Belfast / Good Friday Agreement ==

There are many examples of bias in Wikipedia, as I'm sure many of you are familiar with - especially in relation to Northern Ireland. However, this issue is not one of those examples.

To wit: The BBC did not create the Agreement and, in any case, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/schools/agreement/constitutional/support/ci_c031.shtml refer to it as both the Belfast.. and Good Friday.. Agreement as well as "the Stormont Agreement"]. It was drawn up by two governments after a consultation and signed in Belfast. Before that, the proposal was called, simply, [http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/agreement.htm "The Agreement"].

Both terms were coined to describe it based on when (Good Friday) and where (Belfast) it was signed.

Its official long form name would probably be "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND" (excuse the caps - this was copied and pasted from the Agreement itself).

Politicians tend to vary between calling it the "Good Friday Agreement" and the "Belfast Agreement". Many Christian politicians actually prefer the latter. The case is the same for the public in Northern Ireland.

The House of Commons refers to the document primarily as the "Belfast Agreement", occasionally as "The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement" and mostly as "the Good Friday Agreement" when quoting from other sources in the [http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-076.pdf Northern Ireland Bill] which implemented the Agreement.

The [http://archive.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/publications/ba.htm official website] of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland refers only to "the Belfast Agreement".

The Agreement itself is titled ''"The Agreement"'' and includes an annex entitled, ''"Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland."''

One can only conclude that "Belfast Agreement" and "Good Friday Agreement" are both basically nick-names, and the official name for the document is "The Agreement".

"The Belfast Agreement" is in no way "less familiar", unless you are specifically talking about the USA perhaps, or what it is called on the Internet or other media sources. If you were to mention either "The Belfast Agreement" or "The Good Friday Agreement" in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK, or the Republic of Ireland, I'm pretty sure the chances are similar that both names would be equally recognised. --[[User:Setanta|Setanta]] 12:12, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Wikipedia betrays itself [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Belfast_Agreement] on this one: more pages link to the Redirect (211) than the mainspace (45), 4 and one half to one difference. Even a discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28United_Kingdom-related_articles%29#Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography.2FHow_to_write_about_settlements Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements] uses Good Friday. Sorry, but IMHO, this one reeks of anti-Christian [[bigotry]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:16, 24 November 2007 (EST)

== #4 Justice Byron White Error ==

Is this [[bias]]? It is a mistake, but wikipedia prefers edits by registered users over anon IPs, as shown by the implementation of semi-protected pages and by the edit statistics.

: Wikipedia allows editing by anonymous IP addresses, and those edits are often [[liberal]] smears of people. I think Wikipedia's bias is one reason why it continues to allow this practice. Conservapedia does not allow editing by anonymous IPs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:55, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: I've done vandalism patrol before, and I promise you this: the vast majority of vandalism is by idiots who think inserting nonsense or deleting content is clever. Not smears, just idiocy. If there happens to be a source that ''conclusively'' contradicts what I'm saying, go ahead and cite it.
:: The only routine vandalism that could possibly be seen as a smear is vandalism to political articles. Many prominent politicians have 3 or more pieces of vaguely insulting vandalism per week. One example is an edit by a 3 edit user to George W. Bush's page that inserted "He is considered by many as the worst president in modern American history." That edit was reverted by a certain Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:30, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::: Anonymous IP addresses are the source of numerous [[liberal]] smears, such many identified in the content page here: [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:11, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:::: This is the talk page for that article. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 21:39, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== Dawkins again ==

Can somebody tell how the Oxford statement "The Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree" continued? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

==#84==
I haven't looked at the Wikipedia article recently - however, #84 should be removed from here and simply placed in [[Wikipedia|the article]] - because the fact that false information obtained from Wikipedia went into a news source is not bias by Wikipedia- merely stupidity by the news source.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:31, 1 December 2007 (EST)

: You still don't "get it" about the bias of [[gossip]] in [[Wikipedia]]. #84 is example of [[Wikipedia]] fomenting false [[gossip]]. [[Wikipedia]] pretends to be an encyclopedia, when in fact it's more like the National Enquirer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:58, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I understand that they pretend to do that - and I agree that doing that is certainly disgusting, however, if a frog pretends to be a prince, it's not bias - and this article is "examples of bias in Wikipedia"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)

==#8==
This entry is quite obsolete. The statement no longer features such terms as "extrapolation" and "credibility" or any such inaccuracies, and the citations reflect the phrasing in its current form. This one should be removed. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==#20==
This entry seems to show immense hostility towards Wikipedia for not having an article for the word "Deceit" - However, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary - this is explicity stated in the guidelines "WP:NOT" or "What Wikipedia is Not". I fail to see the problem here. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:47, 11 December 2007 (EST)

: But [[Wikipedia]] does have an entry on [[deceit]], using a redirect. Your criticism would only be valid if [[Wikipedia]] omitted the entry entirely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes, Wikipedia will redirect you to an article on "Deception", apparently with a disambiguation link at the top. Deception is a term that 1.)Requires disambiguation because of the existence of multiple entities with that exact title (albums and the like) and 2.)It's more generic, hence why the main article can be thorough and expanded with subsections. Anyway, it just seems like Conservapedia wants Wikipedia to define a term (deceit) which would most likely get slapped with a speedy deletion tag or an AfD - but not because it's concealing anything, but because users will cite WP:NOT. I hope that clarifies my position. Cheers [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 23:03, 11 December 2007 (EST)

::: Now you make a different argument. In fact, [[Wikipedia]] only changed its redirect of "deceit" to "deception" after we pointed out its bias. [[Wikipedia]] used to redirect "deceit" to "lie", and thereby denied what deceit really is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)

== Mary Stachowicz article vs. Matthew Shepard article ==

On Wiki, the article about Matthew Shepard[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard] unequivocally treats his murder as a "hate crime." The article goes on at length about it being a "hate crime" and how it affected "hate crime" legislation. It is also categorized as "Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes."

Meanwhile, the article about Mary Stachowicz states she was murdered only "in an ''apparent'' hate crime" (emphasis mine) and the rest of the article downplays the "hate crime" angle. The "hate crime" category was added to the article on October 26th, but removed on November 16th with the cryptic edit summary of "inapt [not suitable] category."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Stachowicz&diff=171878973&oldid=171817516] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: Superb. I'll work on a new point #1 to reflect your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Viewership ==

I hate to point this out, but I will. If CP and WP reversed positions, and people relied on this outlet for information, the blatant errors would be very much the same as they are today. Consider for instance my favourite of all, the article on Canada. One of the CP users went on to state that the Canadian education system is inferior to the American system on the basis of assigned letter grades and their percentage value. Of course, any real interpretation of information was completely absent from the entry. If we used the exact same system of measurement for the exact same courses, '''and''' then assigned higher letter grades for lower percentages '''while''' attempting to pass them off as being equivalent letter grades. But, we all know that the situation I described isn't the case. I would also like to point out that your homosexuality article is heavily biased, as you omit much information on the subject altogether. While your facts are likely very accurate, there is relevant or related facts missing that prevent the whole picture from being seen.

In short, the trustworthy encyclopedia can be trusted to be Conservatively biased, and to present very basic facts that present only a very slim portion of the picture. I also trust that despite my efforts to produce unbiased work, somebody will always come along and put a conservative spin on it. I suspect your concern with WP is that it really does represent freedom and non-secularism. Unfortunately, many conservatives are in favour of the suspension of many civil liberties, and secularism. First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out... --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:35, 21 December 2007 (EST)

== Unfair? ==

Isn't this article being a little unfair to Wikipedia? Yes, Wikipedia has problems, but some of the things here are really off the mark...

For instance: #73, and all other points that speak of "National Enquirer" type "gossip." How is it "gossip" that Nina Totenberg was severely injured? How is information on William Donald Schaefer (#85) "gossip" but not similar information about [[Al Gore]] on this site? And isn't "gossip" more like rumor and unsubstantiated information then verifiable facts with links to news stories?

Other entires act like Wikipedia is a concrete, unchangeable text made by one author, and that if something is left out it must be a sign of bias. See #20, Eritrea, #54, Jimmy Carter, #78, John Peter Zenger, #79, Bacon's Rebellion, and #82 the Piltdown Man. "Oh, if only there were some ''magical button'' that I could press in which I could ''add content to'' or ''delete erroneous content from'' Wikipedia. Curse you, Wikipedia, for not adding such a feature!"

And as for #77--that's totally ridiculous. Who determines what has "zero educational value?" Who determines what is "beneath a regular encyclopedia?" Aschlafly?

This is the core page of Conservapedia. A lot of editing on it will need to be done if this site wants to look credible. [[User:Cheesehead|Cheesehead]] 12:20, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::Excuse me Cheesehead, We are not the only ones who have determined how worthless Wikipedia can be...it's college professors who have done the same thing. They have cited the fact that Wikipedia is edited by amatuers who insist on being amatuer; it's edited by 15 year-old kids who write like they're in the first grade, and who demand complete control over people who can do better; and the editing is continuous for many articles, as good material gets replaced by goofy material over and over again. College professors have warned their students not to trust Wikipedia as a source at all. Do not come here and complain that WE are being unfair to Wikipedia when we have pointed this and more out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::The above has to be the most subjective dismissal of Wikipedia I've ever read. First of all, not all college professors dissuade or prevent their students from citing Wikipedia. Secondly, ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all. Now, they are invaluable as starting points that may direct you to illuminating second and third party analysises of a subject. This goes for Conservapedia as well. Wikipedia doesn't make the claim that they are authoritative. In fact, Wales has been crystal clear about that.

:::Thirdly, it's a FACT that Wikipedia is written by amateurs? Yes, a sub-population out of thousands and thousands. But, Please - This is just another baseless, misleading claim. Talk about your ad-hominems. Every single person I have ever encountered on Wikipedia has been eloquent and quite knowledgeable about the articles they cultivate - at least the registered users. Sure, that's anecdotal evidence, but I've been a regular editor there for three years now. These 15 year olds you speak of more than likely are the ones who edit articles on superficial pop culture or modern music. Who cares? Many articles here and there require fleshing out. It's open source and free to be edited by anyone. If you need any convincing about brilliant writing and comprehensiveness simply read any of Wikipedia's Featured Articles. Then gander at the thousands that are ranked as GA. Take your pick. Your post smacks of cynicism and prejudice that permeates this site. Don't get me wrong, I like it here, I think this place has merit and potential. If I thought differently, I wouldn't have registered an account and started editing/creating articles. And I'm not about to say that Wikipedia isn't without its flaws and foibles. Of course there are, things go on there that shouldn't, but some of your claims are downright outrageous, parochial and unilateral. Next time, try and be a little less narrow in your analysis of something which is credible and useful to many. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:35, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::::You've just proven it for all of us in your rant. ''"ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all"'' Credible and useful to many as well? I don't think so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:38, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::: Ok, now you're using a sort of Straw Man tactic in order to make it seem as though I'm contradicting myself. I thought it was patently obvious what I meant. In Academia no encyclopedia should be used as a primary source. HOWEVER, college students, high school students, and the general public use Wikipedia for gathering general information on a subject. More often than not, it is completely accurate. It's as simple as that. As a scientist, I wouldn't submit a manuscript for journal review with Wikipedia, Encarta or Britannica listed in my reference section. That doesn't mean they are useless or completely inaccurate. In the articles I've edited/read, the information matches up perfectly with my own personal knowledge of the subject - medicine, biology, chemistry, etc.. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 15:23, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:: Cheesehead, try to understand what [[gossip]] and [[liberal bias]] are before denying that they permeate [[Wikipedia]] entries. The nearly 100 examples in the list here reflect the approach taken and continued by [[Wikipedia]], and illustrate why so many serious contributors have abandoned [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:51, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== German-American ==

The term German-American, especially in its hyphenate version typically refers to American of German descent, and not to people that hold both passport, maybe because both countries subscribe to the view that you should only have one. Just like other hyphen American in the 19th century it is commonly understood that they were Americans. So, I see no point in complaining about that fact. See the websites of German-American heritage groups for more information [http://www.germanheritage.com/][http://www.german-american.com/]. [[User:Order|Order]] 06:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: The hyphenated "German-American" implies dual nationality, or no nationality, and that is incorrect. Far less than 1% of websites use this in reference to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]], in its bias for phony [[globalism]], pushes it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, "German-American" doesn't mean DUAL nationality, it indicates the individual's country of birth, descent, heritage, and nationality. It's not a citizenship term. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:15, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: Where would an 'African-American' have a passport from? [[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:43, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: The term creates confusion about citizenship. There's no denying that. It is used in far less than 1% of the websites referring to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]] with its anti-[[American]] and [[globalist]] bias, pushes the confusing term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 28 December 2007 (EST)
:First, if you are confused about dual citizenship, then only because you don't know that Germany doesn't allow for dual citizenship. And afaik, neither does the US. Can you give us a reference for your 1% figure. I guess the confusion just arises from being unfamiliar with the phenomenon of Hyphen-American in 19th and the first half of the 20th century. In 1987 President Reagan proclaimed a German-American Day on October 6 [http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/100287d.htm], and from the proclamation it is obvious that it refers to Americans of Germen descent. The German heritage site list Thomas Nast as a famous German-American [http://www.germanheritage.com/biographies/mtoz/nast.html], and same holds a 1983 Presidential Commission for the German-American Tricentennial [http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga-tricentennialreport.htm]. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: No, User:Order, I'm not confused but the Wikipedia entry is designed to create confusion in the [[liberal]] direction. American citizens are American citizens, not "another country"-American. As to the 1% figure, please do your own research on [[Google]] before criticizing work done by others. Surely I don't have to explain how to compare the sites mentioning "Thomas Nast" and those claiming he was a "German-American".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: Obviously, you want to have 100 entries before the end of the year, and I can understand that you are reluctant to remove this item, but let me still answer to your comments.
:First, if you make a 1% claim, you will have to provide evidence. This is not criticizing the work of others, it is inquiring where to find the work of others. So, from what you say you used Google for you research. What were your search terms? Up to which page did you go?
:Second, I did some google for the term "German-American", and it seems all hits on the first page and 74 of the hundred hits use "German-American" in the meaning of "Americans of German descent". This use seem to be the most common.
:Finally, a presidential committee including Thomas Nast as German-American seems to be very relevant. Is there anything wrong about that report?
:[[User:Order|Order]] 21:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: User:Order, I can see you lurching towards [[last wordism]] here, as [[liberals]] tend to do. Your "obviously" statement is out of line as I could easily increase this list of examples of bias in Wikipedia to 130 by New Year's if I wanted to. Thomas Nast on Google retrieves 175,000 sites, but Thomas Nast and "German-American" only retrieves 3,800, and only a tiny fraction of that refers to Nast himself as "German-American" rather than using the term as an adjective to "culture" or with another meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: 3.800 out of 175.000 makes 2%. But good that you told us how you got the statistics. First, you are looking for a very specific combination of phrases, namely "Thomas Nast" and "German-American". You should also mention that about only 32.400 sites use the adjective "German", so at most 20% of all site mentioning his name mention his ancestry at all. But the complaint was that the term "German-American" was used in a confusing way, and if we look at the hits for "Thomas Nast" and "German-American", we see that that at least the first 20, use "German-American" to mean American of German descent. As do most hits for "German-American". And we still got a presidential committee listing him among famous "German-Americans", which should carry some weight, too. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:30, 28 December 2007 (EST)

==What's Wrong With Bias?==
If an article I saw had some information missing from it, or presented in a bad way and I knew enough about the subject; I would edit it. That's what Wikipedia is for, isn't it?

At least Wikipedia is biased in all directions, and not just trying to do it along one single political agenda. Everyone can edit articles there to say whatever they want. If there's a majority of users who think a certain way then sure their own beliefs are going to be pandered to more. What stops you helping make their site better?[[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:49, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: A lie supported by a majority does not make it true. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: User1601, [[Wikipedia]] is '''not''' "biased in all directions." Rather, it has an overwhelming bias in one direction. The examples here confirm that. Several of the examples illustrate how attempts to edit [[Wikipedia]] to correct its bias are futile - in response, the [[liberal]] mob and bullies who run [[Wikipedia]] will restore the bias or even make it worse!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::I find it hard to support your point when you are arguing in favor of a site which much more polarized than wikipedia. -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:31, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: Concealed bias is particularly objectionable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I'd like to note that the second entry about typing "conservative" into wikipedia is not true, regardless of whether it once was or not. A page search for "anti-baby" and "anti-family" returned nothing. Second, the statement "you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion" seems rather subjective. It seemed to be a rather scholarly article regarding the general ideals of conservatives. Seeing as this is the "second" example of liberal bias in Wikipedia, this is rather damaging to the cause isn't it? Perhaps it's back down to 97.

: Wikipedia corrected its bias on the above point only after we exposed it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

well
you know
that kind of seems like a load of crap
because it doesn't exist now
and you have no way of knowing whether it was changed because you "exposed them"

== Renaissance: I contest point 64 ==

It is widely agreed amongst art historians that the driving force behind the Renaissance was first the rediscovery of roman art and the evolution of humanist philosophy. Christian themes prevailed because the church was one of the major funders of the artists. Also if Christianity was a major influence in the Renaissance why were mythological works produced by all four masters and most other artists? -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:19, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== Formatting error in list leads to possibly unwanted inflation of count ==

I just noticed this:
{{quotebox|29. Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples have included: 
30. *pro-life Congressman Jerry Costello, merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating[38] 
31. *anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[39] 
32. *the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, by repeating a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS[40] 
33. *conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS[41] 
34. In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more liberal targets, such as the Democrat Jerry Costello, or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.}}
Is it intentional that the JBS bias is stretched over six points? It strikes me as a formatting error.

I am currently not aware of a way to fix the list in the current form. The main problem is the paragraph after the last example. Without it, things would be easy to fix. In the current form, here is my suggestion (it's important not to have additional spaces in the "#:*" or "#:" parts). It looks okay and gets the point across :

#[[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:
#:*pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>
#:*anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>
#:*the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>
#:*conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>
#:In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.

(You can simply copy and paste the above section from the edit box here, I left the references intact.) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 08:51, 29 December 2007 (EST)
:I think that formatting is intentional, as each one catalogues a different example of bias (but all are loosely related under the same category, JBS smears). [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 13:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::I disagree because all other Examples of Bias stick to the "one theme, one number" setting and are self-contained We could move each entry freely without loss of information. Additionally. if we took each ''instance'' of a particular bias as its own number, we could easily fill up the list to a hundred using only the various articles about evolution, gun control, and so on. I don't believe that was the goal of this list. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 13:58, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Another example of Wikipedia silliness ==

Might it be worthwhile to add to this list the large record Wikipedia keeps of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BJAODN featured vandalism]? Also, both administrators and users [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:April_Fools go berserk] on April Fools' Day instead of acting like [[Conservapedia|a real encyclopedia]] would - that is, to treat it like any other day. [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 13:39, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Regarding April Fool's Day: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Are_you_working_on_the_Conservapedia_Page.3F Maybe not the best idea?] (Note: The link points to the section ''above'' the one I want to link to. I mean the "Please do not v*ndalise our project templates." section. The CP spam filter doesn't allow the word "v*ndalise" to appear anywhere for some reason) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 14:18, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-12-29T18:58:38Z

JakeC: /* Formatting error in list leads to possibly unwanted inflation of count */ I disagree because...

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-12-29T13:51:25Z

JakeC: Formatting error in list leads to possibly unwanted inflation of count

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== "Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D." ==

Here is Wikipedia's policy:

"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it)."

Much of the world has been using the so-called "Common Era" indicator for some time. This is the same reason that Wikipedia occasionally allows British spellings (i.e. colour or fibre) and use of the metric system in articles - hardly evidence of bias. A ''restriction'' of the usage of C.E. or B.C.E., on the other hand, would be Western-centric and biased.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*Archibald, your posting borders on the pedantic! How many articles, using AD or BC actually remain that way? Editors are constantly changing to the secular-progressive CE. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:*A "Pedant" is one who focuses on trivialities while ignoring the big picture. This word does not apply to my post. Wikipedia policy tries to avoid ANY date suffixing to avoid this type of controversy. The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system. Nevertheless, Wikipedia neither supports it nor discourages it. This cannot be bias. To research your claim, I jumped to five random historical articles on Wiki. Three used AD/BC dating, and two used no dating (just writing, for example, "The year 1300"). In my experience editors who terraform an article to change its dating system are usually disciplined. If I attempt to go through an article and append "AD" to every date, you can be sure my edit will be reverted by an editor. Again, Wiki neither discourages not supports any counting system.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 00:00, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::'''"The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system"'''
:: Huh? I doubt this is true, but if it is it is an example of enforced [[politically correct]] speech and nothing more. I ''never'' heard of "C.E." until about 1996, and even then in 1996 it was only in the context of a [[pagan]] writer openly hostile to the [[Christian]] basis of Western culture. If it is in common usage today, I would ask why, who decreed that it should be in common usage, who is promoting it, and what their real agenda is? "C.E." is a [[neologism]]. It was not in significant usage prior to the past few years, and probably not used at all before the 1990s. Use of neologisms is bias. I would go so far as to say that anything that came into common usage after about 1988, when the political correctness movement started becoming a significant force affecting the culture, is suspect because of the probable influence of [[multiculturalism]] and other aspects of the P.C. movement, and should be questioned at best and in most cases not used at all. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 22:39, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:" 'C.E.' is a [[neologism]]." That's true, and it's also true that "Common Era" dating catches on mainly with people who wish to remove references to Christ from daily life. (Laughably futile, as the date itself - still a reference to Christ's birth - is absolutely ingrained in the system.) Still, though prefer to continue using "A.D." and "B.C." because I see no reason to change, some tiny percentage of Wiki articles use "C.E." merely reflecting that a certain percentage of the population prefers that system.[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 09:56, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

== New #1 - WP's CP entry ==

Maybe add a line or two of how several sysops (Ed Poor, Karajou (editing as an anonymous IP), Mr. Martinez were the ones I spotted on the fly) edited the article and often tried to add their own bias to it, but apparently never, ever touched that claim you mentioned (which has been in the article since March or April, btw.)? (I didn't check each and every edit in the long edit history, but if my claim about the no-touching is wrong, I'll be happy to concede the point as soon as somebody shows me the diff), meaning that they apparently saw nothing wrong with it.

And sourcing aside, how can you say that CP is not supportive of YEC when you support sysops like Conservative and others, who openly push YEC in key articles, making it look like the most likely alternative while merrily bashing "evolutionism" and related old-earth concepts? CP seems to go to great lengths to make all issues connected to an old Earth look like some wild theory with no proof at all. If you wish to prove me wrong, be my guest. This is just my impression after a good while of lurking and posting. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:46, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::If I've added "bias" to an article, please give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Otherwise, I must assume you are simply making a personal attack for ideological reasons (as liberals habitually do). Ironically, liberals (when caught doing this) will then generally add insult to injury by claiming conservatives do what liberals actually do: again, without supplying actual examples. The term Democrats invented for this, the "politics of personal destruction", applies splendidly (or abysmally?) to liberals. I wish liberals would return to the roots of [[liberal education]] and use evidence and reason to make arguments, instead of groundless jabs. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:54, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::[meaningless blather omitted by sysop Ed Poor]
:::I stand by what I said, and exactly by what I said. What you or Andy try to put into my mouth is none of my business. If you feel like blocking me for that post, go ahead. But I feel you hurt me enough by slapping me around with your pretty little speech about ideological attacks and how liberals and Democrats attack without providing examples. But of course, that was anything but an attack or whatever. Here, just do it. I'll stand still. An hour? A day? A month? Or hey, maybe a permanent one! After all, Conservapedia has so many active editors left, it can easily afford to permanently block a guy who created, like, THIRTY or so most wanted pages within ten days. And oh, another block will do WONDERS for my motivation to help! Yes, all in the name of justice for my bad, bad attack. Do I sound bitter? ...can you be blocked for that? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:29, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Your motivation is not an issue. The only thing that matters is whether our readers can trust you. I asked you to give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Your response implied that you hadn't made the allegation at all. Then you went on an emotional tangent and (as I predicted) followed up your denial with a tit for tat attack, as if your failure to provide examples of your false accusation is excused by my not giving fresh examples of what is common knowledge: that liberals (like you) make ideological attacks without providing examples.

::::I don't know if you really believe what you are saying or are simply hoping to confuse the reader with convoluted arguments. But you can take a week to think over what you have done. Perhaps you will choose to clarify whether or not you think I have "added bias" to any encyclopedia article. Unless you are prepared to give an example, you would do well to take that back. That is the only way you can regain trust: by admitting your error.

::::Unlike liberals, we conservatives are very forgiving people. Just admit your mistake, embrace the truth and join us! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:04, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

: Your first paragraph, even if true, would not be a defense for [[Wikipedia]], so it is irrelevant and I'll ignore it.

: Your second paragraph fails to address the essence of [[Wikipedia]]'s defamation as quoted in point 1: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project '''with the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... Young Earth creationism."

::This is a great example of the danger of ellipses. Maybe it was different when whoever wrote this, but here's what it says now: "Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project with the stated purpose of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially- and economically-conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity." This is a true statement that few CPers would argue with. Young Earth creationism is mentioned in the next sentence, which makes this "quote" pathetically misleading and its attempted point laughably meaningless. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 15:08, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

: It's not just that Wikipedia's statement is false. It is defamatory as it attempts to smear [[Conservapedia]] with a falsehood in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[liberal]] audience. You are right that [[Wikipedia]] has featured that defamation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::The editing participation is important because you are portraying something as bias even though your sysops implicitly seemed to endorse it. You know how they say: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - and your "good men" seemed to do nothing. As such, it is not so much me defending WP, but rather me pointing out that your most recent addition seems to be built on sand.
::And what is Conservapedia's "stated purpose" then? I was not able to find anything that clearly defines its goals, at least not something that seems to be compatible with what I observe here (and that is pro-YEC and anti-atheism that goes well beyond the point of being "neutral to the facts").
::Furthermore, looking at the site certainly does give the impression that CP supports YEC, regardless of what you state. If anything, at least think about that one.
::However, I will drop the issue. Giving things a brief look, nobody ever managed to make you remove just one point from the list (again, if there are examples that prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to admit my mistake). So I'm happy enough with the fact that you replied and the hope that you will maybe think about the perceived image of the site. You can have the last word if you please, I'll be off editing. :) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Bow out if you like, but [[Wikipedia]]'s smear of Conservapedia is false and defamatory, and you seem unwilling to admit it. You defend Wikipedia's claim that Conservapedia has a certain "stated purpose," but then complain that you can't find any stated purpose at all. Wikipedia and its many lies and smears are not making the world a better place. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::::My hopefully last comment in this section to reply to the words you put into my mouth. Never did I defend WP or stated that this is indeed CP's stated purpose. You also flat-out ignore any point I made that is not directly connected to the issue you focus on, which is incredibly sad.
::::I am willing to agree with you that YEC is not CP's stated purpose. However, you seem to be unable or unwilling to show me CP's stated purpose. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of your sysops speak much louder than your claims of what CP does or does not support. You can look away if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the impression visitors get. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Jenkins, I didn't put any words in your mouth. And I don't have to provide a "stated purpose." [[Wikipedia]] lies about [[Conservapedia]], and after a numerous postings here you still won't admit it. I can assure you that intelligent visitors here are quite happy with what they find, which is why we're growing every day. If you prefer Wikipedia's lies, suit yourself. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

RE your claim about Wikipedia's article JESUS H. CHRIST. It simply tries to be neutral, gives several examples and notes that it can be considered blasphemy. Get a life![[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Although this is the wrong place to bring this up, 'Alloco1' is right - the wikipedia page for 'Jesus H. Christ' mentions that the phrase is considered blasphemy.

== Answer to TerryH, re universal applicability of the Bible ==

Terry, thank you for the reply; I will address the issues line by line.

To begin, I suggested that the nature of the Bible as a moral document makes reliance upon it as a historical or scientific document dubious at best, and a mis-characterization or overzealous cross-application, at worst. You reply that the Bible is good for any use, citing, of course, the Bible in reply: “every word written herein is properly instructive in any application” (2 Tim 3:15-:17). First, this is a circular argument, relying upon the Bible to confirm the veracity of… the Bible. Second, it’s a mis-characterization of the quote. The quote from the King James Version is:

{{cquote|All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.}}

Analyzing that quote, it actually backs up my perspective – this quote from Timothy asserts the applicability of the Bible to any moral question, and anything that “furnish[es] [man] unto all good works.” In essence, you prove my point: the cited authority confirms the Bible’s intention to be used as a moral treatise… nothing more.

And yet your assertion of universal applicability may be assailed from yet another angle. To paraphrase the hon. Justice Scalia, applying the Bible to foreclose inquiry into all fields of study – through a combination of your Timothy doctrine, and literalism – would essentially be the “dicta that ate the discoveries of man.” Your theory would advocate a holistic return to biblical law, biblical science, biblical medicine, and biblical life. I don’t know about you, but I certainly prefer my Excedrin to the Bible’s silence on the issue of headaches. Your construction, since it ends in absurdity, must fail.

And finally on this point, if the Bible was truly meant as applicable to all of life’s little problems, what must we make of Mark 16:18, which informs the “true believer” that he may drink poison without feeling its effects? A wise man will not test this statement, but will realize that it is intended as a figurative expression. However, according to you, since the Bible is applicable to any discipline, and must be accepted or rejected wholesale and literally, we are forced to conclude that true believers, like yourself, may drink poison unaffected. Would you like to test your faith? I don’t advise you to.

Your remaining arguments may be disposed of summarily. The fact of the Bible’s historicity on some counts ‘’cannot ‘’ be extrapolated to its historicity on ‘’’all’’’ counts. It has recently been proven that Herodotus’ account of obscure points of Italian history (that the Etruscans traveled to Italy from Asia, and were not native Italians) is correct, contrary to the findings of earlier ethnographers/historians/anthropologists. By your argument, since Herodotus was here vindicated, we must assume that all of his other findings are correct too… and yet no Cyclops has ever been seen in Egypt, nor has a phoenix been found. Perhaps it’s best to agree that the Bible is not a historical document, regardless of its truth on point in some circumstances, but is instead a moral treatise, and a valuable one at that.

And finally, I cannot believe that you would argue that because you have never observed evolution between species, it must not have occurred! For by your reasoning, neither God, nor you, actually exist! After all, I have seen neither of you.

I await your reply.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 15:40, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
All right, here is my reply in one word: Nonsense.

Your argument amounts to nothing more than an argument from incredulity. And in the process you deny what the [[Bible]] is. Did you bother to read the teachings of [[Jesus Christ]], and how He repeatedly alluded to the creation of the world--in six days? Six days of the familiar type, that is--not six "geological ages" or whatever the pretended flavor of the month.

I challenge you to find ''one single historical incident'' that the Bible records in any detail, in which the Bible got it wrong in any detail that it expressed. And you know what? St. [[Paul]] was bitten by a poisonous [[snake]] on [[Malta]] and felt no bad effect. Or didn't you read? And beyond that: the word about the poison means that you don't have to fear that which brings death to the body. To be absent from the body is to be in the presence of [[God]].

Which, of course, might explain why Christians consistently defended and repeated their testimony to the things that they had seen--including the appearance of [[Jesus Christ]] after His execution--even while the [[lion]]s were tearing at their flesh.

I'll go further: a holistic return to Biblical law, science, and medicine might not be such a bad idea after all. Dr. Joseph Mercola ([http://www.mercola.com/]) recently stated that conventional [[medicine]] is good primarily for diagnosis and the treatment of acute trauma--and little else. And as a doctor myself, I have come to discover that he is correct. And I am in a direct position to know: I recently lost my wife to colorectal [[cancer]]. Her doctors had to admit when pressed that they had ''no'' confidence in their own prescribed courses of treatment--and another doctor told me flat-out that conventional medicine has no good treatment for colorectal cancer--at least not when it has spread to the liver.

On the other hand, I have conversed with the relatives of people who had cancer that was far less advanced--and they achieved ''cures'' through nothing more expensive or complicated than simply changing their diets to a diet that has a Biblical basis.

The only reason I am bothering to dignify your screed above with this reply is that I would not have any other reader of this page ignorant of the extent to which I stand ready to defend [[Bible|Scripture]].

There--now you really didn't have to wait long, did you?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:07, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
edit to add:First of all, my deepest sorrows and sympathies about the loss of your wife. Cancer is awful, and cannot always be cured; sometimes all you can do is pray. But sometimes prayer isn't enough, and modern medicine has made amazing strides and progressions over oddly archaic practices, and will continue to make such strides. I have no doubt that, given enough time, science will progress to a point where innocent victims the world over can be saved. Keep in mind the thousands every day who avoid death by a little but of luck, but a lot a bit of modern medicine.

That being said, you still didn't answer all the points. I assume them either conceded or unimportant, so I'm confident I win out in the long run.

But I'd like to direct everyone reading to Terry's concession - the logical stopping point of literalism is a fundamentalist, theocratic state, as you suggest that it wouldn't be "so bad." I think we can just about stop here. This idea - which I actually thought to be my "straw man," or slippery slope argument, because no-one could seriously be advocating that - is so patently ludicrous as to not need rebuttal. If that's your honest belief, I'll just say three last things:
#What makes a Christian fundamentalist theocracy better than an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy?
#The very idea of biblical law, medicine, etcetera, is wholly antithetical to American culture, democracy, and our founding principles. This nation has become great through the work of progressive thinking, and above all, science, technology, and respect for the pure pursuit of truth. Fundamentalism, and the stagnation of thought that it requires, has no place in such a society, except for the private beliefs of the individual, which are of course his or her own exclusively. Which leads me to the next point...
#Does your fundamentalist ideal society have provision for non-fundamentalist persons?

I realize this is not my best effort, but I honestly don't feel like my best effort is needed to reply you. A doctor who's forgotten so much of his training as to advocate Biblical medicine... well, ''res ipsa loquitor''.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 18:29, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
I concede nothing, first of all. Rather, your post barely rates the dignity of any kind of reply--and a point-by-point rebuttal is a dignity you have not earned.

I would like to answer your questions, however:

#A "Christian theocratic state" will only come to pass when [[Jesus Christ]] Himself returns to [[earth]] to set it up and run it. In that sense, of course that would be better than the New Baghdad Caliphate that [[Osama bin Laden]] wants to set up, because [[God]]--in the Person of Christ--''would'' be in charge, and not some pretended proxy with galloping paranoia.
#In your second point, you are essentially saying that American culture, democracy, and founding principles were and always have been secular. Only someone having a profound ignorance of American history would believe that. I refer you to Benjamin F. Morris' ''Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States'', now back in print after 140 years. And I repudiate the notion that "progressive thinking" has made America great. If anything, "progressive thinking" is dragging America down. I sometimes wonder whether the reason why America bears no mention in the book of Revelation is that America is to go up in smoke and flame and tear gas, and the forces of the Beastly regime ({{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=13}})--in all its secular inglory--are to [[parachute]] into America's largest cities "to restore order," induct all American residents into the New Secular Humanistic Order, and carve up America like a roast duck, to borrow a phrase from Sir [[Winston Churchill]].
#Yes, there would be a place for non-fundamentalist persons. It is just that that place would not include a position of power that forbids public prayer, proposes an anti-religious test for public office, forces taxpayers to pay for atheistic "education", [[abortion]], and other such bad policies, limits the term of a marriage to seven years (as a certain German member-of-Parliament has actually proposed), allows a man to divorce his wife for no better reason than that she will not grant him sexual favors on demand, allows a man to order the [[Terri Schiavo|death of his wife so that he can be with his "sweet patootie,"]] compels the military to allow open [[Homosexuality|homosexuals]] to serve therein, ''et cetera ad nauseam''.

And by the way: the rumbling you hear is the clearing of a Divine throat when you of all people, speak to ''me'' of all people, about prayer.

More to the point, don't talk to me about modern medicine. I know what it is capable of, and I know what it is ''in''capable of. You don't mess around with the Grand Design of the Master. But that is what modern medicine does. To give you an example: I got a mere two lectures on nutrition--and you'd think that doctors, of all people, would understand that the food you eat is as important to your good health as is the air you breathe. For all the training doctors get in human nutrition, you'd think the hoped-for future is one in which people simply take pills to get their daily ration of protein, carbs, and fats, same as they take vitamin pills today.

But of course, you never met a doctor who wasn't an evolutionist. And more to the point: your confidence in science is poignantly misplaced. I suggest a bit of classical literature to give you a sobering lesson on how science can go horribly wrong: ''Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus'' by Mary Shelley.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
Dude, Frankenstein is a novel, as in... fictional. Sure, maybe science ''can'' go horribly wrong, but religion ''does'' go horribly wrong. Crusades, justifying slavery, fundamentalism, et al. And those aren't fictional.

Terry, I didn’t think you would go this far, but I should have known better. I should have expected the Rapture to come in at some point. I would like to recapitulate for those just joining us, about the myriad uses of the Bible in human life. I believe that the Bible is a good moral compass – after all, “do unto others…” is a timeless aphorism, and a fine creed upon which to live. Similar lessons of generosity are obviously important. As the foundation of a religion, then, the teaching of Jesus are quite fine indeed.

However, I confine the relevance of any religious text to these moral/ethical/religious boundaries. Terry, however, goes a bit farther:
# Science: where observed facts conflict with the Bible, these should be willfully ignored, debated away with poor, easily refuted pseudo-arguments, and in every other sense marginalized. Cognitive activity on the source of human origins is appropriately limited when it transgresses beyond the Bible, and potentially tramples on points settled by this text.
# Law: the law should freeze societal norms as they existed two-thousand years ago. Full return to this system is favored, presumably complete with stonings for adultery (which is defined as lust), and theft.
# Politics: from Terry’s latest post, we learn that human political affairs are irrelevant – after all, the Rapture is around the corner! The United States will soon be laid waste by the loving army of God… after all, a two-thousand year old allegorical tale about one disciple’s hate for the Roman Empire says so. This idea actually passes beyond superficiality to become full-blown dangerous idiocy.
# Religion: the Bible explains all of religion, at face value, and requires no deeper quest for knowledge than a cursory read-through. After all, literalism will supply all the answers, all the time. So much for the liberal arts (I guess the term does have the word “liberal” in it).
# Medicine: see “science.”

In short, the answer to all of life’s questions – all of those issues which God endowed us with the faculties to resolve – are answered (and answered definitively, without further need of inquest) by the Bible. The life of the mind is justly circumscribed by the four corners of a six-thousand-plus year old document which makes no attempt to actually speak to some of these issues. Exploration beyond these lines is at best valueless, but at worst ungodly, blasphemous and sinful.

Terry, this actually saddens me. Religion ought to be a transformative experience, liberating the human soul to allow the mind to expand more fully, of the type explored by the early Church fathers. But your “faith” rewrites Christianity into a religion of repose, where all questions are answered, and humanity need now only sit and wait for the next step. Humanity, under this creed, would stagnate: the dying Keats described himself as a man whose name was “writ in water” – impermanent, fleeting, and inconsequential. To you, the entire human race, and indeed the human mind, might as well be writ in water, with such control and self-determination given up to an inflexible document.

What shallow faith, if so it can even be called! To think that God could be found more in blind obedience than in inquest and discovery! How… limiting!-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
----
Well, let [[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] be sad, if that's what he wants to be.

#I repudiate the notion that I am ignoring observed fact. ''What observed fact?'' The facts that ''I'' have observed is that many proponents of evolution have committed fraud, trying to show the existence of missing links that are still missing. [[Piltdown Man]], anyone? I also observe that, for the first time, proponents of evolution think they have scored a point by declaring that evolution is not a random walk. Well, you could have fooled a lot of people who have read [[Richard Dawkins]]' books.
::I tried to stay out of this, but Darwinian evolution was never portrayed as a random walk. At least not by supporters. I hope I can stay out of the rest of your discussion, and continue watching. [[User:Order|Order]] 12:25, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
#The particularly harsh penalties in Leviticus, for example, are in the context of a particular group of people who actually ''had the privilege of having [[God]] in a sample of His Glory actually residing in their camp.'' With that privilege came a tremendous burden. You do not approach a Holy God in the wrong way. Thankfully, [[Jesus Christ]] provided a bridge--and a different mandate to His followers. We do not ''set ourselves apart'' from the world, quite as the ancient Hebrews under [[Moses]] did--but we do refuse to participate in the world's muddy customs. And that's where the "societal norms" come in: those are ways of relating to one another that have stood the test of time. The decline of those "norms" has brought nothing but grief and a constant quest for a satisfaction that never comes--or when it does, it lasts no longer than does a [[drug]] fix.
#Yes, indeed, the [[Bible]] does contain prophecies that remain unfulfilled. Chief among them is that a one-world federation will take power. But it will have nothing to do with God's army. That battle will come later--at a site that [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] once declared to be a wonderful place to have a battle. But before then--if anyone reading this seriously thinks that the [[United States of America]] has become a dictatorial regime under its current President, [[George W. Bush]], let them think again. A leader is coming who will make [[Adolf Hitler]] look like a beginner, and [[Nero]] look like a total piker. Revelation was no allegory for attacks against [[Rome]]--it was a memorandum of things to come.
#Of course the [[Bible]] explains everything. And what does it profit a man to "explore" a smelly swamp?
#As I have said before--and as the archives of this page will show--I am better qualified to talk about what modern medicine can and cannot do, should and should not do, than are some people who pretend to be champions of scientific and medical knowledge.

And as for Frankenstein--well, even Mary Shelley would have been horrified at the spectacle of [[abortion]] on demand, high-tech designer babies, "treatments" for [[cancer]] that burn your body from the inside out and end up failing anyway, and certain research orientations that are just flat-out unmentionable on a family-friendly site. I further maintain that [[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]]'s confidence in science exactly mirrors that of the proud and arrogant Baron Frankenstein who decided to "bestow animation on lifeless matter" and ended up creating the eventual murderer of his wife and many of his loved ones.
----
Off of your #1, though, I wasn't aware that a few failures in the intellectual history of a movement impugned the entire thing. Of course we can cross apply that logic, and Christianity sure ends up looking pretty badly, after people like Eric Rudolph are factored in.

As for the rest, I really think enough has been said here. Your arguments have been broken down for the world to see how ridiculous they really are, and will speak for themselves, and conjure their own rebuttals in the mind of any reasonably sane person. Please enjoy your intellectually dead life.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 12:41, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

==Homosexuality==
Wikipedia has separate articles on Homosexuality, Gay, Queer, LGBT, Homophile, Lesbian, Gay pride, LGBT social movements, Pro-gay slogans and symbols, Men who have sex with men, Queer theory, Gay Liberation, Coming out, Gay slang, and about 50 other articles on the same subject, instead of one single article on [[Homosexuality]]. One single article is all that is needed on a non-normative fringe subculture. Giving that one topic 50+ separate articles smacks of promotion and of implying unwarranted normativity to the phenomenon. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 21:39, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:This site has about 10 articles on homosexuality. What should that tell you?-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
:Parrothead, from what I can tell that's a pretty typical number of articles for a subject. For a comparison, a quick look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Christianity Christianity Portal] shows that there are thousands of articles on Christianity, most of which quite substantial. A search for "Christian" returns 4.7 times as many articles as this ''entire wiki''. They range from the obvious (Presbyterianism, Jesus) to the greatest of detail (ecclesiastical ring, Geneva Bible, Augustine of Hippo, Psalms 28).
:Before I get accused of a cover up, yes, there is also an extensive portal for LGBT. Combining the results of <code>homosexual</code> and <code>gay</code> and subtracting the quotient of <code>homosexual gay</code> and two gives a mere 1.4 times the size of this wiki. Of course, search results are fuzzy (Hans ''Christian'' Andersen, Enola ''Gay''), but you get the point. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 20:59, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::I was commenting on Wikipedia, not Conservapedia. If Conservapedia has a few articles with a leftist bias they need correcting too to make them NPOV, but in any case Wikipedia is clearly even more leftist biased than this encyclopedia ever will be. And Conservapedia does have a few articles with problems, mostly due to trolls from the far left who want to see this project fail. My position is this: For any NPOV encyclopedia, [[Gay]] should be a disambiguation article and nothing more, disambiguating to [[happiness]] and [[homosexuality]] as well as things like [[Enola Gay]]. The traditional meaning of happiness should be first and not any neologisms such as it's use as a synonym for homosexuality. Queer should likewise disambiguate to [[strange]] and [[homosexuality]], again with strange first on the list and the neologism use a definite second. "LGBT" and "Men who have sex with men" should just plain redirect to homosexuality. Wikipedia's use of "LGBT", a [[politically correct]] "'wimmin' first" construction, instead of the more commonly used "GLBT" has also not gone unnoticed. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 19:55, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm going to skip the response to MichaelS's comment. The gay article focuses on the uses of the word "gay," both historical and modern. That's why the original meaning is defined in '''the second sentence''' and there is an etomology section. A link to both a disambigation page and the Homosexuality article is kindly provided in the italicized text about the main article. Basically the same thing happens over at the Queer article, except this time the definition that means strange is given in the first sentence.
:::Terms like GLBT/LGBT and Men who have sex with men are not redirected to homosexuality for a good reason. First of all, most of the terms you listed are not synonymous. GLBT includes transsexuals and bisexuals, and Men who have sex with men includes men who are not homosexual. The other problem is that reasonably good coverage of the subjects takes a separate article for each one. If all of the articles in Wikipedia on the subject of homosexuality were put into one article then it would take Internet2 to get a decent download speed. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 17:10, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

:::: ''"and Men who have sex with men includes men who are not homosexual"'' ?!? No, men who have sex with men is the very definition of homosexuality. I think what you mean here is it includes men who don't wrap themselves in the dominant "gay culture", to wit: rainbow flags, gay pride parades, drag shows, calling each other 'honey', feminine mannerisms and lispy speech, over the top campy attitude, obsession with divas, preference for Abba and the Pet Shop Boys over, say, Lynyrd Skynyrd and Hank Williams Jr., strong propensity toward mocking Christianity and treating it as something ridiculous, and obsessive identity politics and political correctness. Doesn't matter. If a man is having sex with another man he is, ''by definition'', a homosexual. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 07:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

*Postal, all are behaviors that are abominations before [[The Lord]]! You are at the wrong place if you think we are going to be held hostage by [[Wikipedia]] politically correct, revisionist terms. I invite you to make positive contributions, new articles, edits to them, and not on the talk pages! This is the fastest growing educational site on the Internet! Please stop this endless discussion over what the word "is" is, okay? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:56, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

If we have not done so already, we should put to rest the notion that "men who have sex with men aren't [[homosexual]]". This is a typical part of the [[homosexual agenda]], to spread confusion about the subject.

A "[[homosexual act]]" is what is forbidden by the Bible. Whether or not the motivation to commit this sin stems from upbringing or some (unknown!) innate factor is not important. If you are a "born [[kleptomaniac]]", you still have an obligation to resist the impulse to steal. Otherwise, societies everywhere will lock you up.

If homosexual behavior is due to your being crazy (as in [[kleptomania]]), you should be locked up in an [[insane asylum]]. If it's due to your wilfull defiance of what is right, you should be locked up in a [[prison]]. (That is, in any society whose laws derive from the Bible; everyone seems to approve of Islamic [[sharia]] law, so why not do the same thing here in Christian America?)

Whether or not there is validity to the notions that homosexuals are defined by [[sexual identity]], or [[sexual orientation]] or [[sexual preference]], the fact remains that homosexual ''behavior'' is sinful. When the temptation comes, you must dispel it! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:07, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

:Now that you've beaten a straw man, soaked it in gasoline, and burnt it on top of the highest hill in your general vicinity...

:The MSM article was just an example, it was not my core argument. If you would like to argue against me, I suggest you instead argue against these three sentences:

:#Wikipedia uses the Gay and Queer articles in a proper manner by giving an in-depth explanation of use of the words, both original and modern.
:#Decent coverage of the subjects related to homosexuality could not comfortably fit into a single article.
:#Some terms, such as '''L'''esbian '''G'''ay '''B'''isexual '''T'''ransgendered, are separate concepts and therefore require separate articles. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 00:28, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Please note that I did not mean ''should be locked up'' to be taken literally. Someday, when I'm running for Senate, this quote will be used against me. *sigh* I should have said ''bears the guilt'' instead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:04, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:Glad to hear you say that. Remember, locking up homosexuals has been tried before. I can think of one notorious example.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:29, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

==No Entry for liberal==

This is a continuation of the currently archived discussion under the same name. The original can be found under archive 9.

Ed Poor, there are many fallacies in your argument. 1st, you claim that Wikipedia doesn't have a liberal article, but it does. It has a page that references to many different schools of liberal thought. Yet you dismiss the obvious fact that it doesn't dismiss the existence of liberals, but actually goes so far as to list the many different liberal ideologies. How is this denying that liberals exist?

2nd, you claim that Archibalds' assertion that liberalism has seen many different changes throughout history is irrelevant because he should have realized "Mr. Schlafly" meant contemporary U.S. liberals. First off, how is Archibald supposed to know that? Second, if he were to know that then why do you choose to ignore the article (which I've mentioned) entitled Modern American Liberalism, which is listed only 4th on the liberal page?

3rd, how can you assume Wikipedia is an American literary institution that must abide by standards of the U.S. Democratic Party in it's usage of the term liberal, when you yourself have been forced to admit that the term liberal has many different geographic and time-based meanings? Do you decide to ignore the non-U.S. contemporary definitions of liberal and simply have liberal refer to modern U.S. liberalism? It does sound like there is an agenda here, but it's not on Wikipedia's part.

Lastly, why is Archibald a liberal? Is it because he is disagreeing with you? I'm just curious - since you seem to be the throwing the name around. I'm a libertarian with conservative leanings, but it doesn't mean I'm about to jump aboard the anti-Wikipedia "liberal" agenda bandwagon. Wikipedia, as a literary encyclopedia which covers worldly topics, is right on target here, and I see very little bias. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 19:32, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no

:This is a redirect to a "disambiguation page". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:06, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

:I would have thought that wikipedia didn't have a term for liberal because it is a world wide encyclopaedia and so has liberalism disambiguation. Also the brief definition given as evidence Wikipedia is biased is clearly not a NPOV and liberals in many countries think differently. Many liberal political parties in other parts of the world don't support tax payer paid abortion (whatever is wrong with that) and think that gun ownership should be a personal choice.
:Sweden for example has national service and at the end people keep the guns. Most people would agree that Sweden is one of the most liberal countries in the world if not the most liberal.[[User:Monkey998|Monkey998]] 23:44, 9 December 2007 (EST)
What's the difference between redirecting Buddhist to Buddhism and Liberal to Liberalism? It's not like they're doing anything to hide the Liberal entry - I mean, otherwise the redirect wouldn't exist.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:49, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== Ubuntu Christian Edition removed from Wikipedia ==

I am the developer of the [http://www.christianubuntu.com Ubuntu Christian Edition] which is a Linux distribution geared towards Christians. Recently Wikipedia removed our page and replaced it with a redirect to a list of Ubuntu based Linux derivatives. Ironically almost all of the other derivatives still have their own Wikipedia entries. They cited non-notability as the reason for the deletion/redirect. However, even they admit that this was "against the public opinion. It is also quite obvious that Ubuntu Christian Edition has gained plenty of notability to warrant its own page on Wikipedia.

Below are some links to the ongoing discussion on the Ubuntu Forums and the, now locked, AfD discussion.

[http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=567836 Ubuntu Forums Discussion] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ubuntu_Christian_Edition_%282nd_nomination%29 [Locked AfD Discussion]]

I would really like to have this added to the Examples of Bias in Wikipedia page. I would also like to have a page for Ubuntu Christian Edition. I believe if you take a brief look you will quickly see that it deserves its own page.

Thanks, Jereme Hancock--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:07, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

: I don't know anything about this, but suggest you post some entries here explaining what Ubuntu (what's the word mean?) is all about. Then others will revise and comment. This may be an example of bias on Wikipedia, but I'd like to hear others comment on this here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:41, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, will do!--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:59, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

'''What is Ubuntu''' 
Ubuntu is a community developed, linux-based operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers. It contains all the applications you need - a web browser, presentation, document and spreadsheet software, instant messaging and much more. Ubuntu is free software. You can learn more about what this means by reading our licensing. 
'''What is Ubuntu Christian Edition''' 
Ubuntu Christian Edition is a free, open source operating system geared towards Christians. It is based on the popular Ubuntu Linux. Ubuntu is a complete Linux-based operating system, freely available with both community and professional support. 
'''What does Ubuntu mean?''' 
Ubuntu is an African word meaning ‘Humanity to others’, or ‘I am what I am because of who we all are’. 

That is the basics. Thanks, Jereme--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:59, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

: Sounds interesting. You might elaborate on the Christian version, and how it differs from the main version, in [[ubuntu]]. I'm intrigued.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:06, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
::So am I. I am a Linux user myself--except that I use Fedora.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:20, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

But Wikipedia deletes non-notable articles all the time. Does this really count as an example of bias in Wikipedia? I admit the bias there is often worse than I thought, but do they actually consistently discriminate against Christians? Sorry, but I think Wikipedia may have been right in this case, unless there is some evidence to show otherwise. Besides, I think they have experts about this sort of thing there (?).
[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:56, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

: This article was notable by their own claimed rules for notability. You can see what the article looked like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ubuntu_Christian_Edition&oldid=162397757 here]. The article includes at least 4 sources. The deletion "discussion" can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ubuntu_Christian_Edition_%282nd_nomination%29 here]. The person who deleted is a clear liberal with an anti-Christian bias. He brags on his user page that he has donated to [[GLAAD]] the organization at the forefront of gay agenda. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:10, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Are you sure about that liberal part? According to his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alkivar#MY_ADMITTED_BIASES user page], he is a conservative libertarian, voted for Bush in '04 because he hated Bush less than Kerry, is a member of the NRA, and leans pro-life. He disclosed that he often disagrees with GLAAD, but donates because "homophobia is still rampant in the United States." He doesn't state a religion, but his edit history doesn't show a history of editing a significant number of religion-related articles, pro or anti. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 20:28, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

::: You are saying that he gave money to further the [[homosexual agenda]] and he is somehow conservative? [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 20:39, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

I apologize, I think I may have too freely given Wikipedia the benefit of the doubt, yet again. There doesn't seem to have been a clear reason for deletion. Off topic, though, do you believe that deviating from standard Conservative views on even '''one''' issue automatically exempts one from being a "true conservative"? If that were the case than no wonder there are so many liberals... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:54, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

: No, of course not, but giving money to GLAAD is extreme. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 21:13, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:: For closure's sake: I suppose I understand where you're coming from, then. At the very least he would be considered a highly unorthodox [[conservative]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:16, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
*I don't really know. Perhaps we should at least invite them to make a page here. Feebasfactor, could you set that up? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:05, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Sure thing. Upon reflection, they deserve it. :) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:33, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== possible bias ==

Numerous articles refer to the World War II Japanese American internment centers as "concentration camps"
--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 21:49, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

: Yeah, that's typical [[liberal]] bias. Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
:: Exactly what is a concentration camp?the preceding comment was made by [[user:KalleF|KalleF]]

they actually don't refer to them as concentration camps, but merely say that they have been called concentration camps
and they meet the definition of a concentration camp
if you were wondering

Britannica- a concentration camp is an internment centre established by a government to confine political prisoners or members of national or minority groups for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment.

Yep, thats Japanese-American internment

== Obvious bias in articles on media bias watchdog groups ==

In wiki, (MRC) Media Research Center is labeled as conservative in the opening sentence, while FAIR (Fairness in Accuracy in Reporting) has no label at all in the opening sentence. Any attempt to delete conservative from MRC or add liberal to FAIR results in being blocked or banned from wiki. Complete lack of consistency. Even within the article for FAIR, you are not allowed to mention the word liberal, but must use the milder word progressive, although conservative is all over the MRC article. [[User:Rhino7628|Rhino7628]] 08:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:I'm slightly amused to see how some people join Conservapedia only/primarily to complain about how they got slapped on the wrist (in this case for edit warring) on Wikipedia.
:I must also note that you have zero blocks on Wikipedia, despite your edit war and your apparent unwillingness of discussing (as seen on Talk:Media Research Center). So much for "results in being blocked or banned".
:Furthermore, the term "liberal" is even used in FAIR's intro section, and the article is a member of the category "Liberal organisations". So I don't see how the word "liberal" is banned in there. Oh, and the word "conservative" is also all over the official MRC site.
:However, we currently appear to lack entries for both MRC and FAIR, so please feel free to contribute! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:50, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the purpose of joining this website is because of an overwhelming number of liberal slanted editors on wiki, hence, this provides an outlet for those with neutral or conservative viewpoints. This is pretty much the mission statement of this website, and this particular situation further proves the value of Conservapedia. It's strange that you find that amusing since you are a member here as well. The reason that so many edit wars happen on wiki is because if somebody dares edit anything to be neutral or conservative, thier edits are reverted by the majority liberal editors, thus the purpose of conservapedia. And a simple view of the history of the 2 mentioned articles notes provides more than enough evidence that many are blocked and banned for the very reason of opposing these biased editors. And a simple scan of these two articles notes that conservative is blatantly put in the first sentence of the MRC article, but liberal or progressive is not in the first sentence of the FAIR article. Yes, I do plan to provide entries here for MRC and FAIR when I have the time to do so. [[User:Rhino7628|Rhino7628]] 18:43, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:::My reasons for joining are not political. I actually disagree with CP's right-wing view and the creationism stuff, but I try not to let that get in the way of my editing (which is why I often go to talk pages first to voice my concerns). I know that this is what CP does, and so I often move on, even while my consciousness is screaming at me. I mostly try to defuse overly broad or wrong claims and inserted opinions to improve the overall image this site projects.
:::Oh, and this site's mission statement is not neutrality. We don't do NPOV here. I'd love this site to be neutral, but it's not. Take a look at some of our hot-topic articles ([[Atheism]], [[Homosexuality]], [[Theory of Evolution]], etc.), and you will find that they are geared in very specific ways and that edits going against that way are removed because of their "liberal bias" (among other things).
:::Yes, I think you found a site that you can agree with (and I'm genuinely curious where you and CP will go with FAIR and MRC), just be aware that the things you complain about (like [[placement bias]]) also happen here, only in more extreme dimensions. And edit warring is a no-no on both WP and CP. :P --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 20:02, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

== Outdated info ==
Conservapedia attacks Wikipedia for displaying outdated information; shouldn't outdated claims on these pages be removed?[[User:KalleF|KalleF]] 08:45, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:I believe this has been brought up occasionally (check the first sections of Archives 7 and 8 of this talk page for more recent examples), and the answer generally seems to be "No." Personally, I would enjoy seeing the list being updated/trimmed/archived because it does CP's reputation little good to openly attack Wikipedia for things that have been fixed (or been rendered obsolete in another way) more than half a year or so ago. A shorter list with only the big and current/urgent items would hold the reader's attention longer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:09, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::I agree. A shorter list of more significant "biases" would do more to convince me than the paranoid diatribe currently available.[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 09:59, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia in its article Politics of Eritrea clearly describes the country as a "one-party state", so quit the garbage about Wikipedia refusing to recognize the fact.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:18, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins' edit ==

Number 80 really needs to be reworded. The wording suggests that Wikipedia let him link to an item on his store for over a year, when his conflict-of-interest edit was moved away from the body of the article in about '''1 1/2 hours''' with the chance of deletion. Meanwhile, his '''one''' previous edit to his page was a small factual error correction about being editor of four scientific journals and founder of a fifth (he was the editor of just two scientific journals and was not the founder of the fifth). Clarify wording? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 13:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

*Moved away? When? How long until resolution? What would happen there to me, an unknown, if I linked to and was selling some tapes of mine? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:16, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

::Considering that "User:RichardDawkins" edits apparently also broke numerous links, it's possible that the account had been hijacked (sounds more likely than Mr. Dawkins feeling the sudden urge after a year of inactivity to vandalize his own article). The people on WP are considering it, and one of them contacted Dawkins to check since these edits simply look odd.
::And there is a factual error in the entry: It did ''not'' take "well over a year after he first edited his own article" for somebody to notice it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins#Richard_Dawkins Talk page]
::That all aside, I don't see why Conservapedia is making a big deal out of it. After all, we have [[Special:Contributions/Stephenblack|User:Stephenblack]] editing [[Stephen Black]] and [[First Stone Ministries]] ("Reverend Stephen Black is the Executive Director of First Stone Ministries"). And here, people seemed quite [[User talk:Stephenblack|delighted]] about it - maybe he was even invited to join CP to edit his own article? Do I have to conclude that Conservapedia encourages people to edit their articles where they have a COI? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:54, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== grammatical note ==

"Arbitration Committe Chariman Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], who's official website..." should read "whose official website." [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 23:49, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
:And Committe should be Committee. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 21:04, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did." ==

Ouch. Is this a POV statement? Merely associating one with the John Birch Society is ''worse'' than McCarthy-esque destruction of someone's career and life because of perceived communist undertones? Knowing Conservapedia's user base wouldn't association with the JBS be flattery?[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 10:04, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps it should also be noted that three of those examples, as they remain in the present tense, are patently FALSE and have been so for some time. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:18, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Wikipedia removed the smear against the [[Democrat]], the deceased person and the baseball player. It left the smear against the most influential conservative group.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:23, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::While I disagree that the association between the John Birch Society and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons really constitutes a "smear" (regardless of the publication date, the assertion is properly attributed, and at the time Paul W. Leithart, a President of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, was in fact a member of the JBS), I will leave the definitions of what text and deeds at Wikipedia constitute "bias" up to you. I appreciate the adjusting of the tense in the example to be more factually and objectively correct. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:21, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::: Feebasfactor, as in our discussion about [[Richard Dawkins]], where you missed the point about how the purchase of a professorship is inappropriate, you seem to miss the point here. Guilt-by-association is wrong regardless of whether it is true. In fact, it is '''more''' wrong if it is true!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I think I understand... The association is not an example of "bias" because it is factually incorrect, but rather because it is unnecessary and misleading, presenting "facts" in such a way as to imply a false relationship and paint an unflattering picture of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. That seems to make sense; did I... get the point this time? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:40, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Right. It is "guilt by association" to smear one group based on the possibility that some of its members belong to another group found objectionable. Did you know that thousands of Democratic voters are communists???? Yet you won't see [[Wikipedia]] using guilt-by-association to smear [[liberals]]. Instead, the biased [[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association to smear [[conservatives]] only.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

==#82 is out-dated/incorrect==
It claims that the homosexuality category was not deleted and that the heterosexuality one was. However, the homosexuality one ''was'' deleted shortly thereafter. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Gay_Wikipedians&action=edit this link]. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 12:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:Someone please make this change this. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:09, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
::Here are the sources confirming this (please try to include clearer sources in future, we cannot follow up every claim or correction looking to verify it). The category was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians deleted] on October 10, 3 months after the previous decision, as per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians this] discussion. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:40, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::Also, the example to which this applies is currently example #86 (the last on the list). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:41, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I would suggest simply mentionning in the example that the homosexuality categories were eventually deleted as well. However, the fact that a distinction was ever made in the first place (between the validity of the heterosexual and gay categories) is still indicative of bias at Wikipedia. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)

== Factual corrections on Henry Liddell ==

I did some research on the accusations about the Henry Liddell article. Though Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 is used in many articles, it was not used in the Henry Liddell article. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Liddell&diff=3213370&oldid=3213308 edit] that first inserted the names and social distinctions of his grandparents wasn't from Encyclopedia Britannica. This first edit was made in 2005 by an anonymous IP shortly after the article was created. The IP address has not made any edits since. The accusation about Alice Liddell were moved up into the introduction in February. The grammar error was also fixed in February. Last week the years that he was dean at Christ Church were written into the article. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 19:44, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

: We didn't say that Liddell was based on the Encyclopedia Britannica, just that many entries are. And how do you know those edits didn't come from the Encyclopedia Britannica???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:: I know because I looked at the edit history in detail, compared versions, and saw the exact points where each relative was added in (they weren't all added in at once). Fascinating things, edit histories. That and the paragraph isn't in Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 00:14, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

==Interesting study of Wikipedians' political beliefs==
I studied the political beliefs of Wikipedians after reading that you said that they have a strong [[liberal]] bias. I found that, although it's mostly liberal, it's pretty evenly distributed ([http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Pol-access.PNG see graph]). This should be incorporated into the article. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:12, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
:That's interesting and surprising. And as an engineer I'll take graphs over words anyday :) Could I ask the methodology involved? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:29, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:: The graph makes it look like all three categories are comparable in size. They are actually vastly different in size. Factor size of the groups into this, and you'll see that the 3:1 ratio of liberals to conservatives as stated in the entry here is about right. The general [[U.S.]] public is 2:1 conservative-to-liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Andy's right that registered users vastly outnumber administrators and bureaucrats; in terms of quantity alone, the ratio of liberals to conservatives probably does approach 3:1. However, this study raises another interesting question: if Wikipedia's administrators and bureaucrats are surprisingly balanced in their political views, then why does Wikipedia seem to have such a [[liberal bias]]? Does this mean that the population of casual Wikipedia users is predominately [[liberal]]? In which case: how much is to blame on the sytem, and how much on the public? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:Are there really so few moderates among signed-in users? I'd be interested in the methodology as well.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 21:03, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I simply went by what users put on their userpages, so it's not completely accurate. Perhaps certain people with a particular belief tend to be less likely to pronounce it. That's definitely a downfall, but it's as accurate of a study as one can get limited resources.

Also, I don't find the bias too harsh. You should see what people put on Obama's and Clinton's pages. If Wikipedia was horribly biased, I wouldn't edit there, as I certainly find myself conservative. I think it's just that it's uncensored and open, which may make it more liberal.

However, if you researched for your facts, then I suppose you're correct. I just try to correct biases both ways everyday. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 09:29, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Another thing: as for the moderates in regular editors, I suppose they're more likely to put their beliefs on their userpages if they feel really strongly either way. And the opposite goes for admins/crats: they probably want to seem neutral, so make sure to state that they are if they are, and maybe not give their true beliefs to avoid conflict. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 09:31, 8 November 2007 (EST)

==Why does this matter?==
I don't understand why enumerating the examples of bias in Wikipedia matters that much, obviously every person has a bias of some sort, so every article written in wikipedia or otherwise has some degree of personal opinion. The general idea I get from reading this article is that Wikipedia as an entity is responsible for this bias, which is obviously incorrect since its the users provide the information it contains. maybe I don't understand what Conservapedia is about but it seems that this list is mostly filled with either misleading facts, isolated incidents, or gossip that has no place in a proper Encyclopedia.[[User:Morgoth|Morgoth]] 00:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

: Wikipedia doesn't admit its bias, and hence it is important to expose it. And, yes, groups or mobs can have biases too. Spend some time with the attendees at the Democratic National Convention and you'll notice they have a bias, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, everyone has a bias, but the stressing of Wikipedia's supposed 'non-negotiable' NPOV is in complete contrast to its strong liberal, anti-Christian leanings. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:39, 19 November 2007 (EST)

==Heavy Promotion of Liberals in Inappropriate Places==
I hope I'm not missing anything here, but while the "Boy Scouts v. Dale" articles still promotes liberal Evan Wolfson, I could no longer find the claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'" - it appears to have been changed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale]. Should I look for the appropriate version in the article history? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:Aha, here it is: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885] Compared to Conservapedia, I'm always suprised at how long it takes to fix these sorts of mistakes at Wikipedia. Then again, considering the political slant of the "mistakes" there, maybe I shouldn't be so surprised... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:35, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:: I updated this within minutes of this being pointed out here, and within weeks of the change on [[Wikipedia]]. That's quicker than the time it took [[Wikipedia]] to reduce (and not eliminate) its bias in that entry there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Upon rereading the unsigned comment above, it seems to agree that the [[liberal]] "mistakes" on [[Wikipedia]] are very, very slow in being corrected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I do! :-) And sorry about the signature. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:45, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

: My apologies. I realized after posting that I completely misread your additional (unsigned) comment. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:49, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== #2 (Prodigal Son) ==

Pretty much all of the entires on this list are misleading or trivial, so it seems kinda silly to pick on just one, but #2 is just blatantly false. The article on the "Prodigal Son" says nothing about rock bands or liberal media (?) shows like "Miami Vice". The ''disambiguation'' page does, but that can only be accessed through the main Prodigal Son page unless someone happens to include "(Disambiguation)" in their search, so don't pretend for a second that Wikipedia is trying to downplay the Biblical part.
--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 19:46, 8 November 2007 (EST)

: No, most of the entries on the list are not trivial. It does not even talk much about the vast percentage of [[Wikipedia]] entries that are silly rock bands or obscure places, for example.

: [[Wikipedia]] has changed many of its entries in response to this list, and perhaps the [[Prodigal Son]] was one of them. I'll look into this further. I'm sure our point about the [[Prodigal Son]] was correct when written.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 18 December 2007 (EST)

==Seigenthaler controversy==
WP's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction] says, "A variety of changes were also made to Wikipedia's software and working practices, to address some of the issues arising. ...The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales."

One of the 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales was Essjay, whom according to the ''New Yorker'' retraction, "was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team" and "Wales recently established an 'oversight' function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there." [http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote]

So in this alleged "reform," Jimbo appoints someone's whose honesty is certifiably questionable, and vests him with power to coverup abuses. Pulitzer Prize winning author Stacy Schiff names Essjay as Wales appointee; why can't Wikipedia's own entry on the Seigenthaler scandal clarify the facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:45, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:Technical correction: According to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia Oversight documentation] the oversight extension doesn't technically purge the text from the system. The removed edit stays in the database, but is hidden from regular users. Anyone with oversight permission or better (stewards, developers, etc.) can view the edit. There isn't an interface yet for reverting those edits, so one of the developers has to do a direct query to the database. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:15, 12 November 2007 (EST)

::I have evidence of non-Admins using oversight before oversight was ever established. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:40, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::I'm confused. What exactly do you mean by using oversight before it was established? And what does it have to do with the technical impossibility of a complete cover up? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 23:34, 21 November 2007 (EST)

== #81 ==

''Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."'' - If he had fixed it himself, then Wiki-libs would have blocked him in some manner, whether by cabals of libs 'outvoting' him under the guise of false consensus, or blocking him for editing his own article. It's idiocy to claim that someone can right the wrongs on Wikipedia if the biased libs there want the content protected to forward their agenda. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:34, 19 November 2007 (EST)

== Belfast / Good Friday Agreement ==

There are many examples of bias in Wikipedia, as I'm sure many of you are familiar with - especially in relation to Northern Ireland. However, this issue is not one of those examples.

To wit: The BBC did not create the Agreement and, in any case, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/schools/agreement/constitutional/support/ci_c031.shtml refer to it as both the Belfast.. and Good Friday.. Agreement as well as "the Stormont Agreement"]. It was drawn up by two governments after a consultation and signed in Belfast. Before that, the proposal was called, simply, [http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/agreement.htm "The Agreement"].

Both terms were coined to describe it based on when (Good Friday) and where (Belfast) it was signed.

Its official long form name would probably be "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND" (excuse the caps - this was copied and pasted from the Agreement itself).

Politicians tend to vary between calling it the "Good Friday Agreement" and the "Belfast Agreement". Many Christian politicians actually prefer the latter. The case is the same for the public in Northern Ireland.

The House of Commons refers to the document primarily as the "Belfast Agreement", occasionally as "The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement" and mostly as "the Good Friday Agreement" when quoting from other sources in the [http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-076.pdf Northern Ireland Bill] which implemented the Agreement.

The [http://archive.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/publications/ba.htm official website] of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland refers only to "the Belfast Agreement".

The Agreement itself is titled ''"The Agreement"'' and includes an annex entitled, ''"Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland."''

One can only conclude that "Belfast Agreement" and "Good Friday Agreement" are both basically nick-names, and the official name for the document is "The Agreement".

"The Belfast Agreement" is in no way "less familiar", unless you are specifically talking about the USA perhaps, or what it is called on the Internet or other media sources. If you were to mention either "The Belfast Agreement" or "The Good Friday Agreement" in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK, or the Republic of Ireland, I'm pretty sure the chances are similar that both names would be equally recognised. --[[User:Setanta|Setanta]] 12:12, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Wikipedia betrays itself [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Belfast_Agreement] on this one: more pages link to the Redirect (211) than the mainspace (45), 4 and one half to one difference. Even a discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28United_Kingdom-related_articles%29#Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography.2FHow_to_write_about_settlements Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements] uses Good Friday. Sorry, but IMHO, this one reeks of anti-Christian [[bigotry]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:16, 24 November 2007 (EST)

== #4 Justice Byron White Error ==

Is this [[bias]]? It is a mistake, but wikipedia prefers edits by registered users over anon IPs, as shown by the implementation of semi-protected pages and by the edit statistics.

: Wikipedia allows editing by anonymous IP addresses, and those edits are often [[liberal]] smears of people. I think Wikipedia's bias is one reason why it continues to allow this practice. Conservapedia does not allow editing by anonymous IPs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:55, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: I've done vandalism patrol before, and I promise you this: the vast majority of vandalism is by idiots who think inserting nonsense or deleting content is clever. Not smears, just idiocy. If there happens to be a source that ''conclusively'' contradicts what I'm saying, go ahead and cite it.
:: The only routine vandalism that could possibly be seen as a smear is vandalism to political articles. Many prominent politicians have 3 or more pieces of vaguely insulting vandalism per week. One example is an edit by a 3 edit user to George W. Bush's page that inserted "He is considered by many as the worst president in modern American history." That edit was reverted by a certain Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:30, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::: Anonymous IP addresses are the source of numerous [[liberal]] smears, such many identified in the content page here: [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:11, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:::: This is the talk page for that article. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 21:39, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== Dawkins again ==

Can somebody tell how the Oxford statement "The Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree" continued? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

==#84==
I haven't looked at the Wikipedia article recently - however, #84 should be removed from here and simply placed in [[Wikipedia|the article]] - because the fact that false information obtained from Wikipedia went into a news source is not bias by Wikipedia- merely stupidity by the news source.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:31, 1 December 2007 (EST)

: You still don't "get it" about the bias of [[gossip]] in [[Wikipedia]]. #84 is example of [[Wikipedia]] fomenting false [[gossip]]. [[Wikipedia]] pretends to be an encyclopedia, when in fact it's more like the National Enquirer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:58, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I understand that they pretend to do that - and I agree that doing that is certainly disgusting, however, if a frog pretends to be a prince, it's not bias - and this article is "examples of bias in Wikipedia"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)

==#8==
This entry is quite obsolete. The statement no longer features such terms as "extrapolation" and "credibility" or any such inaccuracies, and the citations reflect the phrasing in its current form. This one should be removed. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==#20==
This entry seems to show immense hostility towards Wikipedia for not having an article for the word "Deceit" - However, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary - this is explicity stated in the guidelines "WP:NOT" or "What Wikipedia is Not". I fail to see the problem here. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:47, 11 December 2007 (EST)

: But [[Wikipedia]] does have an entry on [[deceit]], using a redirect. Your criticism would only be valid if [[Wikipedia]] omitted the entry entirely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes, Wikipedia will redirect you to an article on "Deception", apparently with a disambiguation link at the top. Deception is a term that 1.)Requires disambiguation because of the existence of multiple entities with that exact title (albums and the like) and 2.)It's more generic, hence why the main article can be thorough and expanded with subsections. Anyway, it just seems like Conservapedia wants Wikipedia to define a term (deceit) which would most likely get slapped with a speedy deletion tag or an AfD - but not because it's concealing anything, but because users will cite WP:NOT. I hope that clarifies my position. Cheers [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 23:03, 11 December 2007 (EST)

::: Now you make a different argument. In fact, [[Wikipedia]] only changed its redirect of "deceit" to "deception" after we pointed out its bias. [[Wikipedia]] used to redirect "deceit" to "lie", and thereby denied what deceit really is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)

== Mary Stachowicz article vs. Matthew Shepard article ==

On Wiki, the article about Matthew Shepard[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard] unequivocally treats his murder as a "hate crime." The article goes on at length about it being a "hate crime" and how it affected "hate crime" legislation. It is also categorized as "Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes."

Meanwhile, the article about Mary Stachowicz states she was murdered only "in an ''apparent'' hate crime" (emphasis mine) and the rest of the article downplays the "hate crime" angle. The "hate crime" category was added to the article on October 26th, but removed on November 16th with the cryptic edit summary of "inapt [not suitable] category."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Stachowicz&diff=171878973&oldid=171817516] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: Superb. I'll work on a new point #1 to reflect your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Viewership ==

I hate to point this out, but I will. If CP and WP reversed positions, and people relied on this outlet for information, the blatant errors would be very much the same as they are today. Consider for instance my favourite of all, the article on Canada. One of the CP users went on to state that the Canadian education system is inferior to the American system on the basis of assigned letter grades and their percentage value. Of course, any real interpretation of information was completely absent from the entry. If we used the exact same system of measurement for the exact same courses, '''and''' then assigned higher letter grades for lower percentages '''while''' attempting to pass them off as being equivalent letter grades. But, we all know that the situation I described isn't the case. I would also like to point out that your homosexuality article is heavily biased, as you omit much information on the subject altogether. While your facts are likely very accurate, there is relevant or related facts missing that prevent the whole picture from being seen.

In short, the trustworthy encyclopedia can be trusted to be Conservatively biased, and to present very basic facts that present only a very slim portion of the picture. I also trust that despite my efforts to produce unbiased work, somebody will always come along and put a conservative spin on it. I suspect your concern with WP is that it really does represent freedom and non-secularism. Unfortunately, many conservatives are in favour of the suspension of many civil liberties, and secularism. First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out... --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:35, 21 December 2007 (EST)

== Unfair? ==

Isn't this article being a little unfair to Wikipedia? Yes, Wikipedia has problems, but some of the things here are really off the mark...

For instance: #73, and all other points that speak of "National Enquirer" type "gossip." How is it "gossip" that Nina Totenberg was severely injured? How is information on William Donald Schaefer (#85) "gossip" but not similar information about [[Al Gore]] on this site? And isn't "gossip" more like rumor and unsubstantiated information then verifiable facts with links to news stories?

Other entires act like Wikipedia is a concrete, unchangeable text made by one author, and that if something is left out it must be a sign of bias. See #20, Eritrea, #54, Jimmy Carter, #78, John Peter Zenger, #79, Bacon's Rebellion, and #82 the Piltdown Man. "Oh, if only there were some ''magical button'' that I could press in which I could ''add content to'' or ''delete erroneous content from'' Wikipedia. Curse you, Wikipedia, for not adding such a feature!"

And as for #77--that's totally ridiculous. Who determines what has "zero educational value?" Who determines what is "beneath a regular encyclopedia?" Aschlafly?

This is the core page of Conservapedia. A lot of editing on it will need to be done if this site wants to look credible. [[User:Cheesehead|Cheesehead]] 12:20, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::Excuse me Cheesehead, We are not the only ones who have determined how worthless Wikipedia can be...it's college professors who have done the same thing. They have cited the fact that Wikipedia is edited by amatuers who insist on being amatuer; it's edited by 15 year-old kids who write like they're in the first grade, and who demand complete control over people who can do better; and the editing is continuous for many articles, as good material gets replaced by goofy material over and over again. College professors have warned their students not to trust Wikipedia as a source at all. Do not come here and complain that WE are being unfair to Wikipedia when we have pointed this and more out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::The above has to be the most subjective dismissal of Wikipedia I've ever read. First of all, not all college professors dissuade or prevent their students from citing Wikipedia. Secondly, ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all. Now, they are invaluable as starting points that may direct you to illuminating second and third party analysises of a subject. This goes for Conservapedia as well. Wikipedia doesn't make the claim that they are authoritative. In fact, Wales has been crystal clear about that.

:::Thirdly, it's a FACT that Wikipedia is written by amateurs? Yes, a sub-population out of thousands and thousands. But, Please - This is just another baseless, misleading claim. Talk about your ad-hominems. Every single person I have ever encountered on Wikipedia has been eloquent and quite knowledgeable about the articles they cultivate - at least the registered users. Sure, that's anecdotal evidence, but I've been a regular editor there for three years now. These 15 year olds you speak of more than likely are the ones who edit articles on superficial pop culture or modern music. Who cares? Many articles here and there require fleshing out. It's open source and free to be edited by anyone. If you need any convincing about brilliant writing and comprehensiveness simply read any of Wikipedia's Featured Articles. Then gander at the thousands that are ranked as GA. Take your pick. Your post smacks of cynicism and prejudice that permeates this site. Don't get me wrong, I like it here, I think this place has merit and potential. If I thought differently, I wouldn't have registered an account and started editing/creating articles. And I'm not about to say that Wikipedia isn't without its flaws and foibles. Of course there are, things go on there that shouldn't, but some of your claims are downright outrageous, parochial and unilateral. Next time, try and be a little less narrow in your analysis of something which is credible and useful to many. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:35, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::::You've just proven it for all of us in your rant. ''"ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all"'' Credible and useful to many as well? I don't think so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:38, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::: Ok, now you're using a sort of Straw Man tactic in order to make it seem as though I'm contradicting myself. I thought it was patently obvious what I meant. In Academia no encyclopedia should be used as a primary source. HOWEVER, college students, high school students, and the general public use Wikipedia for gathering general information on a subject. More often than not, it is completely accurate. It's as simple as that. As a scientist, I wouldn't submit a manuscript for journal review with Wikipedia, Encarta or Britannica listed in my reference section. That doesn't mean they are useless or completely inaccurate. In the articles I've edited/read, the information matches up perfectly with my own personal knowledge of the subject - medicine, biology, chemistry, etc.. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 15:23, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:: Cheesehead, try to understand what [[gossip]] and [[liberal bias]] are before denying that they permeate [[Wikipedia]] entries. The nearly 100 examples in the list here reflect the approach taken and continued by [[Wikipedia]], and illustrate why so many serious contributors have abandoned [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:51, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== German-American ==

The term German-American, especially in its hyphenate version typically refers to American of German descent, and not to people that hold both passport, maybe because both countries subscribe to the view that you should only have one. Just like other hyphen American in the 19th century it is commonly understood that they were Americans. So, I see no point in complaining about that fact. See the websites of German-American heritage groups for more information [http://www.germanheritage.com/][http://www.german-american.com/]. [[User:Order|Order]] 06:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: The hyphenated "German-American" implies dual nationality, or no nationality, and that is incorrect. Far less than 1% of websites use this in reference to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]], in its bias for phony [[globalism]], pushes it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, "German-American" doesn't mean DUAL nationality, it indicates the individual's country of birth, descent, heritage, and nationality. It's not a citizenship term. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:15, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: Where would an 'African-American' have a passport from? [[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:43, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: The term creates confusion about citizenship. There's no denying that. It is used in far less than 1% of the websites referring to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]] with its anti-[[American]] and [[globalist]] bias, pushes the confusing term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 28 December 2007 (EST)
:First, if you are confused about dual citizenship, then only because you don't know that Germany doesn't allow for dual citizenship. And afaik, neither does the US. Can you give us a reference for your 1% figure. I guess the confusion just arises from being unfamiliar with the phenomenon of Hyphen-American in 19th and the first half of the 20th century. In 1987 President Reagan proclaimed a German-American Day on October 6 [http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/100287d.htm], and from the proclamation it is obvious that it refers to Americans of Germen descent. The German heritage site list Thomas Nast as a famous German-American [http://www.germanheritage.com/biographies/mtoz/nast.html], and same holds a 1983 Presidential Commission for the German-American Tricentennial [http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga-tricentennialreport.htm]. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: No, User:Order, I'm not confused but the Wikipedia entry is designed to create confusion in the [[liberal]] direction. American citizens are American citizens, not "another country"-American. As to the 1% figure, please do your own research on [[Google]] before criticizing work done by others. Surely I don't have to explain how to compare the sites mentioning "Thomas Nast" and those claiming he was a "German-American".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: Obviously, you want to have 100 entries before the end of the year, and I can understand that you are reluctant to remove this item, but let me still answer to your comments.
:First, if you make a 1% claim, you will have to provide evidence. This is not criticizing the work of others, it is inquiring where to find the work of others. So, from what you say you used Google for you research. What were your search terms? Up to which page did you go?
:Second, I did some google for the term "German-American", and it seems all hits on the first page and 74 of the hundred hits use "German-American" in the meaning of "Americans of German descent". This use seem to be the most common.
:Finally, a presidential committee including Thomas Nast as German-American seems to be very relevant. Is there anything wrong about that report?
:[[User:Order|Order]] 21:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: User:Order, I can see you lurching towards [[last wordism]] here, as [[liberals]] tend to do. Your "obviously" statement is out of line as I could easily increase this list of examples of bias in Wikipedia to 130 by New Year's if I wanted to. Thomas Nast on Google retrieves 175,000 sites, but Thomas Nast and "German-American" only retrieves 3,800, and only a tiny fraction of that refers to Nast himself as "German-American" rather than using the term as an adjective to "culture" or with another meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: 3.800 out of 175.000 makes 2%. But good that you told us how you got the statistics. First, you are looking for a very specific combination of phrases, namely "Thomas Nast" and "German-American". You should also mention that about only 32.400 sites use the adjective "German", so at most 20% of all site mentioning his name mention his ancestry at all. But the complaint was that the term "German-American" was used in a confusing way, and if we look at the hits for "Thomas Nast" and "German-American", we see that that at least the first 20, use "German-American" to mean American of German descent. As do most hits for "German-American". And we still got a presidential committee listing him among famous "German-Americans", which should carry some weight, too. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:30, 28 December 2007 (EST)

==What's Wrong With Bias?==
If an article I saw had some information missing from it, or presented in a bad way and I knew enough about the subject; I would edit it. That's what Wikipedia is for, isn't it?

At least Wikipedia is biased in all directions, and not just trying to do it along one single political agenda. Everyone can edit articles there to say whatever they want. If there's a majority of users who think a certain way then sure their own beliefs are going to be pandered to more. What stops you helping make their site better?[[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:49, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: A lie supported by a majority does not make it true. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: User1601, [[Wikipedia]] is '''not''' "biased in all directions." Rather, it has an overwhelming bias in one direction. The examples here confirm that. Several of the examples illustrate how attempts to edit [[Wikipedia]] to correct its bias are futile - in response, the [[liberal]] mob and bullies who run [[Wikipedia]] will restore the bias or even make it worse!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::I find it hard to support your point when you are arguing in favor of a site which much more polarized than wikipedia. -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:31, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: Concealed bias is particularly objectionable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I'd like to note that the second entry about typing "conservative" into wikipedia is not true, regardless of whether it once was or not. A page search for "anti-baby" and "anti-family" returned nothing. Second, the statement "you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion" seems rather subjective. It seemed to be a rather scholarly article regarding the general ideals of conservatives. Seeing as this is the "second" example of liberal bias in Wikipedia, this is rather damaging to the cause isn't it? Perhaps it's back down to 97.

: Wikipedia corrected its bias on the above point only after we exposed it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== Renaissance: I contest point 64 ==

It is widely agreed amongst art historians that the driving force behind the Renaissance was first the rediscovery of roman art and the evolution of humanist philosophy. Christian themes prevailed because the church was one of the major funders of the artists. Also if Christianity was a major influence in the Renaissance why were mythological works produced by all four masters and most other artists? -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:19, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== Formatting error in list leads to possibly unwanted inflation of count ==

I just noticed this:
{{quotebox|29. Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples have included: 
30. *pro-life Congressman Jerry Costello, merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating[38] 
31. *anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[39] 
32. *the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, by repeating a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS[40] 
33. *conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS[41] 
34. In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more liberal targets, such as the Democrat Jerry Costello, or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.}}
Is it intentional that the JBS bias is stretched over six points? It strikes me as a formatting error.

I am currently not aware of a way to fix the list in the current form. The main problem is the paragraph after the last example. Without it, things would be easy to fix. In the current form, here is my suggestion (it's important not to have additional spaces in the "#:*" or "#:" parts). It looks okay and gets the point across :

#[[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:
#:*pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>
#:*anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>
#:*the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>
#:*conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>
#:In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.

(You can simply copy and paste the above section from the edit box here, I left the references intact.) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 08:51, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Talk:Gun control

2007-12-29T04:02:25Z

JakeC: /* Australian election results */ Why would I vote the guys who screwed up?

Quote: "This right is a natural right which we are endowed by our Creator with, and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly recognizes this pre-existing natural right of individuals to own and carry tools useful for self-defense."

This assertion requires citation to comply with the Commandments, as, no matter how rational and obvious, it is a personal opinion. Additionally, it would be useful, and would strengthen the assertion, if a clearer explanation of the constitutional right to carry tools really exists, vis-a-vis pre-existing natural rights. If a constitutional scholar is available, it would be great if he could comment here, as the Second Amendment is of the utmost importance and we should support it more clearly.

:I agree, the wording of the Second Amendment is hardly explicit. Also, Jesus reprimanded Peter for trying to defend them with a sword, so whether our Creator wants us to defend ourselves with guns is debatable. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 12:57, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Besides: the "natural" sic for (inalienable?) right stems for the [[Declaration of Independence]] not from the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]]. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think my version was more clear and accurate, but it's your site.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 09:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The Second Amendment gives 'The People' - that is The American People (not persons as in individuals) the right to arm itself, specifically against the British who claimed sovereignty over the American People, forbidding them to bear arms except under the King.

Countries with gun control have fewer homicides, as do US states with gun control. And as Daniel B Douglas points out Jesus requires his followers to turn the other cheek: I certainly don't remember God asking us to arm ourselves to the teeth. KT

The Bill of Rights is specifically about INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. If you think Jesus Christ, the Son of God is a pacifist then you should read about His second coming in the Book of Revelations. In all countries without a similar version of our 2nd Ammendment right have fewer individual freedoms and rights. Gee, if only we were like other countries, sigh.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==Patriot Act==

Cut:
:Interestingly enough, the USA PATRIOT Act is another law that restricts liberties in the name of safety, yet those in favor of the PATRIOT ACT are often opposed to gun control.

What does "another law that restricts liberties" mean? Is it a "restriction" that any overseas phone call I make to a suspected terrorist will be monitored?

Where is the contradiction between wanted terrorists thwarted, and wanting to defend oneself against muggers and rapists? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== VIRGINIA TECH ==

So - is NOW a good time to discuss things like waiting periods (I beleive Virginia has none), conceal laws(Virginia lets you do that) and other such unpleasantries???? [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 20:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT) 20:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Any time is a good time to help craft a balanced article presenting arguments for and against gun control laws. I have seen arguments on both sides enough to fill up several books.

:Can you boil it down to 2,000 words or less?

well, cars still kill wayyy more people.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 21:55, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:Uhm... So anything that kills less that cars per year should be legal to have and use? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::47,000 fatal car accidents per year in the U.S. versus around 1,000,000 non-fatal uses of guns in self-defense. I'd ban cars on that basis, but there's obviously much more to it. Do we have an article summarizing the findings of [[John Lott]], the statistician who wrote ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]''? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:08, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Question''': What happens if one of the students who was shot had a gun with which to defend himself? '''Answer''': there would be less people dead then there are now. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 22:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::'''Counter question''': How many students would be killed every year in shootouts in schools, if we allowed people to carry guns there? I bet even the accidental shootings would kill more people nationwide, not to mention all the things people can do when they are angry, gang related stuff and so on. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:40, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Question''': what happens if the murderer hadn't been able to get a gun? '''Answer''': there would be ''many'' less people dead then there are now. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:'''Question''': Who are and who are not prevented from getting guns by gun control laws? '''Answer''': Law abiding citizens are prevented from getting guns and criminals are not. --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 22:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::'''Reply''' Regardless of what the laws are a criminal who wants a gun will be able to get one. Look an how effective (not very) the laws against illegal drugs are. gun control takes the guns out of the hands of the law abiding citizens but not the criminals. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 22:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::More likely he would use some other weapon to kill. Like run over someone with his car.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 22:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Well they have so-called "motor-voter" laws that enable people who get driver's licenses to register to vote. Perhaps they could draft a "motor-toter" law, to issue every driver a handgun? Carjackings would go WAY down.[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

The argument that criminals would still get guns if they wanted them has some foundation in logic, however, it has no foundation statistically. A comparison to England will suffice. It bears out the conclusion that while some criminals still get guns, it is fewer - the mental & physical block of having to break another law just to get a gun actually deters gun crime :-) -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Allso should be concidered where the criminals get their guns, those dont show up from nowhere. Most are stolen from those who have legally purchased them. Less gun owners, less weapons around to be stolen. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::or stolen from a cop. ya, all cops have guns. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Guys, all of this is good stuff, but please consider before posting whether it's better to go to the [[Debate topics]]. Are you planning to help write a balanced article here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

* Read [http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/16/where-did-the-shooter-get-his-guns/ this] information via Hot Air. -- [[User:AmeriCan|AmeriCan]] 03:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

We've got a discussion going on here already: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Would_the_repeal_of_gun_control_laws_make_incidents_like_today%27s_shooting_at_Virginia_Tech_less_likely_to_occur%3F [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Gun Control Leads to gun confiscation. ==

I am planning to remove this because it has no reference.
-Brian

If everyone, including children old enough to pull a trigger, owned a gun, would there be more or fewer shootings of human beings, accidental or intentional? I'm including felons, mentally ill, illegal aliens, legal aliens, and aliens from outer space.

== Somewhere else in the world ==

I'm wondering if it would be useful to add something about Singapore, which has some of the most extrems laws about gun control. Something like :
:"In Singapore, which has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, the capital punishment is mandatory for "arms trafficking", ie owning more than two weapons under the Misuse of Arms Act, and caning is mandatory for any person found in posession of a weapon (not even a firearm)"
Any comment? [[User:Emptiness|Emptiness]] 05:20, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I, the inferior European who cannot possibly understand anything you superior Americans discuss here, have something to add in too. And yes, that was sarcasm. So here, I´ll offer you a little piece of gun control info from the rest of the world: Here in Finland, we have certain, quite strict gun control laws: it is quite close to impossible for a private person to own a *handgun* without a very good reason, such as being the owner of a shooting range, sports, or being a police officer. Also, anything beyond semi-auto is a BIG no-no for civilians here. Shotguns and Rifles ARE available far easier, since hunting is a very popular pastime here in Finland, especially the northern parts where I live in.
Interesting enough, most homicides and crimes in general do NOT involve guns, they involve alcohol and drugs. Far more common as a murder weapon is a kitchen knife than a firearm of some kind, and a very large proportion of ALL crimes in finland involve alcohol in a way or another. Just my two cents, y´know?

..And Come on, we have friggin RUSSIA as our neighbour. [[User:FreakyM|FreakyM]] 08:52, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Duplicate sentence revert. ==

Okay, I guess I might just have a bee in my bonnet over this, but the sentence, ''Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and liberals as a remedy to crime.'' appears twice -- in a row. Once as the end of the first paragraph, and then as the first sentence of the second paragraph. I attempted to correct this obvious mistake, but I was '''reverted'''. Would someone please tell me how I was wrong to do this, and why it is necessary to repeat this sentence immediately after itself and why it should '''not''' be removed from the tail of the first paragraph?

As it appears in the article:

''Such measures can range from a total prohibition on civilian ownership and possession of firearms and ammunition to specific restrictions on certain firearm features, "waiting periods" for gun purchases, licensing of gun owners, registration of firearms, etc. Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and liberals as a remedy to crime.''

''Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and liberals as a remedy to crime. Libertarians and conservatives, on the other hand, argue that whether or not guns are officially controlled by the government, criminals will commit crimes, and a black market will exist to provide them with firearms.''

Have at me.

''' [[User:TheReverendLee|The Rev.]] 22:36, 22 June 2007 (EDT) '''
----
: I see the revert was removed, and the correction made. Thank you. I am avenged.
:
:''' [[User:TheReverendLee|The Rev.]] 10:16, 23 June 2007 (EDT) '''

Uhh, is it really proper for the article to claim that "Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and liberals as a remedy to crime, but that is actually a [[deceit]]" right in the first paragraph? I mean, that's a big assertion and there's no citation to back it up. I think such a statement would be better suited to the second or third paragraphs, maybe... [[User:GrandSoviet|GrandSoviet]] 23:36, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

== Moved discussion from Talk:Main Page ==

I've moved the discussion down here for clarity.

If you give a random stranger a gun, there is a 100-to-1 chance that the gun will be used defensively, to prevent crime, rather than to perpetrate a crime. It inexorably follows from that simple observation that more guns leads to less crime.

If a random passenger or pilot had a gun on [[9/11]], thousands of lives would have been saved. If a teacher or random student had a gun in a [[public school]], they would not be easy prey for people like the [[Virginia Tech killer]]. Indeed, most shocking crimes would never occur if there was widespread gun ownership.

As I've said, every credible study confirms that more guns leads to less crime. The next time you read about a serial murder, a rape, a beating, a robbery, etc., just think to yourself: more gun ownership would have reduced the likelihood of that occurring.

I'm going to add this issue to the [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 15 December 2007 (EST)
:I'm still waiting for you to reference those studies. Meanwhile, I found [http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html this page] which argues (with facts and figures) that Australia's tough new gun laws resulted in very little change in crime and gun deaths. In other words, it didn't help the situation, but didn't make it worse either. Unfortunately, it's data dates to only a few years after the tough gun laws were introduced, and longer-term data would be better. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:32, 15 December 2007 (EST)

:: I'll build up the [[John Lott]] entry with more citations. I've already added several. With odds of 100-to-1 that putting a gun in the hands of a stranger will be used for defensive, deterrent and crime-preventing purposes, it's statistically implausible that such gun distribution would increase crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 15 December 2007 (EST)

:::I've already said this above but it's probably worth repeating.

:::I think it is unwise to compare gun control and homicide rates between different countries and then use that as an argument to increase or reduce gun control in a particular country.

:::The situation in the UK and Australia (similar gun control laws) is very different to the situation in the US. Neither of the former two has an equivalent to the Second Amendment nor do they have a history of common and easy gun ownership. Unlike the US.

:::While gun crime and homicide rates are much higher in the US compared to either country and almost all Western nations, that doesn't mean that introducing more gun control will reduce gun crime and homicide.

:::Conversely, using the (perhaps counter-intuitive to non-Americans) US experience of "more gun-control = more gun crime and homicide" to argue for less gun control elsewhere doesn't follow.

:::The stark reality is that gun crime and homicide are generally higher in countries with relatively relaxed gun-control (such as in the US) and generally lower in countries with relatively strict gun-control.

:::However, changing from more gun-control to less or vica-versa doesn't necessarily produce the result that is expected - in either direction. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:59, 15 December 2007 (EST)
::::Why are you so obsessed with guns? Knives and swords work just as well, and if carried on a plane would have avoided the risk of a loss of cabin pressure that is an issue with higher-calibre handguns. And what about Tasers and Mace? ...[[User:RingWraith|RingWraith]] 18:19, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, Aschlafly, you just changed the [[John Lott]] page from a serious and critical (if short) look at gun control, giving arguments for and against (although more strongly for gun control). Now, as a result of this argument, it is a totally pro-guns piece....conservative bias perhaps? [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 10:25, 16 December 2007

:There were scurrilous and non-encyclopedic remarks in the [[John Lott]] that were properly removed. I've added additional information also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)

In reply to Philip above, I want to point out that [[gun control]] represents a [[materialistic]] style of reasoning that we reject in other contexts. [[Gun control]] depends on overemphasizing the significance of what is seen (guns) as the cause of crime, while ignoring the significance of what is unseen (deterrence) in reducing crime. Generally, though not always, advocates of [[gun control]] also advocate [[materialism]] in other contexts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)
:: Sorry, I can't see the connection between gun control and [[materialism]]. I accept that the idea that widespread carrying of guns would deter crime makes sense, but as always, and as Ajkgordon said, this is simplistic as there are always multiple other factors at work. I haven't seen comparative figures for crime in different countries, although I have seen those for gun deaths which show America being over four times the rate of Australia. However, the Australian figures show that most gun deaths are suicides, and these might well happen by different means if there were far fewer guns around, so those figures may not mean much. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 16 December 2007 (EST)

:I don't think I've ever heard any serious analyst saying that guns are the cause of crime. Rather I often hear that wide availability of guns can enable a high level of gun crime catalysed by other factors such as drug use, poverty, disenfranchisement, gang violence, etc. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 16:39, 16 December 2007 (EST)

: I think many [[gun control]] supporters do think that the guns themselves are the cause of much crime, and that the crimes would not occur in the absence of guns. This is a heavily [[materialistic]] style of reasoning, but there are many [[materialists]] out there who are attracted to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:58, 16 December 2007 (EST)

::Well, it's simplistic reasoning. Gun-control > fewer guns > less gun crime.
::My view is that gun control has a negative ( i.e. lessening) effect on gun crime and violent crime if gun control is the current status quo. Changing from loose gun-control to tight gun-control, however, can often have a positive effect, particularly experienced in some states in the US.
::But likewise, your reasoning of Gun-freedom → better defence → less gun crime is also over simplistic.
::There are too many other variables at work to make that predictive correlation. And certainly it would be unwise to argue that more guns in places like the UK and Australia would lead to lower gun crime when their gun crime rates are so much lower than those of the US already. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 17:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)
::: Andy's point is that the widespread availability of guns deters ''general'' crime, not specifically ''gun crime''. Whether or not that's true I don't know, but I can see the rationale. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly, if a random passenger had a gun on 9/11 that would imply anyone legally entitled to carry a firearm could take them onto airplanes. Legal entitelment would assumedly be granted anyone without a criminal record who has been vetted for gun ownership. Terrorists are often people who meet exactly that description. More terrorist with guns on airplanes, passengers with guns on airplanes, shoot outs on airplanes. Apart from the fact that shooting off guns in high altitude aircraft is not a good idea, I have a suspicion that many people would shudder at the thought and come to the conclusion flying would be a more dangerous activity as a result. A more liberal, gun control approach was the introduction of armed Air Marshals on flights, unfortunalely not so much conservative fire-power available in case of an emergency. [[User:CillaHunt|CillaHunt]] 17:47, 16 December 2007 (EST)

: A gun fight on one of the September 11 planes would bring the plane down, but that would have prevented the far worse consequence of it crashing into the World Trade Center.
: But although Andy's got a point about us not seeing what crimes are prevented by guns being widely available, an argument that he's not addressed (as I recall) is that widespread availability of guns means that people who are otherwise law-abiding then use them in a moment of passion or rage, often killing a spouse or other relative or friend, whereas if they didn't have ready access to a gun, the consequences would have been much less severe.
: What this means, however, is that we then have to weigh up this apparent benefit of not having guns with the apparent benefit that having guns has in deterring crime generally. It's a difficult issue, made more difficult by the fact that if one goes from widespread gun ownership to very restricted gun ownership, although the end result may be better, in the interim it is the law-abiding people who give up their guns first.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 16 December 2007 (EST)

:: Philip points out a common fear, that guns cause crimes of "passion or rage" that would not occur in the absence of the guns, but please realize that knives, sticks, baseball bats, and fists are still available. Also, the absence of guns means a lack of defense or deterrence against crimes of "passion or rage." So I doubt there is an overall positive effect of [[gun control]] on this particular type of crime, which is a probably a small percentage of overall crimes anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)
::: A couple of corrections and an agreement:
:::* I didn't say that guns ''cause'' crimes of passion or rage. Nor did I say that in their absence the crime would not occur. I was saying that in cases of passion or rage, a gun is going to have a worse consequence than if the gun is not available. Sure, a knife or etc. could still be used, but the victim likely would have a better chance of surviving an attack with another weapon than against a gun.
:::* I agree that this particular type of crime would only be a small percentage of overall crimes.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:09, 17 December 2007 (EST)

<--- Let's take a step back. For those of you who are anti-gun control, why are US rates of violent crime so much higher than almost all other wealthy western countries, most of which have tight gun control? Obviously you don't believe that it's due to the wide availability of guns but there does seem to be a direct correlation. What, in your view, are the reasons? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:21, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::: The [[U.S.]] is unique in many ways. The [[U.S.]] has a culture of violence in sports, movies and entertainment, it has an enormous drug problem, it has anti-religious [[public school]] system, it has widespread gambling and pornography, and it imprisons more people per capita than any other nation. When those inmates get out, they don't easily find jobs, and unfortunately it's back to crime for many of them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:11, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Hmmmm... interesting, thanks.
:::::But it is also one of the most religious western countries, so why does it have these problems in the first place? And are you arguing for more effective rehabilitation of prisoners or fewer prisoners? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:15, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::::: The [[U.S.]] has a strong religious component, but also a strong anti-religious component. Since crime is perpetrated by only 1% of the population, the [[U.S.]] is probably worse off than other countries when viewed with respect to religion and crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:30, 17 December 2007 (EST)

::::::Well, I, for one, am arguing for a renewal of the culture, to address the problems that Mr. Schlafly just mentioned. Especially the matter of violent sport (and the excuses that team owners and many colleges make for misbehaving athletes), gambling, pornography, and anti-[[homeschooling]] regulations.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::Thanks, very interesting.
:::::::I wonder what percentage of the prison population is religious compared to atheist. I read recently that 2% of Americans are in prison or on probation/parole at any one time. Let's be generous and say that 10% of Americans are atheists. Does that mean that one in five American atheists are convicted felons? Or is it a more balanced proportion reflecting the religious/atheist split in society as a whole?
:::::::Even so, with atheists making up a much bigger proportion of the population in countries such as France and Italy, their prison populations are proportionately much lower. I guess I'm simply struggling with a link between atheists and crime but I may be missing something.
:::::::As for violence in sport, football (soccer), rugby, Australian rules... all these are pretty violent in other countries. Gambling is not unique to the US nor is pornography, while homeschooling is so insignificant in most other western countries as to be irrelevant.
:::::::What I'm looking for is what makes the US have such a high level of violent crime - a unique differentiator in its culture or wealth or society or education or immigration that doesn't have anything to do with guns. I'm struggling a bit. Are there any well-regarded studies on the phenomenon? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:13, 17 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::
:::: An interesting debate. Aschlafly writes -

::::The [[U.S.]] is unique in many ways. The [[U.S.]] has a culture of violence in sports, movies and entertainment.

::::Absolutely true, but don't forget that the second largest export of the US is entertainment, so the rest of the entire planet is also watching the same violent US-produced material on TV and in the movies. As for sports, apart from the punch-up joke that ice hockey became, I'm not sure how the US sports are any more violent than, say, soccer, or bull-fighting even. I can't see what's unique here, basically.

::::it has an enormous drug problem

::::Again, very true, but again, not unique to the US, and I'm sure plenty of studies would suggest the problem is much, much worse elsewhere.

::::it has anti-religious [[public school]] system

::::Perhaps so, but most other Western countries have far more students in far more secular schools. Again, I'm not sure there's anything unique here.

::::it has widespread gambling and pornography

::::The US obsession with pornography is odd, but it's hardly worse of a problem than many other societies, and certainly not uniquely so. However, I would have to disagree with you on the gambling front -in many, many other nations betting shops are as common as the local newsagent, and many perfectly normal people are completely accustomed to routinely place wagers on all sorts of activities, all legally and fully above board. (Though I'm certainly not suggesting this doesn't create problems). The US seems to have worsened its gambing problem in much the same way it worsened its alcohol problem during Prohibition by banning access to the activity to most, and creating these bizarre enclaves (native reservations, bizarre cities) where it's suddenly OK to go wild on wagering.

::::it imprisons more people per capita than any other nation. When those inmates get out, they don't easily find jobs, and unfortunately it's back to crime for many of them.

::::Here I'm with you 100%. The US has a staggering incarceration rate, and there's no denying that prisons are unhealthy environments. This is certainly a unique feature of the US. But I'm interested in those studies you quote, and I'm interested in debating exactly what IS unique about the US that causes the gun crime rate to be so high. [[User:Reasonableperson|Reasonableperson]] 17:38, 17 December 2007 (EST)

::::: That's basically the point I made earlier: I don't see that the U.S. is all that much different to other English-speaking western countries, such as Australia, except that it has a higher proportion of Christians (which ''should'' mean that is has ''less'' crime) and it has a much more liberal (sorry!) attitude towards guns. Superficially, this would indicate that the higher rate of violent crime is due to the widespread availability of guns. As for movies, I'll endorse Reasonableperson's comment. Much of what airs on Australian television is produced in America. And much of the Australian content has a lower moral standard than the American stuff! Put it this way Andy, if you think the American movie and TV productions are bad (and much of it is bad), perhaps it indicates that you don't know enough about what's produced elsewhere! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::: I agree. Of the points raised so far, only the extraordinary prison population is unique to the US - but there's an obvious logical flaw in blaming the level of crime on the number of prisoners. I'd like to throw this one out there though - does the US have a bigger gap between rich and poor than is common in other developed countries, and is this part of the explanation? Certainly, here in Australia we have a subset of the population which is significantly poorer than the rest of us. And that subset (the aboriginal population) has higher rates of violent crime, and also has a very high prison rate. So perhaps in the US the poverty gap is the cause of the crime, the guns are the cause of the severity of the crime, and the prison population is a result of it? [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 05:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)

While this is all very interesting, I would like to know where the "100-1 chance" fact came from. From where I am sitting, it seems to me that more guns are not the answer. You do not put a fire out by adding more fuel to it, especially because more guns will find their way in to inner city streets and gang violence. Put it this way: between 1994 and 1999 there were 253 school related deaths, 60% of which involved hand guns. And in a single year, more children die from gun shots than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined. Scare you yet? Oh, and if you are under 15, you are 12 times more likely to be killed by someone using a gun than in the top 25 industrial countries. combined. So do we need more guns? How about we prevent psychos like the VT shooter from getting a gun[http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm gun safety facts]. How about we prevent another Columbine? Nothing is being done and it is sad. Do you need armor piercing, fully automatic weapons? No. More guns does not lead to less crime, we cannot all be the judge and jury, lets put more money in to policing our streets (by not making it basically suicide to be a policeman in the inner city). What credible studies are you referring to? It seems like in America today, violence is more and more becoming the answer, and it shouldn't be. I do not want to have an argument be settled by a gun shot. It ruins lives.

So what to do. Here is my proposition: Stop selling hand guns. And here is why. First off, they serve no purpose other than to kill another human being. Self-defense, gang violence, home violence, curious children, they serve no purpose. The only reason that they are used in self-defense is because it is too easy for people with ill intent to get them in the first place. Second, it does not impede your hunting or right to bear arms. Listen, a 9mm cannot kill a dear if you are hunting it right. A 9mm can kill a police man, or a cashier, or fellow students if in the wrong hands. Seems like the simplest and most effective answer is to abolish them entirely. Thanks for your time.

{{unsigned|Afee}}
:Whilst I agree with much of that, the main problem I see is that if you stop selling guns, you will effectively be stopping honest people from getting them, whilst the criminals will still get them. That could make the situation worse. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:29, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::Certainly that seems to be the problem faced by US states that have introduced strict gun control where before there was little gun control. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:35, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Aschlafly, I'm just curious, if you are so dedicated to the preservation of human life, why are you so opposed to gun control. There is no secret agenda behind it, the sole purpose of gun control is to limit access to guns and as a result reduce gun violence. [ed. note: deleted inappropriate comment that follows] --[[User:LoveJesus1|LoveJesus1]] 19:50, 21 December 2007 (EST)

: "LoveJesus1", gun control results in a loss of human life. I know [[materialists]] have trouble "seeing" that, but guns deter crime and save lives. Next time you see a police officer look at what he carries. The more citizens who can carry the same thing, the less the crime.

: Don't think we're fooled by [[liberal]]s pretending that "the sole purpose of gun control is to ... reduce gun violence." [[Liberals]] care more about increasing dependency on government, as in [[Cuba]], which has the strictest [[gun control]] in the world. Less guns means more government dependency, and [[liberals]] know that but rarely admit to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 21 December 2007 (EST)

::Aschlafly, comparing gun control in other countries is not a good idea if you want to argue the case for no gun control. And using Cuba as a comparison is, as you know, completely irrelevant - Cuba has a completely different form of government and ideas of freedom. If you insist on comparisons with other countries, then it should be with other wealthy liberal democracies such as the UK or Australia. However, it makes your anti-gun control argument very difficult to support because both of those countries have lower rates of gun and violent crime. In the UK, the police aren't even armed!
::There are too many other factors involved to draw conclusions by comparing other countries' experiences with the legal status of arms. The only valid comparisons, in my humble opinion, are those between US states. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:01, 22 December 2007 (EST)

== Change of graph and wording ==

[[image:Robbery victims.png|right|350px]]The graph that I supplied (right) was drawn from Australian Bureau of Statistics data from 1993 to 2005. The [[:Image:Australia crime.gif|graph that Andy substituted]] is, in my opinion, inferior, with three problems:
* It covers the years 1991 to 2000, a smaller range, and particularly only covers a few years after the introduction of gun control.
* The source of the data on which the graph is based is not specified, although I'm not suggesting that it is questionable; it's probably official data from somewhere.
* The graph is being used in the article to make a point that is contradicted by the report the graph came from. The report says of this graph:{{QuoteBox|It's apparent from the graph that the rates for both robbery and armed robbery rose faster for a couple of years after '96 than they had before. Also, the burglary rate was dropping a little from '93 to '96, but then started an obvious rise. The rises would look like a bad effect of the ban/buyback, except that they stopped after '98. The small downturns for all three in '99 and 2000 could be the ban/buyback stopping some upward trend that had begun, but it is just as likely that the trend reversal was caused by elimination or whatever was causing the trend to begin with. Both robbery and armed robbery appear to have stabilized (two years) at rates higher than they were before the Port Arthur incident and the ban/buyback.}} In other words, the report says that the graph is inconclusive, but the article claims that the graph shown an "unmistakable increase in robbery and armed robbery".
Also, the article says "there is no evidence supporting the promised decrease in crime from gun control", yet the graph that I supplied and which was removed ''does'' support that (even if it doesn't ''prove'' it, given that other factors may be at work). Furthermore, other ABS figures that I spotted, such as murder rates, seemed to show the same drop. I picked "robbery" because it was the largest category of violent crime, and would have swamped other figures such as murder figures.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:02, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Also, the article now says that John Lott "demonstrates" (I had "claimed") that gun control in the countries mentioned have resulted in an increase in crime. It is true that he does quote some percentage-rise figures, but there's almost no actual hard data in the reference to really be able to say that he "demonstrates" it. It's more of a claim with the bare minimum of supporting evidence. I haven't had a close look yet, but his claimed percentage rises don't seem to match the ABS figures. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:07, 23 December 2007 (EST)

[[image:robbery victims per 100K.png|right|350px]]
:I've done more searching, and have found figures that appear to match those of the graph from gunsandcrime.org. They only supply a small graph, so one can't compare actual figures, but my new graph (right) appears to match theirs. The differences from the other graph I did (above) are that their graph is crimes per 100,000 people, and their "armed robbery" figures include weapons other than guns. My new graph is the same as theirs in that it is per 100,000 people and includes weapons other than guns. The other significant difference, of course, is that my graph goes to 2005, whereas theirs only went to 2000. I couldn't find the burglary figures that they include on their graph, so I left them off. And because of that, the vertical scale is expanded compared to theirs. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:20, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== ...protected? ==

Aw, man. This has been protected since ''June''? I had just thought of a possible addition, but then I realized that I can't edit. :( Is this normal? I thought protection was just used for a short time to protect against vandalism. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 10:45, 24 December 2007 (EST)

: Thanks for pointing it out and, no, that is not normal for such protection to continue for so long. I unprotected the page per your request. Please be factual and insightful in improving it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::Thank you kindly! --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 11:00, 24 December 2007 (EST)
::: And thanks for the work on tidying up the footnotes. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:30, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== Gun Control and Genocide ==

It is stated here that [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gun_control&curid=8440&diff=357540&oldid=357525 "the facts are provided"] to justify a claim that "Gun control has led to genocide." I disagree. Example: "In 1911, Turkey imposed gun control and then, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million defenseless Armenians were killed." What does the gun control have to do with the genocide? It is not disputed that these three states enacted laws suppressing the free ownership of firearms. What I dispute is the link between ownership restrictions and genocide. Is the author suggesting that gun control led to the easy murder of unarmed civilians (for example, Jews would have been able to defend themselves against Nazi murders if they were able to posess personal firearms)? If this is the case, I feel it should be cleared up. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 13:11, 24 December 2007 (EST)

: Genocide would be impossible, or nearly impossible, against an armed group of millions of victims. That is self-evident. If you have an example of genocide occurring without the state first disarming the victims through use of [[gun control]], then I'd sure like to see it. Most people will use their weapons, if they have them, to defend their families.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::The millions of victims in the cases above were spread all over the place in small populations. Would such populations, even if they did all manage to gather together in one huge group, armed with small arms and rifles have been able to defend themselves against armies armed with airplanes, armor and artillery? Have you been inbibing too much Christmas spirit? By the way I think your contribution is great. The bloggers will love it. Merry Christmas! [[User:CillaHunt|CillaHunt]] 13:42, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::CillaHunt, the last bit of your comment is not productive. I brought forth a legitimate concern of mine, which was in no way derisive of the author of the particular section of the article. I agree with the first part of your comment (the victims were unorganized, etc, and would have a hard time defending against armies), but insulting someone is not constructive to this discussion's goals of improving and clarifying the article. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 13:51, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Well said. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:31, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::: ThomasB, I appreciate your rebuttal of CillaHunt's silly and insensitive remarks. Genocide has occurred multiple times and each time it was preceded by [[gun control]]. It doesn't take a genius to understand why. Airplanes, armor and artillery, by the way, are not the tools of genocide. Rather, genocide is perpetrated by neighbors with state-provided guns taking away victims who lack guns to defend their families. Can that happen without [[gun control]]? It never has, and I think the answer is "no". But I'm open-minded to listen to coherent arguments, if any, that [[gun control]] is irrelevant to the ability to carry out [[genocide]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:57, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Thanks for your explanation. I had interpreted the article as saying that gun control was the reason for the genocides, not that it was the reason it wasn't able to be prevented. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 14:02, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::: That's a hair-splitting distinction you're trying to draw. I'm not sure there is any distinction in practice between (a) being a reason for something occurring and (b) being a reason that the same thing was not prevented. Without the gun control, it would have been difficult or impossible for the genocides to occur. It seems to me you may seek to cling to gun control without admitting that it facilitated genocide. With all due respect, I'd suggest letting go of the gun control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:17, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::My confusion was really just a matter of semantics. I interpreted "gun control has led to genocide" to mean that the firearms regulations caused people to seek to eliminate an entire ethnicity. Thanks, [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 14:32, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Andy, why do you continue to deny the genocide that occurred in Bosnia? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 17:49, 24 December 2007 (EST)

I would, however, like to make another point with regard to this. For gun control to have enabled genocide in the instances cited, the populations in question would have had to be otherwise armed. Is there any evidence that these populations were, and were able to fight back effectively? The Jews, even when they were organized and armed (as in Warsaw), actually allowed most of their population to be deported before they fought back. A preemptive clarification here, I am in no way attempting to defend gun bans or any more extreme measures of gun control as I fully support individual gun ownership rights. [[User:Cmh|Cmh]] 10:18, 25 December 2007 (EST)

: [[Gun control]] creates the vulnerability that enables [[genocide]] to occur. There has never been [[genocide]] without [[gun control]] first rendering the victims defenseless. Without [[gun control]], there is a powerful deterrent to [[genocide]], so powerful that it has not historically occurred in those circumstances. See the Washington University law journal article cited in the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:30, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== the footnotes are presently messed up for this article ==

the footnotes are presently messed up for this article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:05, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:fixed. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:06, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== Australian election results ==

I removed this from the article:
{{Quotebox|In [[Australia]], the passage of gun control in 1996 and its expansion in 2002 has led to a complete takeover of all nine federal, state and territory legislatures by the socialistic Labor Party, the first time a single party has ever achieved this in Australian history. (The Sydney Morning Herald - [http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/either-way-its-history-in-the-making/2007/11/23/1195753310949.html Either way, it's history in the making])}}
Gun control was brought in in 1996 at the instigation of the federal Liberal Party (conservative) government, who had to get the co-operation of the state governments (it is a state responsibility). Two states objected and had to have their arms twisted, so to speak. Both these were Labor states (Tasmanian and Queensland). The next two elections at state level or above (Western Australia at the end of 1996 and South Australia in 1997) saw Labor governments replaced by Liberal governments. At the federal level, the Liberal Party retained office for the next three elections (1998, 2001, and 2004).

By 2002, all states except South Australia were held by the Labor Party. South Australia went to the Labor Party in February 2002.

So claiming that gun control led to a Labor monopoly seems to be drawing a ''very'' long bow. Especially given that gun control was not an issue in the 2007 federal election that finally resulted in wall-to-wall Labor.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:19, 25 December 2007 (EST)

: Philip, your analysis ''confirms'' rather than disputes the truth of the statement above. The point is that [[gun control]] causes a shift in voter attitudes towards more dependency on government, and this is precisely what has been observed in [[Australia]]. You say that "Especially given that gun control was not an issue in the 2007 federal election that finally resulted in wall-to-wall Labor." But no one claims that the "issue" of gun control itself is what sways the elections towards leftists. It's the increased dependency on government that ''results'' from implementing gun control that causes the voter shift to the left. Leftists understand this and push [[gun control]] for that reason. Why wouldn't [[conservatives]] recognize this effect also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:: Andy, could you clarify what you mean by "dependency"? Dependency in what areas? Social services (which I'd suggest has no connection)? Health services (ditto)? Or security/self defence? In the latter case, the population was always dependent on the police anyway, as very few carried guns as a matter of course. It still seems to be drawing a very long bow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:50, 25 December 2007 (EST)

::: I mean emotional dependence. [[Gun control]] directly requires voters to depend more on government for protection, and that causes support for bigger government. It's an emotional dependence and plainly affects how people vote. And that, of course, is why leftists push [[gun control]] so much. The cause-and-effect in the political results in [[Australia]] and elsewhere is unmistakable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:::: The problem I have with that is one that I've already alluded to: Before gun control in Australia, they always did rely on the government (i.e. the police) for protection. They didn't rely on guns, because most people did not carry guns. I would say from my own observations that there has been ''no'' increase in reliance on government for protection because of gun control. Furthermore, for all practical purposes the police forces are state-run, but gun control was instigated by the ''federal'' government, so your argument is effectively saying that the federal government introduced gun control to increase reliance on state governments, which is absurd to anyone knowing much about Australian politics. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:48, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:::::Philip, do you have any stats showing the level of gun ownership before and after 1996? My guess is that it reduced from a small fraction of the population to a small fraction of a small fraction of the population. What's more, pre-96 I would imagine the vast majority of gun-ownership was in rural areas, but the swing against Howard in 2007 was significant in the cities also. So to argue that the change has been so significant to lead to some sort of dependence on government is bizarre. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 22:37, 26 December 2007 (EST)
:::::: No, I don't have those statistics. This is not a subject that I've ever taken an interest in (and I'm only doing so now because some of the claims are so at odds with my observations here in Oz), so I don't have any statistics "lying around", so to speak. All the statistics I have produced are ones that I've gone looking for. The best (most authoritative) source would be the Australian Bureau of Statistics web-site, so I suggest that you go there and search for gun ownership statistics. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:51, 27 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy,

:You are simply lying if you think that Leftists push gun control to create a dependency on government. More guns equals more crime. I think you should take a walk through Dublin some night, by yourself and see how you get on. We don't have massive gang shootouts here like in the States. And thank God for that. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 19:22, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:: Andy argues that more guns equals ''less'' crime, so if he believes that, he is not lying. Uncivil comments like that do not help your argument. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:48, 25 December 2007 (EST)

"In Britain, for example, the enactment of a ban on most handguns in February 1997[15] resulted in the Labour Party winning a landslide 179 seat majority in the general election later that year, the first time it exceeded 40% of the popular vote in over 25 years. The new government soon extended the ban to cover nearly all handguns, and the Labour Party has remained in power in Britain for over a decade."
I think the above is very misleading - Labour came in to power for a great many reasons, but I think the restrictions of handguns is extremely unrelated. Having grown up with guns as a hunter, many people dislike Labour's anti-gun stance, but the real reason they won was due to an immoral opposition (sexual scandals etc) and the promise of a younger more media-savvy government. --[[User:Mattsday|Mattsday]] 20:15, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: You're arguing against logic and observation. Every gun owner who gives up his gun, or can't obtain a gun, is more likely to vote for the pro-government party. It doesn't take very many of "more likely" shifts to change an election outcome. If the British gun control affected more than 5% of voters -- and it surely did -- then the outcome changes from conservative rule to [[Labour Party]] rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:46, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::While I agree with your position on gun control, here is my reasoning in this particular case:
::If (in the US) the Democrats came along and made a law that ended with me losing my gun or not being able to get one, I'd surely give my votes to the Republicans ASAP, who would likely (hopefully) try to undo the damage done by said law.
::After all, it's not like the Democrats' plan would go much beyond "Guns are bad. Let's control access to them", right? The police was there to protect me before, and I honestly doubt that gun control would suddenly lead to the introduction of Super Troopers patrolling the streets. So voting Democrats after they screwed up would only give them permission to screw up more. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 23:02, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== General Comment ==

Folks, there have been several edits to the content page that have taken out or obscured factual information. Other edits have misled readers by attributing an enactment of gun control legislation to a particular party in control of government at that the time, without recognizing the media pressure created for the gun control based on a statistically insignificant, but much-publicized, act of violence. I'm going to revert inappropriate edits that obscure the essential facts. Guns, the most effective weapon of self-defense which are used overwhelmingly in self-defense, deserve factual treatment here on Conservapedia. Readers can draw their own conclusions. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== How long do we wait for the effects? ==

Andy's edit comment associated with the removal of some text was, "''removed confusing reference to the opinion of one pro-gun group, and removed emphasis on 2004 crime data relative to 1996 gun control''"

I would like to know the following:
* What was confusing about it?
* Why is 2004 crime data apparently not relevant to 1996 gun control, yet 2007 election results are?
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:04, 25 December 2007 (EST)

: As to the first half, I find it meaningless to say, "such-and-such group feels such-and-such." Suppose a said that a Christian group favored same-sex marriage? It would mean nothing, particularly without a statement of what most Christian groups felt, or what the most credible Christian sources say.

: As to the second half, demographics with respect to crime change over the course of 8 years everywhere. Crime fell worldwide during the period 1996 to 2004, I think, do to declining percentages of teenagers likely to commit crime. But the demographics of voters do not change as rapidly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Inappropriate "fact" tags ==

On [[Wikipedia]], "fact" tags are used to make ideological statements. That is not appropriate, obviously. Two "fact" tags were just inserted here:
* a "fact" tag on the observation that there is "no evidence," but it's impossible to cite a fact for something that is not there
* a "fact" tag on the observation that [[Australia]] moved significantly to the left politically after adopting [[gun control]], which is supported by several cites and, frankly, indisputable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 25 December 2007 (EST)
: "Fact" tags can be used to make ideological statements. They can also be used to ask for a reference for something that is agreed. They can also be used to ask for a reference because the claim is either disputed or questioned.
:* The first fact tag was not that there is "no evidence" but that a decrease in crime (generally, as opposed to gun crime) was "promised". I don't remember this being promised at all.
:* The second fact tag was not disputing that the electorate moved to the left, but that this was "due to" gun control. I don't believe that it was due to that, despite all the comments above about how this ''could'' happen.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:46, 25 December 2007 (EST)

:: It seems self-evident to me that lawmakers promised a safer country from the gun ban, but I've added a cite to that effect to address your concern. Honestly, I can't imagine supporters of the gun ban saying anything else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:02, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::: A "safer country", yes, but specifically through fewer gun deaths, not reduced crime generally. And the reference merely claims what you said above, that lawmakers promised a "safer" country. It does say in what way they claimed it would be safer, so does not claim that lawmakers said that crime generally would be reduced. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 25 December 2007 (EST)

:: On the second point, you put "due to" in quotes but I don't think I used that phrase. Are you quoting me? I thought I said "led to", which is undeniably true. It's a fact and you're free to suggest other causes, but your other causes should explain why Britain also moved left after its gun control, while America did not move left after it ''rejected'' demands for gun control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::: I thought that I was quoting you, but you are correct: you said "led to", not "due to". But it doesn't make any real difference—in both cases it is indicating causality, which is what I was questioning, and I reject that it's "undeniably true". There's always multiple factors at work in elections and why people vote the way that they do, so it's never a given that a particular issue is the cause, or even a factor, in the outcome of an election.
::: I don't believe that the onus is on me to explain what could be a coincidence (Australia, Britain, and the U.S.), given the small sample size. Rather, I think the onus is on you to explain, if you believe that the same factor is a work in all three cases, why Britain moved to the left straight after the introduction of gun control, whereas Australia moved to the right straight after (see my earlier post above) and only moved left later on, after eleven years in the case of the federal government.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 25 December 2007 (EST)

::::Hear hear!!! It's that lazy correlation = causation argument that keeps cropping up. It's worth noting that at present, although the Labour Party is still in power in the UK, the mood seems to have swung significantly back to the right - at exactly the same time as it swung to the left in Australia!! And of course if you wait long enough, ANY country will swing to the left at some point. So using the flawed logic seen above, you can take any change you like and argue that it ultimately led to a swing to the left. In the case of the change in gun control laws in Australia in 1996, the change happened right at the start of one of the longest periods of continuous right-wing federal government in the nation's history with the swing to the left taking 11 years to arrive. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 23:58, 26 December 2007 (EST)

== WorldNetDaily reference ==

[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304 This article] from WorldNetDaily (WND) is being used as a reference for a couple of points, but I believe that the article is unreliable, possibly from relying on claims and figures from the (Australian) Sporting Shooters Association rather than official figures.

A problem with the claims are that there are no specifics, such as what years they are comparing. Presumably, however, they would be comparing, say, 1999 (as the article was written in 2000) with 1995 or 1996 (1996 being when gun control was introduced). Here are some official figures that I've found, and I've highlighted 1995 and 1999:
{| class="wikitable"
| || '''1995'''||1996||1997||1998||'''1999'''||2000||2001||2002||2003||2004||2005
|- align="right"
| align="left"| Homicides in Australia || '''326'''||314||321||287||'''344'''||316||310||318||302||263||270
|- align="right"
| align="left"| Gun homicides in Australia ||'''58'''||99||75||54||'''62'''||59||50||42||37||32||26
|- align="right"
| align="left"| Homicides in Victoria ||'''62'''||52||63||47||'''62'''||55||65||67||69||47||72
|-
| Gun homicides in Victoria || colspan="11"| <center>Not available (not found)</center>
|}

In particular, I question the following two claims:
* "'''Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent'''"
: One problem is that I can't find a 3.2% rise in murders in the official figures (above). In compiling these figures, I did notice a discrepancy between the two sources (the first two listed [[:image:Robbery victims per 100K.png|here]]), due to having to revise figures in subsequent years, so that ''might'' explain the lack of a 3.2% rise anywhere.
: The more serious problem from WND's point of view is that the figures are fluctuating, not consistently rising. 1996 was down on 1995, 1997 was up on 1996, 1998 was down on 1997, and 1999 was up on 1998! Anyone trying to make a claim that "homicides are up 3.2 percent" must be being selective with the data.
: Furthermore, although WND could not be blamed for this, the years since 1999 have shown a ''downward'' trend, with all years except 2002 and 2005 being drops over the previous year, and those two exceptions not being enough to change the trend.
* "'''In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent'''"
: I can't find gun homicides figures for Victoria at all. But the claim seems very unlikely to be true, or if it is true, it is an exception to the nationwide trend and probably caused by a very low base. Across Australia between 1995 and 1999, gun homicides were about one fifth of all homicides. If that holds true for Victoria, then Victoria's gun homicides for those years would have been around ten to twelve. A 300% increase would bring that up to 40 to 50, which is getting close to Victoria's ''total'' homicide rate. This is extremely unlikely. Alternatively, perhaps Victoria's gun homicide rate was lower than the national average to start with. In this case, it is definitely a very low base and not a good argument. Regardless, even if somehow the 300% figure is true, it must have occurred without an obvious impact on the total homicide rate for the state, and it is the exception to the (national) rule, where gun homicides went down every year except 1996 and 1999, and in 2005 were ''less than half'' the 1995 figure. Also obvious from the figures above is that Victoria's ''total'' homicide rate has fluctuated, with no clear trends up or down.
I'm not questioning some of the other claims (such as assaults being up) simply because I haven't gone to the effort of looking for the figures. But I have to wonder if they can be relied on either.

In summary, the WND article is of questionable accuracy to be used as a reliable source, and the 300% rise is unsafe to use in this article.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 26 December 2007 (EST)

: Improvements to the article are welcome, but even the table above shows clear increases in violent crime, even gun crime in the years following the gun control. The data ten years later is virtually meaningless as their were worldwide declines in crime due to demographics, not gun control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:23, 26 December 2007 (EST)

:: It does not show an increase in gun crime in the years following the new laws!! 1996 was the year of the Port Arthur massacre that led to the new laws. 35 people were killed that day, accounting for the large total seen in 1996 - so you should not be using 1996 as a post-gun-control-laws year. The following two years saw 75 deaths (up on 1995) and 54 deaths, slightly below the 1995 figure. The trend has been downwards ever since, to about half of what the prevailing rate was at the start of the table. So unless you are hanging your argument on the 75 deaths in 1997, which is just one data point out of the 11 given, I'm not sure what you are doing. (Note - over the period 1996 to 2005 the Australian population grew by about 14%, making the downward trend all the more marked.) [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 00:13, 27 December 2007 (EST)

:: I agree. Any "increase" that one might see is by being selective with the figures, picking out an atypical year. The trends are what is important, and the trends are generally downward. (I had meant to point out, as Ferret has now done, that the figures don't allow for population growth, so the downward trend is greater than shown.) Andy, I don't understand what you mean by "worldwide declines in crime ''due to demographics'', not gun control". What "demographics" are you talking about?
:: Also, you (Andy) have been making the point that widespread availability of guns reduces ''all'' (or most? or violent?) crime, and here you claim that the figures show an increase in "violent crime". But the figures don't show "violent crime" at all—they only show homicides. That is, the figures do not include rapes, assaults, armed robbery, etc. Just homicides. So they don't show ''anything'' about "violent crime" per se.
:: Furthermore, the introduction of gun restrictions in 1996 did not mean that all guns were handed in overnight. It took time, and as you noted, there were further restrictions introduced in 2002. So one would expect that the results of gun control legislation would take some time to show up, and eight years (1996 to 2004 for the robbery chart a few sections above) seems quite a reasonable time to me.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:03, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Editing article and talk pages

2007-12-29T03:51:28Z

JakeC: /* Books by foreign authors */

'''[[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive1|Archive #1]]'''

== Capitialization of article names ==

People do realize that when the names of the articles are in all caps, this makes it rather difficult for the wiki software and thus the editors to link to the proper article. As Conservative has pointed out, excessive redirects also hurt page ranking. When you want to talk about [[blocked trains]] by typing <nowiki>[[blocked trains]]</nowiki> you are instead forced to do <nowiki>[[Blocked Trains|blocked trains]]</nowiki> to get [[Blocked Trains|blocked trains]]. This adds an unnecessary burden on the person writing the article to add a pipe link, and a redirect from the lower case version so that if someone does link it, it doesn't show up as a wanted page and a red link. This is not so much a matter of "be different than wikipedia" but rather "this is how the software works and the way to make the most use of it." This becomes even more important if non-sysops are not allowed to make redirect page links.

I would strongly suggest that administrative types reconsider the name of the article. If it is a proper noun, certainly have it in the proper case - but if it is not, let the wiki software handle it correctly.

If the decision is to remain have it upper case, I would likewise strongly recommend that this be put down, enforced, and you go though all the pages that do not conform to this and rectify them. Do realize that you will be working against the software in trying to do this.
--[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 11:28, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

*No, it isn't "working against" the software at all. That is not an accurate statement. Now some editors, on rare occasions might have to do as in your examples. How often does that happen? Not much. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:33, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

:: New articles, out of the past 500 that are not title caps:
::* New! Capitol punishment‎; 18:51 . . (+582) . . Boyscout (Talk | contribs)
::* New! Communazi pact‎; 16:04 . . (+37) . . RobS (Talk | contribs) (create)
::* New! Average velocity‎; 08:10 . . (+209) . . SharonS (Talk | contribs)
::* New! Instantaneous velocity‎; 08:09 . . (+203) . . SharonS (Talk | contribs)
::* New! Zone blocking shceme‎; 23:56 . . (+295) . . TimmyJdb (Talk | contribs)
:: Poking about, you've also got [[citizenship cases]], [[prior restraint]], [[parochial school]]. Look through [[:Category:US Senate Terms]] or [[:Category:Biology]] and you'll see many, many, many examples of non-title case articles. You might need to do a sysop education class if you want to change all of these and have that change stay going forward. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:46, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
:: Linked from the main page, you've got [[mainstream media]], [[liberal bias]], [[public school]], [[2008 presidential race]], [[illegal alien]]. This happens quite a bit and is the natural way to write articles, which is the way the software best supports. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:52, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

*Well, as you already knew before posting, this is something that we are doing just as you suggested, systematically changing. Originally most articles were created in title case, then it mostly stopped for a while, mimicking Wikipedia. So, does this mean you would like to coordinate this project, like Azriphale is doing with the categories? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:56, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

:: I believe you are waisting significant amounts of time and energy trying to do this which ultimately will end up as a bad thing. You are making it harder for contributors to add material, to link to existing material, and for search engines to find the material in question. Aside from 'being different than Wikipedia', what is the reason to do this? How much work and education will it take of sysops and users rather than working with the software as it is designed? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 21:00, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

*So, you are merely a troll, spoiling for a disruption? Why do you insist on saying what several Wikimedia programmers have told me is false? Title case in no way disrupts the software or makes it "work harder". It in no way impacts search engine bots, as they are adaptive, and learn. It might effect placement for a day or two, but afterwards it compensates. And that information came to me from a pretty unimpeachable source at Google. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:12, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
:I don't know about search engine rankings and how "hard" the software works, but it does make it harder for editors, and it's not accurate to say that this is "not much". It's also fair to say that it's not the way that the software was designed to work. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:13, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
::I agree with Philip on this. It is much easier to put links into pages if only the first word is capitalized. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 10:36, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

: Search engines don't like being redirected. If nearly every link to multi word link is a redirect, they will slightly lower the score of those pages. Nor do they like what appears to be duplicate content at multiple pages.
: Secondly, when writing articles, it is natural to put the <nowiki>[[ ]]</nowiki> around relevant word groups. This can be seen in [[instantaneous velocity]] where the contributor was writing and then put in <nowiki>[[average velocity]]</nowiki>. To make this upper case, it would either require the contributor to write <nowiki>[[Average Velocity|average velocity]]</nowiki> or create a redirect page at the lower case version to the title cap version - something that it appears that non-sysops are forbiden to do.
: This also increases the likelihood of having two articles that differ only in case that need to be merged later. If one user created a link to <nowiki>[[Average Velocity]]</nowiki> page and another created a link to <nowiki>[[average velocity]]</nowiki> without realizing what the other had done, and then two people come and each fill in content at each page, you end up having to merge the documents later.
: This makes more work for those with the move power to constantly patrol the recent changes and move files to the one that the manual of style states.
: It is not a matter of making the software work harder, but rather needlessly making the individuals work harder at getting an article into the wiki properly. It also makes it so you cannot leverage the wiki knowledge of other users entering who are familiar with other wikis (I challenge you to find another wiki out there that has all upper case article titles).
: --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 12:01, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

*Is there something about the statement above, ''that the decision had been made'', that is escaping my learned colleagues and editors? Has anyone done an actual count as to how many articles exist with Title Case as compared to what you suggest? And how many existing articles without Title Case are merely re-directs from ones that began with it? Now, please move on. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:57, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

::I hate to disagree publicly about this, but I think this is going to more trouble than it's worth. We can differentiate ourselves from Wikipedia by making quality articles that are objective and reliable; capitalizing words unnecessarily isn't going to help our reputation any.

::For proper nouns, like [[Abraham Lincoln]], we're already doing it. For book titles, we capitalize all but the small connecting words: ''[[The Church of Liberalism]]''.

::But terms like [[intelligent design]] (the theory itself) are ofter shadowed by a movie or book title having the same words: [[Intelligent Design]] (the book by [[William Dembski]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:22, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

*Ed and I have talked, and he believes he has a software solution (being the greatest Mediator on the Planet) that will please everyone. Stay tuned. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:41, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I know this a bit back in time, but has any progress been made on a software solution? Or has any more formal policy as to the proper capitalization and how to create wikilinks been specified? Having it be inconsistent just leaves more work for the day it does become consistent. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 15:32, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

*If you check the other page here, Manual of Style, you can clearly see it dictates Title Case, and to not wiki-link dates. ''Unless and until'' some other solution is found, that is the decision. I posted on your talk page, asking you to contact me, to inform you about this matter, so I am happy you decided to post here, at least. If some software solution is found, the Manual of Style will be changed. As for wiki-dating, that was a decision of the Owner. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:38, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
----
This policy has been reversed, following discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&oldid=347410 here], and in line with the majority preference on both this page and the linked page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:04, 6 December 2007 (EST)

== Saints ==

Currently there are three different styles in use: Saint, St and St. There are also unique links to various saints, like [[Paul]]. I propose that the title '''''Saint''''' be used for holy persons and that '''''St.''''' be used for places, institutions or other derivatives. '''St''' without a period to signify an abbreviation should be scrapped. Also because first names are common to many people the single name articles should be moved to '''''Saint Someone'''''. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 15:18, 25 November 2007 (EST)

*Good and logical points all. I agree. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:26, 25 November 2007 (EST)
: I suspect (but can't quote examples to be sure) that there are places which are known only by "Saint ''something''", so "St." wouldn't be appropriate.
: I agree, though, with dropping "St" in favour of "St.".
: As a Protestant, I don't like people like [[Paul]] being referred to as "Saint Paul", so do object to this being policy. The Bible uses "saint" of any Christian, not just ones granted that status by the Catholic Church. I do accept that simply "Paul" is not the best for an article title, but there are alternatives, such as "Saul of Tarsus", "Paul (missionary)", etc.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:44, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== Policy on categories: Capitalisation and singular/plural ==

There is currently no formal (written) policy on capitalisation of categories, although there has been un unwritten policy to use title case, probably in line with the former policy for article names.

Some discussion on this issue has occurred [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&oldid=350319#Page_and_category_titles. here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&oldid=349907#Categories here], and possibly other places.

At the first link [[user:Learn together|Learn together]] hinted, and stated more explicitly in the second, that there were more title-case categories than lower case categories. This seemed to me to be little more than gut feeling, so I did a rough count. There are currently 1669 categories, of which 951 comprise more than one word. Dividing those 951 categories very roughly into two groups, title case and lower case (both groups, due to the simple sorting algorithm I used, include categories that would remain unaltered under either option, such as [[:category:United Stated Department of the Interior]] (sic: that needs fixing!) under upper case and [[:category:Department of Justice]] under lower case) gives 426 lower case categories and 525 title case categories.

So Learn together is correct that there are more title case categories, although the difference is not enormous.

The advantage of lower-case names for article titles is that linking is easier, but this doesn't apply to categories, so the most reasonable thing to do would seem to be to make categories title case.

Any comments or objections? If we have/get agreement, I will incorporate that into the [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]].

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:02, 11 December 2007 (EST)

: In my opinion, your thoughts on this are good, I agree with title case for Categories. But either way, it's a very good idea to make a decision on this now, as the category listing is growing, and there should be uniformity. -- [[User:Taj|Taj]] 06:29, 11 December 2007 (EST)

: Indeed, there doesn't seem to be much sense to reinvent the wheel. We had changed about a thousand entries or so from lower to title case when that was standard we were told. There is still work to be done (a lot of it), but it didn't seem to make sense to backtrack over the same ground we have already covered. By the way, a number of the lower case categories are shells, meaning that content has basically been removed, but they still exist. May I recommend having a formal section where we can point them out to you for removal? That would seem to be wise. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:27, 11 December 2007 (EST)

::I like title case for categories, but I'll go along with the consensus. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:40, 11 December 2007 (EST)

:::I have no preference for category case. I think the choice should be what ever comes more naturally, but that might be quite subjective. Whatever the decision it should be explicitly stated to avoid confusion and stuck to. I don't agree with Learn together's point about not backtracking. If you're going the wrong way then you need to turn round at some stage. If it means undoing work that has been done then so be it. I can appreciate him not wanting to undo all his own good work but that shouldn't be an argument for not doing it. The main thing is that we get it right. On balance though I probably go with title case. One good thing about categories however, is that anyone can change them but article titles are restricted to sysops. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 15:15, 12 December 2007 (EST)

::::Not backtracking is appropriate in cases where there is no indication that backtracking would provide a better solution. Since no one commenting so far, including you, seems to believe that would be the better way to go, I am surprised you called me out on this issue. It's not rocket science. Let's not make it a bigger issue than it is. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:01, 13 December 2007 (EST)

----
If we are going to write a policy on this, we might as well ensure that we have agreement on something else: Should categories be singular or plural? Learn together has asked me to delete [[:Category:Musical Instruments]] because [[:Category:Musical Instrument]] already exists. But I was under the impression that most categories were plurals. What's the thoughts on this? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:52, 14 December 2007 (EST)

:I'm not sure any decisions have been made in this area in the past. I've seen singular and plural in categories. In this regard, if one category has 59 entries and the other has 4, I move the entries to the category that is established. In this case it happened to be singular. I would recommend a "spot check" of categories/articles that have singular or plural forms and see which way has been the most common until now. That should at least give us information to consider. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:12, 14 December 2007 (EST)

:In looking at this in more detail, the trend is strongly to plural. Let me know when a decision has been made to make this policy and I will see about implementing changes in this area as well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:04, 14 December 2007 (EST)

:The following are groups I have come across so far that fit this criteria:
: * Category:Bird
: * Category:Creationist
: * Category:Musical Instrument (of course)
: [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:50, 17 December 2007 (EST)
=== Policy written ===
I was disappointed at the lack of response here regarding plurals, but I believe that there's been enough opportunity, and not having a policy is holding up some work. I believe that Learn together is correct regarding the trend being towards plural titles for categories, although there's plenty of examples where plurals are simply not applicable (e.g. [[:category:New Testament]]).

So I've now amended the Manual of Style to include categories. If the plural bit is not clear enough, we can tweak it later.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:15, 22 December 2007 (EST)

:Thank you. I will be sure to adhere to the approved specifications. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:26, 22 December 2007 (EST)

== Books by foreign authors ==

What's the MoS recommendation regarding book titles written by non-English-speaking authors?

For example, say you want to write about Machiavelli's "The Prince" (original title "Il Principe", apparently), would you start the article at the original title or at the most common US translation? --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 18:02, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:I believe the practice has been the common English translation. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::I guess that makes sense. :) Thanks for the reply! --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Frederick Law Olmsted

2007-12-28T23:45:18Z

JakeC: Bolding, more precise dates, external links

'''Frederick Law Olmsted''' (April 25, 1822 – August 28, 1903) was a landscape architect and designer. Among his many achievements were the design of [[Central Park]] in [[New York City]] (with his colleague Calvert Vaux, Parc Mont-Royal in [[Montréal]], and the pioneering garden suburb of [[Riverside]], near [[Chicago]].

==External Links==
*[http://www.fredericklawolmsted.com/ A celebration of the life and work of Frederick Law Olmsted]
*[http://www.olmsted.org/ National Association for Olmsted Parks]

[[Category:Urban Planning]]