Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Marriage

2009-05-05T19:46:56Z

John Brown: /* Photo */ new section

[[Talk:Marriage/Archive 1]]
==Marriage in the Old Testament==
I think we should talk about the various forms of marriage in the Old Testament. Since we allude to the Old Testament by mentioning Adam and Eve, we are opening ourselves up to the charge that we are liberal Christians who pick and choose which parts of the Bible we want to believe. Also, assertions of the "will of God" should be backed up, chapter and verse, with the Word of God. [[User:JeffM|JeffM]] 17:31, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:As someone who would rather be Biblically correct than politically correct, I agree with you. I'll try to write something in the next few days unless someone wants to beat me to it. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 12:14, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
:Since no one has objected to Jeff's proposal in this long, I've made the changes. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 18:46, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

== Qualifier and citations? ==

At the moment, the article implies that marriage only exists in cultures that have accepted God in the Christian sense. Maybe some sort of qualifier is in order to specify that this article (currently) only deals with the Christian view of marriage.

Additionally, could we get a cite for at least the "Ancient Rome's decline" part at the bottom? Blaming homosexuality and extramarital sex for the decline of a culture is a fairly strong claim and should at least have one authoritative history source to back it up. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 14:06, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm backing up Jenkins on this one. This page first says that marriage is divinely ordained by God and then claims that it is practiced in all cultures. In doing so, the page contradicts itself.

==Attacks on the institution of marriage==
Just wanted to note here a deeply touching explanation by the Republican mayor of San Diego for his recent change of heart over the issue of gay marriage. I realise that 'evolution' is a dirty word on this website for many people, but IMHO this man is an example of how views on the issue of gay marriage are changing. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SnTwrnKb61Q%20--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:09, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== No coverage of those who don't marry? ==

This article doesn't say anything about those who are single and not in a relationship. How come the article doesn't say anything about the proper age to be married? (I.e. being unmarried at 18 is normal, being unmarried by 25 is a 50-50 choice, being unmarried by 30 means you need to settle down, and being unmarried by 40 means you're a complete loser with no social skills.) Being unmarried by a certain age erodes the institution of marriage just as much as being homosexual or cohabitating without being married. There should be some coverage of this. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 10:58, 14 February 2008 (EST)

== Mistake in Newsweek article info ==

"A recent Newsweek' article complains that Biblical figures have not provided good historical examples of marriage, on the grounds that Abraham begot Isaac by a maidservant and Jacob had four wives."

The Newsweek article never actually specified the name of the son that Abraham had with his servant, but it was Ishmael, not Isaac, and Jacob only had 2 wives [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 11:05, 15 December 2008 (EST)

:Was this minor error mine or theirs? Jacob had 13 children by his two wives and his two concubines. This has no effect on the validity of the Newsweek argument. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:48, 15 December 2008 (EST)

::I was trying to avoid coming out and placing blame (would've just modified the article if it was unlocked), but since you asked... your error. The article states only that Abraham slept with his servant, and doesn't mention children at all, and says that Jacob fathered children on 4 women, without mentioning marriage.
::You're right that it doesn't affect the argument, this was just for accuracy. [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 13:13, 15 December 2008 (EST)

== Photo ==

A man getting married in a black pinstripe suit in broad daylight? I thought this encyclopedia stood for traditional values. [[User:John Brown|John Brown]] 15:46, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

Dan Quayle

2008-09-14T16:49:01Z

John Brown:

{{President
|image=Uyfkhm.jpg
|office=vice
|seq=44
|term_start=January 20, 1989
|term_end=January 20, 1993
|party=Republican
|pres=George H.W. Bush
|previous=George H.W. Bush
|next=Al Gore
|birth_date=February 4, 1947
|birth_place=Indianapolis, Indiana
|death_date=
|death_place=
|spouse=Marilyn Tucker Quayle
|spouse2=
|religion=
}}

'''James Danforth "Dan" Quayle''' (1947 - ) was the [[Vice President of the United States of America|Vice President]] under [[Presidents of the United States | George H. W. Bush]]. Prior to being elected Vice President, he was a member of [[Congress]]. Quayle is a loyal [[conservative]] [[Republican]] and advocate for [[traditional values]]. Quayle was the first chairman of the National Space Council and the head of the Council on Competitiveness.

== Education and Family Life ==

Quayle was born on February 4, 1947, in [[Indianapolis]], [[Indiana]]. He spent most of his formative years as much in Arizona as Indiana, he graduated from Huntington High School in Huntington, Indiana, in 1965. He graduated from DePauw University in 1969 and received his J.D. from Indiana University School of Law at Indianapolis in 1974, and was admitted to the Indiana Bar in 1974 and began his law practice in Huntington. Quayle served in the Indiana National Guard from 1969 until 1975.

In November 1972, Dan Quayle married Marilyn Tucker of Indianapolis. Dan and Marilyn Quayle have three grown children: Tucker, Benjamin and Corinne. They presently live in Paradise Valley, [[Arizona]] where he attended grade school and high school.

== Public Service ==

Dan Quayle was elected as a Republican Congressman in 1976, at the age of 29. He was reelected to the Ninety-sixth Congress (January 3, 1977-January 3, 1981). He was not a candidate in 1980 for re-election to the [[House of Representatives]], but was elected to the [[United States Senate]] that year, when he was but 33 years old, and was re-elected in 1986 and served, in total, from January 3, 1981, until January 3, 1989, when he resigned to become [[Vice President of the United States]]. In the Senate he was Chairman of the Select Committee to Study the Committee System. Senator Quayle was elected Vice President of the United States in 1988, and with President [[George Herbert Walker Bush]], was inaugurated January 20, 1989. He was a unsuccessful candidate for reelection as Vice President in 1992.<ref>U.S. Congress, Official Biography;[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=Q000007]</ref>

== Private Life ==

Since leaving public office, Dan Quayle has authored three books: ''Standing Firm, A Vice-Presidential Memoir'' which was on the New York Times bestseller list for 15 weeks; ''The American Family: Discovering the Values that Make Us Strong''; and ''Worth Fighting For''. He founded and then sold an insurance business in Indiana. For two years he was a distinguished visiting professor of international studies at Thunderbird, The American Graduate School of International Management. Currently, he is Chairman of Cerberus Global Investments, LLC (Cerberus), President of Quayle & Associates, and serves on the boards of directors of IAP Worldewide Services, Inc., K2, Inc and Aozora Bank, Ltd in Tokyo. He makes frequent public appearances and speeches, and writes a nationally syndicated weekly newspaper column. <ref>http://www.who2.com/danquayle.html</ref> <ref>http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1322</ref>

== Controversies ==

He was relentlessly ridiculed in the press and on such shows as [[Saturday Night Live]] as soon as he was announced as the selection to be Bush's running mate, and his every move was scrutinized. This was due to the [[mainstream media]]'s dislike of his [[conservative]] views. [[Doonesbury]] implied he was chosen for his good looks. The more kind attacks parodied him as a dunce, the more vicious as a drooling child (playing on his youthful looks) manipulated and controlled by the older Bush.

Quayle also found himself enmeshed in controversy when it was alleged that his serving stateside in the [[National Guard]] during the [[Vietnam War]] was due to family connections in order to avoid the draft.<ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DD1231F932A1575BC0A96E948260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/R/Republican%20Party BUSH STRUGGLING TO SHED QUESTIONS ON QUAYLE SERVICE]</ref> It is interesting to note that there was more controversy over a Vice President serving in the National Guard than there was over the next President ([[Bill Clinton]]) avoiding the war altogether.

Perhaps the sharpest blow to his reputation came during his vice presidential debate with Democrat [[Lloyd Bentsen]], [[Michael Dukakis]]' running mate. When queried on his comparatively short record, he replied that he had as much Congressional experience as [[John F. Kennedy]]. Bentsen replied, "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."

As Vice President, he had a much publicized "feud" with [[Murphy Brown]], a then popular TV show starring Candice Bergen as the title character who became pregnant out of wedlock. Dan Quayle said that she was a poor role model for getting pregnant out of wedlock. His statements led to backlash from the [[liberal]] media. Even though no one of note actually said they supported the concept of single motherhood as a best-case option for American women, and Quayle took great care in noting he was not criticizing women who were in that situation through no particular fault of their own, he was besieged with false allegations and smears.

The incorrectly spelled word ''potatoe'' on a list handed him by an aide led to a humiliating gaffe. <ref>http://capitalcentury.com/1992.html</ref>
The liberally biased media played up Quayle's error while ignoring Senator [[Al Gore]]'s momentous gaffes: Gore referred to a leopard changing its "stripes" and misquoted the U.S. national motto as "Out of one, many" (actually it's "Out of many, one").

This "treatment" was looked upon with something of shocked dismay by politicians of the time, seeing a refinement in the attack methods honed by the media on [[Spiro Agnew]] who served as [[Richard M. Nixon]]'s first Vice President, and a harbinger of things yet to come, as in the public "lynching" of Justice [[Clarence Thomas]].

== Quotes ==
*"We have to do more than just elect a new President if we truly want to change this country." 

*"One word sums up, probably, the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared'."

*"If Al Gore invented the Internet, I invented spell check."
<ref> Quotes: [http://www.quotedb.com/authors/dan-quayle]</ref>

*"Next Thursday, July 20, will be an historic day for America, as America celebrates the 20th anniversary of [[Neil Armstrong]] and [[Donald Lukens|Buz Lukens]]' walking on the moon."<ref>Young Republicans National Federation Convention--LA Times, 7/16/89</ref>

==References==

<References/>

{{USVicePresidents}}

{{DEFAULTSORT: Quayle, Dan}}

[[Category: United States Senators]]
[[Category: United States Representatives]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-08T02:39:39Z

John Brown: fixed now

'''Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.''' (b. Honolulu, August 4, 1961) is the 2008 Democratic presidential primary nominee, and the first African-American to be the nominee for the [[Democratic Party]].<ref>[http://www.democrats.org Democratic Party website]</ref> Obama is a freshman [[Democratic]] [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]], first elected to statewide office in 2004. [[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]].]]

Before entering the Senate, Obama was a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he "had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into [[Auschwitz]] and liberate the [[concentration camp]]s. And the story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359061,00.html</ref> In fact, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz. Embarrassed, the Obama campaign later admitted that Obama was wrong, and claimed he should have said that Obama's great-uncle helped liberate a subcamp of Buchenwald.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/27/obamas_uncle_and_the_liberatio.html#more
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton later claimed that Obama's great-uncle "served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945." Given that Obama misrepresented what happened, one can also wonder about his story that his relative went into the attic and did not leave his house for six months afterwards.</ref>

Obama states that he consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

== Positions and Qualifications ==
[[Image:Punishment.jpg|right|thumb|Quote from Obama on Sex Education|400px]]
Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. Obama said "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act".<ref>[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]</ref> He supports comprehensive sex education, including information about contraception. He quipped that he would not want his daughters "punished with a baby" or an STD for not using appropriate protection.

Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise [[Hillary Clinton]] refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref>

He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. {{fact}} Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. For example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent Jack Ryan, a millionaire school teacher, was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records that both he and his ex-wife wanted to remain sealed. A newspaper that favored Obama took the unusual step of suing to force the confidential divorce information to become public, and a California judge opened the records at a pivotal time in the campaign.{{fact}}

Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]]. "Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion."<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp</ref> The [[New York Times]] noted that "Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&ex=1358485200&en=bb179297e5f61acb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref> When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it was apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.<ref>"Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut," the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]</ref>

==Early life and education==
Barack Hussein Obama was born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr., and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967, he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school, followed by an Indonesian public school, until he returned with his mother to Hawaii. There he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.

Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He became a member of the [[liberal]] ''Harvard Law Review'' in 1989, which used racial [[quotas]] for membership, and was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990. He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991 and chose not to pursue a federal clerkship, which is the typical post-graduate position for top law students.

He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law" -- not a professor-level position -- at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004,<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>

==Legal career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, [[Alan Keyes]].

His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] places him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> and 16th most liberal in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref>

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html</ref> The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. He has not held one hearing on Afghanistan even though American forces are risking their lives in a theatre of war. Since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a "new strategy" in [[Afghanistan]], a country he has never visited.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-absent-at-afghanistan-hearings-2008-03-01.html</ref> As of June 2008, Barack Obama has been campaigning for the Democrat Presidency for 16 months.

=== Bills co-sponsored ===
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guide of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html</ref>

Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html</ref>

Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/</ref> His supporters cite the following less [[liberal]] examples, but this list is not representative:

*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.

=== Work in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===

In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.

Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.

In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the Zimbabwe government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former Liberian President Charles Taylor. <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ </ref>

==Presidential campaign==
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]
Senator Obama began his anti-war candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general, although he has also been funded by a surprising 'grassroots' campaign of many smaller donations. Obama has encouraged anti- war donors by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols{{fact}}, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. {{fact}}In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11. {{fact}}

By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million dollars from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

Obama evidently was misinformed, whereas in reality the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would have face to face meetings with two of Florida's most fearful enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama advised he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, which gave him a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee.

On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] by the [http://www.democrats.org Democratic National Committee]. The nomination became official four days later when Senator [[Hillary Clinton]] conceded.

On June 5th, Obama is speaking at Briston, Virginia- Heathcare Town Hall forum regarding Political Action Committees and his campaign. "Well, we’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different. Throughout my career, in Illinois and the United States senate, I’ve worked to reduce the power of the special interests by leading the fight for ethics reform. I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs. And today, I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States."

On June 6th, an [[AP]] article <ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_MONEY?SITE=KING&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Transcript: 'Democratic Party returns lobbyist, PAC money ,' June 6, 2008]</ref> presents the rules for lobbyist donations to the DNC and for the Presidential nominee. Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle. Retroactive period being the date Barack Obama started his campaign, February 10, 2007. The DNC possibly the day after the November 2006 Congressional elections until June 5th, 2008. In addition, Barack Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

== Political views ==
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

Obama's views on [[gun control]] is focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Nonetheless, he asserted that elements of [[sex education]] should be taught in kindergarten.<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>[http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches]</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

== Foreign policy experience ==

In Russia and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited numerous nuclear/biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with Tony Blair, sitting UK Prime Minister.[http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/]

Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur and addressed Africa's growing AIDS epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/</ref>

During a ten day tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/</ref>

==Religious affiliations==
[[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.]]
[[Daniel Pipes]] concludes that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]],
<ref>In his autobiography, ''Dreams of My Father'', Obama relates how he got into trouble for making faces during Koranic studies, thereby revealing he was a Muslim, for Indonesian students in his day attended religious classes according to their faith.</ref>
yet in ''The Audacity of Hope'' Obama is described as growing up in a non-religious environment. When he was a child in Indonesia, he attended a local Muslim school for two years and a local [[Catholic]] school for two years, according to his own books.<ref>"Obama has noted in his two books, 'Dreams From My Father' and 'The Audacity of Hope,' that he spent two years in a Muslim school and another two years in a Catholic school while living in Indonesia from age 6 to 10." [http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]</ref> His father was a non-practicing [[Muslim]].

Obama attended a Muslim school but [[CNN]] states that it was not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref>

Obama and his his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.tucc.org/about.htm</ref> in Chicago. Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons. In April 2008, to advance his presidential campaign, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views.

== Books ==

* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.''
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.''
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak)

==Published criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made an allegedly racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Further reading==
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]

{{liberalism}}

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-08T02:38:31Z

John Brown: Undo revision 468685 by Special:Contributions/John Brown (User talk:John Brown)

'''Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.''' (b. Honolulu, August 4, 1961) is the 2008 Democratic presidential primary nominee, and the first African-American to be the nominee for the [[Democratic Party]].<ref>[http://www.democrats.org Democratic Party website]</ref> Obama is a freshman [[Democratic]] [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]], first elected to statewide office in 2004. [[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]].]]

Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor when in actuality he only held the title of "Senior Lecturer." <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he "had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into [[Auschwitz]] and liberate the [[concentration camp]]s. And the story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359061,00.html</ref> In fact, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz. Embarrassed, the Obama campaign later admitted that Obama was wrong, and claimed he should have said that Obama's great-uncle helped liberate a subcamp of Buchenwald.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/27/obamas_uncle_and_the_liberatio.html#more
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton later claimed that Obama's great-uncle "served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945." Given that Obama misrepresented what happened, one can also wonder about his story that his relative went into the attic and did not leave his house for six months afterwards.</ref>

Obama states that he consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

== Positions and Qualifications ==
[[Image:Punishment.jpg|right|thumb|Quote from Obama on Sex Education|400px]]
Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. Obama said "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act".<ref>[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]</ref> He supports comprehensive sex education, including information about contraception. He quipped that he would not want his daughters "punished with a baby" or an STD for not using appropriate protection.

Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise [[Hillary Clinton]] refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref>

He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. {{fact}} Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. For example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent Jack Ryan, a millionaire school teacher, was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records that both he and his ex-wife wanted to remain sealed. A newspaper that favored Obama took the unusual step of suing to force the confidential divorce information to become public, and a California judge opened the records at a pivotal time in the campaign.{{fact}}

Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]]. "Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion."<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp</ref> The [[New York Times]] noted that "Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&ex=1358485200&en=bb179297e5f61acb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref> When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it was apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.<ref>"Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut," the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]</ref>

==Early life and education==
Barack Hussein Obama was born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr., and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967, he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school, followed by an Indonesian public school, until he returned with his mother to Hawaii. There he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.

Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He became a member of the [[liberal]] ''Harvard Law Review'' in 1989, which used racial [[quotas]] for membership, and was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990. He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991 and chose not to pursue a federal clerkship, which is the typical post-graduate position for top law students.

He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law" -- not a professor-level position -- at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004,<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>

==Legal career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, [[Alan Keyes]].

His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] places him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> and 16th most liberal in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref>

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html</ref> The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. He has not held one hearing on Afghanistan even though American forces are risking their lives in a theatre of war. Since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a "new strategy" in [[Afghanistan]], a country he has never visited.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-absent-at-afghanistan-hearings-2008-03-01.html</ref> As of June 2008, Barack Obama has been campaigning for the Democrat Presidency for 16 months.

=== Bills co-sponsored ===
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guide of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html</ref>

Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html</ref>

Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/</ref> His supporters cite the following less [[liberal]] examples, but this list is not representative:

*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.

=== Work in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===

In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.

Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.

In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the Zimbabwe government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former Liberian President Charles Taylor. <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ </ref>

==Presidential campaign==
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]
Senator Obama began his anti-war candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general, although he has also been funded by a surprising 'grassroots' campaign of many smaller donations. Obama has encouraged anti- war donors by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols{{fact}}, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. {{fact}}In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11. {{fact}}

By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million dollars from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

Obama evidently was misinformed, whereas in reality the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would have face to face meetings with two of Florida's most fearful enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama advised he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, which gave him a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee.

On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] by the [http://www.democrats.org Democratic National Committee]. The nomination became official four days later when Senator [[Hillary Clinton]] conceded.

On June 5th, Obama is speaking at Briston, Virginia- Heathcare Town Hall forum regarding Political Action Committees and his campaign. "Well, we’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different. Throughout my career, in Illinois and the United States senate, I’ve worked to reduce the power of the special interests by leading the fight for ethics reform. I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs. And today, I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States."

On June 6th, an [[AP]] article <ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_MONEY?SITE=KING&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Transcript: 'Democratic Party returns lobbyist, PAC money ,' June 6, 2008]</ref> presents the rules for lobbyist donations to the DNC and for the Presidential nominee. Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle. Retroactive period being the date Barack Obama started his campaign, February 10, 2007. The DNC possibly the day after the November 2006 Congressional elections until June 5th, 2008. In addition, Barack Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

== Political views ==
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

Obama's views on [[gun control]] is focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Nonetheless, he asserted that elements of [[sex education]] should be taught in kindergarten.<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>[http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches]</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

== Foreign policy experience ==

In Russia and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited numerous nuclear/biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with Tony Blair, sitting UK Prime Minister.[http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/]

Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur and addressed Africa's growing AIDS epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/</ref>

During a ten day tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/</ref>

==Religious affiliations==
[[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.]]
[[Daniel Pipes]] concludes that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]],
<ref>In his autobiography, ''Dreams of My Father'', Obama relates how he got into trouble for making faces during Koranic studies, thereby revealing he was a Muslim, for Indonesian students in his day attended religious classes according to their faith.</ref>
yet in ''The Audacity of Hope'' Obama is described as growing up in a non-religious environment. When he was a child in Indonesia, he attended a local Muslim school for two years and a local [[Catholic]] school for two years, according to his own books.<ref>"Obama has noted in his two books, 'Dreams From My Father' and 'The Audacity of Hope,' that he spent two years in a Muslim school and another two years in a Catholic school while living in Indonesia from age 6 to 10." [http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]</ref> His father was a non-practicing [[Muslim]].

Obama attended a Muslim school but [[CNN]] states that it was not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref>

Obama and his his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.tucc.org/about.htm</ref> in Chicago. Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons. In April 2008, to advance his presidential campaign, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views.

== Books ==

* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.''
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.''
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak)

==Published criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made an allegedly racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Further reading==
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]

{{liberalism}}

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-08T02:36:36Z

John Brown: corrected allegation, with source from the university itself

Dan Quayle

2008-06-08T02:28:45Z

John Brown: no mention of the bentsen debate? and you call yourself an encyclopedia

{{President
|image=Uyfkhm.jpg
|office=vice
|seq=44
|term_start=January 20, 1989
|term_end=January 20, 1993
|party=Republican
|pres=George H.W. Bush
|previous=George H.W. Bush
|next=Al Gore
|birth_date=February 4, 1947
|birth_place=Indianapolis, Indiana
|death_date=
|death_place=
|spouse=Marilyn Tucker Quayle
|spouse2=
|religion=
}}

'''James Danforth "Dan" Quayle''' (1947 - ) was the [[Vice President of the United States of America|Vice President]] under [[Presidents of the United States | George H. W. Bush]]. Prior to being elected Vice President, he was a member of [[Congress]]. Quayle is a loyal [[conservative]] [[Republican]] and advocate for [[traditional values]]. Quayle was the first chairman of the National Space Council and the head of the Council on Competitiveness.

== Education and Family Life ==

Quayle was born on February 4, 1947, in [[Indianapolis]], [[Indiana]]. He spent most of his formative years as much in Arizona as Indiana, he graduated from Huntington High School in Huntington, Indiana, in 1965. He graduated from DePauw University in 1969 and received his J.D. from Indiana University School of Law at Indianapolis in 1974, and was admitted to the Indiana Bar in 1974 and began his law practice in Huntington. Quayle served in the Indiana National Guard from 1969 until 1975.

In November 1972, Dan Quayle married Marilyn Tucker of Indianapolis. Dan and Marilyn Quayle have three grown children: Tucker, Benjamin and Corinne. They presently live in Paradise Valley, [[Arizona]] where he attended grade school and high school.

== Public Service ==

Dan Quayle was elected as a Republican Congressman in 1976, at the age of 29. He was reelected to the Ninety-sixth Congress (January 3, 1977-January 3, 1981). He was not a candidate in 1980 for re-election to the [[House of Representatives]], but was elected to the [[United States Senate]] that year, when he was but 33 years old, and was re-elected in 1986 and served, in total, from January 3, 1981, until January 3, 1989, when he resigned to become [[Vice President of the United States]]. In the Senate he was Chairman of the Select Committee to Study the Committee System. Senator Quayle was elected Vice President of the United States in 1988, and with President [[George Herbert Walker Bush]], was inaugurated January 20, 1989. He was a unsuccessful candidate for reelection as Vice President in 1992.<ref>U.S. Congress, Official Biography;[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=Q000007]</ref>

== Private Life ==

Since leaving public office, Dan Quayle has authored three books: ''Standing Firm, A Vice-Presidential Memoir'' which was on the New York Times bestseller list for 15 weeks; ''The American Family: Discovering the Values that Make Us Strong''; and ''Worth Fighting For''. He founded and then sold an insurance business in Indiana. For two years he was a distinguished visiting professor of international studies at Thunderbird, The American Graduate School of International Management. Currently, he is Chairman of Cerberus Global Investments, LLC (Cerberus), President of Quayle & Associates, and serves on the boards of directors of IAP Worldewide Services, Inc., K2, Inc and Aozora Bank, Ltd in Tokyo. He makes frequent public appearances and speeches, and writes a nationally syndicated weekly newspaper column. <ref>http://www.who2.com/danquayle.html</ref> <ref>http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1322</ref>

== Public image ==

He was relentlessly ridiculed in the press and on such shows as [[Saturday Night Live]] as soon as he was announced as the selection to be Bush's running mate, and his every move was scrutinized. This was due to the [[mainstream media]]'s dislike of his [[conservative]] views. [[Doonesbury]] implied he was chosen for his good looks. The more kind attacks parodied him as a dunce, the more vicious as a drooling child (playing on his youthful looks) manipulated and controlled by the older Bush.

Quayle also found himself enmeshed in controversy when it was alleged that his serving stateside in the [[National Guard]] during the [[Vietnam War]] was due to family connections in order to avoid the draft.<ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DD1231F932A1575BC0A96E948260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/R/Republican%20Party BUSH STRUGGLING TO SHED QUESTIONS ON QUAYLE SERVICE]</ref>

As Vice President, he had a much publicized "feud" with [[Murphy Brown]], a then popular TV show starring Candice Bergen as the title character who became pregnant out of wedlock. Dan Quayle said that she was a poor role model for getting pregnant out of wedlock. His statements led to backlash from the [[liberal]] media. Even though no one of note actually said they supported the concept of single motherhood as a best-case option for American women, and Quayle took great care in noting he was not criticizing women who were in that situation through no particular fault of their own, he was besieged with false allegations and smears.

The incorrectly spelled word ''potatoe'' on a list handed him by an aide led to a humiliating gaffe. <ref>http://capitalcentury.com/1992.html</ref>
The liberally biased media played up Quayle's error while ignoring Senator [[Al Gore]]'s momentous gaffes: Gore referred to a leopard changing its "stripes" and misquoted the U.S. national motto as "Out of one, many" (actually it's "Out of many, one"), as well as trying to claim credit for the [[Internet]].

Perhaps the sharpest blow to his reputation came during his vice presidential debate with Democrat [[Lloyd Bentsen]], [[Michael Dukakis]]' running mate. When queried on his comparatively short record, he replied that he had as much Congressional experience as [[John F. Kennedy]]. Bentsen replied, "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."

This "treatment" was looked upon with something of shocked dismay by politicians of the time, seeing a refinement in the attack methods honed by the media on [[Spiro Agnew]] who served as [[Richard M. Nixon]]'s first Vice President, and a harbinger of things yet to come, as in the public "lynching" of Justice [[Clarence Thomas]].

== Quotes ==
*"We have to do more than just elect a new President if we truly want to change this country." 

*"One word sums up, probably, the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared'."

*"If Al Gore invented the Internet, I invented spell check."
<ref> Quotes: [http://www.quotedb.com/authors/dan-quayle]</ref>
==References==

<References/>

{{USVicePresidents}}

{{DEFAULTSORT: Quayle, Dan}}

[[Category: United States Senators]]
[[Category: United States Representatives]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]

Roe v. Wade

2008-03-28T04:06:49Z

John Brown: "held" is true and verifiable(commandment 1). "created a new right" is opinion (commandment 5).

{{caselaw|Roe v. Wade|410 U.S. 113|1973}}
'''''Roe v. Wade''''' (Jan. 22, 1973) was a [[U.S. Supreme Court]] decision which held that the [[Constitution]] extended to a woman's right to have an [[abortion]] The ''Roe'' decision was issued the same day as ''[[Doe v. Bolton]]'', a companion case, which held that states could not prohibit a physician from performing an [[abortion]] after the fetus has become "viable" if the physician determines that the abortion is necessary for the "health" of the mother, which could include "physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age," all of which the Court determined were "relevant to the wellbeing of the patient."

The women represented by "Roe" and "Doe" have both since come forward to oppose these decisions, and "Doe" has even described the [[deceit]] of the lawsuit brought in her name.

'''''Roe v. Wade''''' also created an exception to the usual rule that one must face a threat of imminent prosecution in order to have [[standing]]. In ''Roe'', the Court held that there was [[standing]] because the alleged injury was said to be "capable of repetition yet evading review."

==Opinion==
The opinion, written by Justice [[Harry Blackmun]], declares that [[abortion]] is a "fundamental right" under the [[U.S. Constitution]] and [[substantive due process]] under the [[Fourteenth Amendment]]. Writing for the 7-2 Court, Justice Blackmun held that [[abortion]] is a fundamental right because it falls under the "[[penumbra]]" of the [[right to privacy]]. ''Roe'' provided the underpinning for cases such as [[Griswold v. Connecticut]]<ref>See generally Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479</ref> and [[Lawrence v. Texas]].<ref>See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558</ref>, all of which set up spheres of personal activity which states cannot regulate without "good cause."

Specifically, Blackmun found that the right to terminate a pregnancy is in the penumbra of [[privacy]] rights protected by [[substantive due process]], since pregnancy can occasion life-changing events for women, changes not to be taken lightly. However, he noted that the woman's interest in her own privacy is counterbalanced, obviously, by the fetus' interest in life, and the state's interest in protecting life. The question, then, is when each interest trumps the other, and what that means at law. Blackmun set up this framework specifically:
::”(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

::(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

::(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. “<ref> Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 165 (U.S. 1973)</ref>

The "health of the mother" was defined to include the physical, psychological, and emotional health of the mother. There can be no requirement that the abortion reason be reported to anyone. The upshot is that any pregnant woman could get an abortion for any reason throughout the entire nine months as a constitutional right, provided that she could find an abortionist to do it.

==Subsequent jurisprudence==

The ''Roe'' holding was subsequently modified by [[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]], a [[plurality decision]] which did away with the [[trimester]] framework, as well as lessening the degree of scrutiny of regulation from "fundamental rights" analysis to "undue burden analysis."

Recently the federal Partial Birth Abortion Act (upheld in [[Gonzales v. Carhart]]) approved a ban on a particular kind of late-term abortion procedure. This was the first complete ban on a particular abortion procedure found to be constitutional since Roe v. Wade.

Several cases, up for decision at the Supreme Court in the 2007 term, may whittle away at the holding of the case. Specifically, a South Dakota law banning nearly all abortions is seen as a deliberate attempt to force a [[test case]], where "pro-life" activists will have a chance to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider ''Roe''.<ref>The Economist, http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VVJRJTN</ref> However, while ''Roe'' may be highly distinguished in these cases, the fact that the central holding of ''Roe v. Wade'' is so important to modern [[civil rights]] jurisprudence suggests that the whole case is unlikely to be overturned in its entirety, based on the United States concept of [[stare decisis]], or respect for legal precedent. Under this outlook, losing ''Roe'''s holding would be fatal to an entire constitutional structure, which the Court disfavors.<ref>See Lawrence v. Texas, supra (relying strongly on Roe v. Wade)</ref>

Some commentators suggest that limitations of Roe may actually be good for the "pro-choice" movement, as it would allow "pro-life" activists to vent their animosity against [[judicial activism]], while forcing the public to create a more moderate legislative solution to the problem. These commentators perceive the American public as more moderate than either the "pro-life" or "pro-choice" movements.<ref>The Economist, http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VNSRJQV</ref>

==Controversy==
''Main article: [[Constitutional Arguments on Choice]]''

''Roe'' and subsequent decisions following it have incited intense public controversy over whether abortion is such a "fundamental right" that it overrides the right of a child to live, the right of a father to prevent the abortion of his child, and the right of states to legislate the issue in accord with the will of the people. [[Pro-choice]] activists generally argue that it does, while [[pro-life]] activists generally argue that it does not.

==See Also==
[[Norma McCorvey]]

[[Abortion]]

==References==
*[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113 Complete text of ''Roe v. Wade'', from FindLaw.com]
<references/>

[[Category:Abortion]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:judicial activism]]
[[category:Fourteenth Amendment]]

Roe v. Wade

2008-03-24T19:14:08Z

John Brown: cases do not create rights

{{caselaw|Roe v. Wade|410 U.S. 113|1973}}

'''''Roe v. Wade''''' (Jan. 22, 1973) was a [[U.S. Supreme Court]] decision which upheld the [[Constitution]]al right of a woman to have an [[abortion]]. The ''Roe'' decision was issued the same day as ''[[Doe v. Bolton]]'', a companion case, which held that states could not prohibit a physician from performing an [[abortion]] after the fetus has become "viable" if the physician determines that the abortion is necessary for the "health" of the mother, which could include "physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age," all of which the Court determined were "relevant to the wellbeing of the patient."

The women represented by "Roe" and "Doe" have both since come forward to oppose these decisions, and "Doe" has even described the [[deceit]] of the lawsuit brought in her name.

In addition to its landmark holding, '''''Roe v. Wade''''' also created an exception to the usual rule that one must face a threat of imminent prosecution in order to have [[standing]]. In ''Roe'', the Court held that there was [[standing]] because the alleged injury was said to be "capable of repetition yet evading review."

==Opinion==
The opinion, written by Justice [[Harry Blackmun]], declares that [[abortion]] is a "fundamental right" under the [[U.S. Constitution]] and [[substantive due process]] under the [[Fourteenth Amendment]]. Writing for the 7-2 Court, Justice Blackmun held that [[abortion]] is a fundamental right because it falls under the "[[penumbra]]" of the [[right to privacy]]. ''Roe'' provided the underpinning for cases such as [[Griswold v. Connecticut]]<ref>See generally Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479</ref> and [[Lawrence v. Texas]].<ref>See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558</ref>, all of which set up spheres of personal activity which states cannot regulate without "good cause."

Specifically, Blackmun found that the right to terminate a pregnancy is in the penumbra of [[privacy]] rights protected by [[substantive due process]], since pregnancy can occasion life-changing events for women, changes not to be taken lightly. However, he noted that the woman's interest in her own privacy is counterbalanced, obviously, by the fetus' interest in life, and the state's interest in protecting life. The question, then, is when each interest trumps the other, and what that means at law. Blackmun set up this framework specifically:
::”(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

::(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

::(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. “<ref> Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 165 (U.S. 1973)</ref>

The "health of the mother" was defined to include the physical, psychological, and emotional health of the mother. There can be no requirement that the abortion reason be reported to anyone. The upshot is that any pregnant woman could get an abortion for any reason throughout the entire nine months as a constitutional right, provided that she could find an abortionist to do it.

==Subsequent jurisprudence==

The ''Roe'' holding was subsequently modified by [[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]], a [[plurality decision]] which did away with the [[trimester]] framework, as well as lessening the degree of scrutiny of regulation from "fundamental rights" analysis to "undue burden analysis."

Recently the federal Partial Birth Abortion Act (upheld in [[Gonzales v. Carhart]]) approved a ban on a particular kind of late-term abortion procedure. This was the first complete ban on a particular abortion procedure found to be constitutional since Roe v. Wade.

Several cases, up for decision at the Supreme Court in the 2007 term, may whittle away at the holding of the case. Specifically, a South Dakota law banning nearly all abortions is seen as a deliberate attempt to force a [[test case]], where "pro-life" activists will have a chance to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider ''Roe''.<ref>The Economist, http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VVJRJTN</ref> However, while ''Roe'' may be highly distinguished in these cases, the fact that the central holding of ''Roe v. Wade'' is so important to modern [[civil rights]] jurisprudence suggests that the whole case is unlikely to be overturned in its entirety, based on the United States concept of [[stare decisis]], or respect for legal precedent. Under this outlook, losing ''Roe'''s holding would be fatal to an entire constitutional structure, which the Court disfavors.<ref>See Lawrence v. Texas, supra (relying strongly on Roe v. Wade)</ref>

Some commentators suggest that limitations of Roe may actually be good for the "pro-choice" movement, as it would allow "pro-life" activists to vent their animosity against [[judicial activism]], while forcing the public to create a more moderate legislative solution to the problem. These commentators perceive the American public as more moderate than either the "pro-life" or "pro-choice" movements.<ref>The Economist, http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VNSRJQV</ref>

==Controversy==
''Main article: [[Constitutional Arguments on Choice]]''

''Roe'' and subsequent decisions following it have incited intense public controversy over whether abortion is such a "fundamental right" that it overrides the right of a child to live, the right of a father to prevent the abortion of his child, and the right of states to legislate the issue in accord with the will of the people. [[Pro-choice]] activists generally argue that it does, while [[pro-life]] activists generally argue that it does not.

==See Also==
[[Norma McCorvey]]

[[Abortion]]

==References==
*[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113 Complete text of ''Roe v. Wade'', from FindLaw.com]
<references/>

[[Category:Abortion]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:judicial activism]]
[[category:Fourteenth Amendment]]

John F. Kennedy

2008-03-24T19:06:49Z

John Brown: reorganized, expanded

{{President
|image=John_kennedy.jpg
|seq=35
|term_start=January 20, 1961
|term_end=November 22, 1963
|party=Democratic
|vp=Lyndon B. Johnson
|previous=Dwight D. Eisenhower
|next=Lyndon B. Johnson
|birth_date=May 29, 1917
|birth_place=Brookline, Massachusetts
|death_date=November 22, 1963
|death_place=Dallas, Texas
|spouse=Jacqueline Lee Bouvier Kennedy
|spouse2=
|religion=[[Roman Catholic]]
}}

'''John Fitzgerald Kennedy''' '''(May 29, 1917 - November 22, 1963)''' was a decorated World War II veteran, and the 35th [[President of the United States of America]], the youngest person elected to that position. He died in 1963 when he was assassinated by [[Lee Harvey Oswald]].
{{cquote|And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.|4=John Kennedy's [[John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address|Inaugural Address]]|5=<ref>http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/John_F_Kennedy/5.htm</ref>}}

Kennedy won the [[United States presidential election, 1960|1960 Presidential election]] against [[Richard Nixon]] by a thin margin. An important part of the campaign turned out to be the role of television. When Kennedy and Nixon held their presidential debate, those who listened on radio thought that Nixon won, but those who saw it on television thought Kennedy had won. Kennedy, young, tanned, and wearing discrete makeup for the camera, had a better television presence.

Kennedy was involved in the [[Bay of Pigs]] fiasco, refusing to commit to an invasion to aid the beleaguered exiles. When a year later the [[Soviet Union]] was building a ballistic missile site in [[Cuba]] that could house nuclear missiles, Kennedy handled the ensuing [[Cuban Missile Crisis]] aggressively.

Kennedy authorized the de-segregation of federal housing and proposed the civil rights bill, passed after his assassination. He created the [[Peace Corps]] and also pledged to put a man on the moon before the end of the 1960s, a pledge that was later fulfilled after his death. Likewie he, proposed tax cuts, which were approved after his death.

Kennedy appointed one justice to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], [[Byron White]]. White's rulings did not fit traditional political categories; he dissented in [[Roe v. Wade]] but joined the majority to strike down the death penalty in [[Furman v. Georgia]].

Kennedy's image appears on the American half-dollar coin.

==Notes==
{{reflist}}
== References==

* Professor Thomas C. Reeves, "A Question of Character: A Life of John F. Kennedy." Illustrated. 510 pp. New York: The Free Press. $24.95. [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE7D9143EF931A35755C0A967958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all New York Times Book Review]

{{USPresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Kennedy, John F.}}
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

Existentialism

2008-03-24T19:02:17Z

John Brown: commandments 1 and 5

Existentialism is a philosophical and cultural movement. One of its central concepts is that a human being's "existence precedes essence." Generally, this says that we do not have fundamental attributes, such as morality or a soul, and that humans develop these attributes in a meaningless manner as their lives progress.
==Philosophical Movement==
The earliest existentialist was the [[philosopher]] [[Friedrich Nietzsche]]. The movement did not, however, develop its name or popularity until the 20th century when it was popularized by the philosopher [[Jean Paul Sartre]].<ref>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/]</ref>

At its core, existentialism denies the dependency of human existence on [[God]], and instead views human existence as an independent and meaningless form.<ref>Existentialism Today[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/#5]</ref>

==Reference==

<references/>

[[Category:Philosophical systems]]

John F. Kennedy

2008-03-24T18:57:23Z

John Brown: commandments 1 and 5

{{President
|image=John_kennedy.jpg
|seq=35
|term_start=January 20, 1961
|term_end=November 22, 1963
|party=Democratic
|vp=Lyndon B. Johnson
|previous=Dwight D. Eisenhower
|next=Lyndon B. Johnson
|birth_date=May 29, 1917
|birth_place=Brookline, Massachusetts
|death_date=November 22, 1963
|death_place=Dallas, Texas
|spouse=Jacqueline Lee Bouvier Kennedy
|spouse2=
|religion=[[Roman Catholic]]
}}

'''John Fitzgerald Kennedy''' '''(May 29, 1917 - November 22, 1963)''' was a decorated World War II veteran, and the 35th [[President of the United States of America]], the youngest person elected to that position. He died in 1963 when he was assassinated by [[Lee Harvey Oswald]].
{{cquote|And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.|4=John Kennedy's [[John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address|Inaugural Address]]|5=<ref>http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/John_F_Kennedy/5.htm</ref>}}

Kennedy won the [[United States presidential election, 1960|1960 Presidential election]] against [[Richard Nixon]] by a thin margin. An important part of the campaign turned out to be the role of television. When Kennedy and Nixon held their presidential debate, those who listened on radio thought that Nixon won, but those who saw it on television thought Kennedy had won. Kennedy, young, tanned, and wearing discrete makeup for the camera, had a better television presence.

Kennedy was responsible for the [[Bay of Pigs]] fiasco, encouraging the invasion but then pulling back support and even allowing advance notice of the invasion to leak to [[Fidel Castro]]. When a year later the [[Soviet Union]] was building a ballistic missile site in [[Cuba]] that could house nuclear missiles, Kennedy handled the ensuing [[Cuban Missile Crisis]] with the help of hawks in his administration whose conduct, such as putting bombers on alert status, posed a credible threat to Soviets and helped cause them to back down.

Kennedy authorized the de-segregation of federal housing and proposed the civil rights bill, passed after his assassination. He created the [[Peace Corps]] and also pledged to put a man on the moon before the end of the 1960s, a pledge that was later fulfilled after his death.

Kennedy cut taxes and appointed [[Byron White]] to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], who consistently ruled with [[conservatives]] on social issues such as [[abortion]] and [[homosexuality]].

Kennedy's image appears on the American half-dollar coin.
==Notes==
{{reflist}}
== References==

* Professor Thomas C. Reeves, "A Question of Character: A Life of John F. Kennedy." Illustrated. 510 pp. New York: The Free Press. $24.95. [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE7D9143EF931A35755C0A967958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all New York Times Book Review]

{{USPresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Kennedy, John F.}}
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

Democratic Party

2008-03-24T16:25:42Z

John Brown: removed paragraphs with dead source/no source

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name = Democratic Party
| party_articletitle = Democratic Party (United States)
| party_logo = [[Image:democraticpartyusalogo.png|200px]]
| website = [http://www.democrats.org www.democrats.org]
| headquarters = 430 South Capitol Street SE [[Washington, D.C.]] 20003
| chairman = [[Howard Dean]]
| houseleader = [[Nancy Pelosi]]
| senateleader = [[Harry Reid]]
| foundation = 1792 or 1820's
| ideology = [[Liberal|Liberalism]] [[Progressive|Progressivism]] [[Neoconservatism]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Populism]]
| socialpolicy = [[Liberal|Liberalism]]
| colors = Blue (unofficial)
| footnotes =
}}

The '''Democratic Party''' is one of the two major political [[parties]] in the [[United States of America]]. It is generally seen as being politically between center and [[leftist | left]] of center, while the rival [[Republican Party]] is positioned to the [[rightist | right]] of center (see [[political spectrum theory]]). Members and supporters of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats. The Democratic Party is the recipient of 85% of all [[Corporation|corporate]] lobbying [[money|cash]] according to ''Roll Call'' newspaper's top-20 list of corporate influence donations.<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010753 Comfy With K Street Democrats tell business to pay up or else], Stephen Moore, OpinionJournal.com, October 19, 2007.</ref> However, this is likely due to corporate donors' tendency to support the majority party in Congress.<ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6359.html], Jeanne Cummings, politico.com, October 15, 2007.</ref>

The Democrats currently control the [[110th United States Congress]] together with the majority of State governorships and legislatures.<ref>[http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/Elections2006PostMaps?OpenPage Multistate.com] Post-Election 2006 Maps</ref> According to a Pew Research Center poll, 50 percent of Americans identify themselves with the Democratic Party as opposed to 35 percent for the Republican Party.<ref>[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312 Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007] Pew Research Center, 22 March 2007</ref> However, Democrats have served out only three of the last ten presidential terms. The AP/Ipsos Poll reports that the Democratic-majority U.S. Congress currently has a 26% approval rating.<ref>[http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr080110-1topline.pdf&id=3782 AP/Ipsos Poll], January 7-9, 2008.</ref>

Like the Republicans, the Democrats are currently selecting their candidate for the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 presidential election]]; the front-runners in the contest are Senator [[Hillary Clinton]] of [[New York]] and Senator [[Barack Obama]] of [[Illinois]]. The most recent president who was a Democrat was [[Bill Clinton]], who served from 1993 to 2001.

==History==
The Democratic Party was founded in 1792 by [[Thomas Jefferson]] as a congressional caucus to fight for the [[Bill of Rights]] and to oppose the elitist [[Federalist Party]] led by [[Alexander Hamilton]], which fought for the [[Constitution]].

In 1798, the party was officially named the "Democratic-Republican Party", and in 1800 Jefferson was elected as the first Democratic [[President of the United States]]. Jefferson, a member of the landed gentry and a slave owner, served two terms as president with distinction, and was succeeded by another Democrat, [[James Madison]], in 1808. During Madison's tenure, the United States fought the [[United Kingdom]] in the [[War of 1812]]. James Monroe, another Democratic-Republican, was elected president in 1816 and led the nation through a time commonly known as "The Era of Good Feelings". In this period, the party dominated American politics with little opposition. Monroe was followed by John Quincy Adams who won the hotly contested election of 1824, becoming the first son of a former president to be elected president.

[[Andrew Jackson]], who defeated Adams in the 1828 election and signed into law the [[Indian Removal Act of 1830]],<ref>[http://edweb.tusd.k12.az.us/UHS/APUSH/1st%20Sem/Articles%20Semester%201/Artiles%20Semester%201/Remini.htm Andrew Jackson and Indian Removal], by Robert Remini.</ref> according to the Democratic National Committee's website is "considered — along with Jefferson — one of the founding fathers of the Democratic Party".<ref>[http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/06/our_history.php Democratic National Committee, ''Our History''], retrieved 25 March 2007.</ref> Annual Jefferson-Jackson Day celebrations nationwide by local chapters of the Democratic Party commemorate the two founders of the Democratic Party.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001949.html String of Successes Enlivens Democratic Party], Michael D. Shear, ''The Washington Post'', 22 February 2007.</ref> The Indian Removal Act, enforced through a series of dishonest dealings with native people such as the Treaty of Dancing Rabitt Creek and the Treaty of New Echota, resulted in the wholesale deportation of Native Americans from the Southeastern states to Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma).<ref>http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/</ref>

The Jacksonian period also saw the expansion of the voting franchise as most states did away with, or decreased property requirements for, voting. The beneficiaries of the expansion of the franchise, however, were nearly all white males.

Democrat [[Franklin Roosevelt]], who served as President from 1933 to 1945, led the United States during the [[Great Depression]] and throughout most of the [[Second World War]]. He remains the only President elected to four terms. Under his successor [[Harry Truman]] the United States emerged a victor from World War II and articulated the Doctrine of [[Containment]], which committed the U.S. to stop the spread of global [[Communism]]. Truman ordered the Berlin airlift in 1948 and sent U.S. troops to Korea in 1950.

==Policies and criticism==

In June 2005, while Democrats held a mock impeachment inquiry in President's Bush's foreign policy, [[anti-Semitic]] materials were distributed at the Democratic Party National headquarters. The literature claimed that an Israeli company had warning of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], and an "insider trading scam" on Wall Street had occurred simultaneously.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War], Dana Milbank, ''Washington Post'', June 17, 2005.</ref>

R. Emmet Tyrell, founder and editor in chief of the [[American Spectator]], has been highly critical of the current Democratic leadership, stating, "Can anything embarrass [[Speaker Pelosi]] and the rest of the Democratic leadership? Frankly I doubt it. They are all neatly shut off from the world in their fantasy of moral and intellectual superiority."<ref>[http://www.nysun.com/article/54321 Vietnam All Over Again] By R. Emmett Tyrell Jr., ''The New York Sun'', May 11, 2007.</ref>

===Economic policy===
In the field of economic policy, Democrats favor high progressive taxes, higher government spending and increasing the minimum wage.

The Democratic Party has historically had ties to [[labor union|organized labor]].<ref> http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/913wopoz.asp Paying Dues - The Democrats settle up with their union bosses, [[Weekly Standard]], July 25, 2007 </ref>

The [[National Education Association]],<ref>[http://www.nea.org/index.html National Education Association homepage]</ref> the largest union of public school teachers, is a backbone of the party, supplying the largest number of delegates to its national conventions.

In addition to the Democratic party's reported stance to "tax the rich", some members of the Congressional Democratic Leadership have proposed a 50 cent per gallon tax increase on gasoline which would disproportionately hurt those least able to absorb the cost at a time when worldwide gas prices are at historic highs.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dingell-to-propose-50-cent-gasoline-tax-increase-2007-07-07.html Dingell to propose 50 cent gasoline tax increase], By Chris Good, ''The Hill'', July 07, 2007.</ref>

===Foreign and military policy===
According to its platform, the Democratic Party has the objective of strengthening America. Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism<ref>[http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=22045 "Democrats, ACLU Outraged Over Traveler Terrorism Screening Program"] C. Johnson, Associated Press</ref> and insufficiently patriotic.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/01/smn.19.html CNN Saturday Morning News]Transcript: December 1, 2001 </ref> A poll conducted by [[Fox News]] released in October 2007 found that 1 in 5 Democrats – nearly 10 million voters – think the world will be better off if the [[United States]] were to lose the [[War in Iraq]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299374,00.html Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War], FOX News Poll, October 04, 2007.</ref> The poll found this sentiment 3 to 4 times higher among Democrats than among moderate, centrist, and Republican voters.

===Education===
An organization affiliated with the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] called the [[Progressive Policy Institute]] claims a long-standing opposition to school vouchers.<ref>21st Century Schools Project Bulletin: Special Edition [http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID=250630 ''Putting Vouchers in Perspective''], PPI E-newsletter 2 July 2002</ref> Jonathan Alter of ''Newsweek'' warned that opposition to vouchers might alienate some traditional Democratic voting blocs:
:"Can wealthy white liberals - many of whom send their kids to private school - really say to poor parents: 'We can have choices, but you must not?'...This is a glaring hypocrisy sitting at the heart of the liberal opposition to targeted vouchers… Right now, Democrats are in a highly compromised position on education."<ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=newsLetter&sectionID=29&NLissueID=4&articleID=11&altCol=2 Center For Education Reform, Monthly Letter to Friends No. 75], Back to School 2002.</ref>

===Environment vs Labor===
Two other important coalition groups also find themselves in direct conflict with each other within the Democratic party coalition--[[Environmentalist]]s and Labor Unions. While environmentalists support efforts like clean air and alternative fuels, for example, this creates tension with the workers of American automobile manufactures whose jobs are threatened by environmental policies such as increasing regulations and high costs. Such policies can lead to cutbacks and layoffs. Balancing these issues is difficult because some sacrifices of interests must be made by both sides.

===Healthcare===
The Democrat fondness for heavy government intervention into the marketplace and social engineering means that a significant proportion of their base and of their candidates for the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election ideologically favor introducing a system of [[socialized healthcare]]{{fact|date=January 2008}}; regardless of the crippling tax burden this would require to sustain itself and the low standard of care achieved by socialized health programs in other countries compared to the United States.{{fact|date=January 2008}} However, many first world nations such as France and Britain do have socialized healthcare systems, and are ranked 1 and 18 by the [[World Health Organization]]<ref>http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html</ref>, respectively, compared to the United States' rank of 37. Therefore, many argue that there may be some advantages to a universal health care system. Democrats generally regard [[universal healthcare]] to be a priority because of the appeal to voters without any kind of [[health insurance]]. Among the leading proponents for this idea include [[Barack Obama|Sen. Barack Obama]] and [[John Edwards|Sen. John Edwards]]; the latter formerly being the running mate to [[John Kerry|Sen. John Kerry]] in the [[2004 Presidential Election]].

===Homosexual Agenda===
Democratic lawmakers and opinion-formers consistently favor measures such as the establishment of [[same-sex civil union]]s, [[gay marriage]] and [[gay adoption]] of children over defense of the [[traditional family]]. Likewise they are vigorous in attempting to amend "[[hate crime]]" laws, which some experts maintain would make criticism of the [[homosexual lifestyle]] illegal;<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54535 Christian belief a 'hate crime' under plan], WorldNetDaily, March 3, 2007. </ref> while at the same time supporting efforts to disseminate favorable opinions regarding [[homosexuality]] through channels such as the mainstream media and even the educational system in the face of opposition from churches and religious authorities, a broad coalition of [[Republican Party|Republican]] and Independent politicians. Democrats reject the idea of a [[Homosexual agenda]] preferring to speak in terms of [[Gay rights|"gay rights"]] when this issue is raised. The Democratic Party is the recipient and beneficiary of funding from homosexual lobbying groups and can be seen by their positions as the United States' largest and most powerful ''de facto'' supporter of the Homosexual Agenda.<ref>[http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000158 Human Rights Campaign], opensecrets.org </ref>

===Other Policies===
Democrats frequently support the minimum wage, workplace protections, the right of women to choose to have an [[abortion]], [[gun control]], gay marriage, and the separation of church and state.

==Religion==
In the United States, there is some correlation between religious and political affiliation, though people of all faiths and denominations can be found among the supporters of each of the main parties.

Both historically and today, [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] voters have had a tendency to identify with the Democratic Party, and a number of Democratic office-holders, such as Speaker of the House [[Nancy Pelosi]], are Catholics. However, several general ideals of the Democratic Party's platform - most notably, the party's overall support for the legality of [[abortion]] - are contrary to the position of the [[Catholic Church]].

With regard to [[Protestantism|Protestant]] Christians, members of [[Evangelical]] churches in particular are associated with the [[Republican Party]]. However, the large majority of Democratic Party members are Protestants. One unusual feature of the Democratic Party, however, is that it draws substantial support both from committed African-American Protestant Christians and from secular and atheist white voters. The strong opposition to [[homosexuality]] found among many Black Protestant Christians (and, indeed, among orthodox Catholics) contrasts strikingly with the support frequently shown by other Democrats for the [[homosexual agenda]]. One reason for this contrast could be the Democrats' strong support for minority rights.

Democrats also generally believe that religion should be separate from public life, and as such are typically supported by the ACLU. For example, in 1999 the Congress took up a bill to protect the display of the [[Ten Commandments]]. In the House of Representatives, over 3/4ths of the Democratic party members voted to remove the display.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/18/gun.rollcall/ten.commandments.html</ref>. The measure did not pass the Legislature, and as a result when Justice [[Roy Moore]] posted a [[Ten Commandments]] display in his courthouse, the ACLU was able to have the display removed.

==Democratic Presidents==
[[Image:Carter.jpg|right|200px]]
* [[Andrew Jackson]] (1829-1837)
* [[Martin Van Buren]] (1837-1841)
* [[James K. Polk]] (1845-1849)
* [[Franklin Pierce]] (1853-1857)
* [[James Buchanan]] (1857-1861)
* [[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889) (1893-1897)
* [[Woodrow Wilson]] (1913-1921)
* [[Franklin Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)
* [[Harry S Truman]] (1945-1953)
* [[John F. Kennedy]] (1961-1963)
* [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] (1963-1969)
* [[Jimmy Carter]] (1977-1981)
* [[Bill Clinton]] (1993-2001)

==See also==
*[[Phonemarks]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Democrats|Articles about '''Democrats''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

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

==External links==
*[http://www.democrats.org/ Democratic Party Official Site]
*[http://www.therealdemocratstory.com/ The Real Democrat Story], Open the File on the Freshmen Democrats.

[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:United States Political Parties]]

Talk:CE

2007-10-30T04:15:02Z

John Brown: more common

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

==Comments==
Since others have already commented about the tolerance issue among scholarly works, I'll pass over that issue except to say that they are correct and it would be an error to assume that it is an attempt to destroy Christianity. However, the related point that I would like to address is the article statement that reads "While use of "Common Era" attempts to erase recognition for the Christian basis of the calendar, there are not similar attempts to erase non-Christian religious names from the calendar, such as the days of the week named after Norse gods." In fact, although it is not accepted by the "common culture" of the United States, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) did away with the names for the days and months centuries ago in order not to give creedance to other gods even in common speech. They count the days or months instead of naming them. For instance, January is called First Month and Sunday is called First Day. In the last generation, many Quakers have discontinued this custom, but it survived for centuries and is still practiced by some of the older or most conservative Quakers. Most of them still retain it where it has become part of the name of something. For instance, Quaker children do not go to Sunday School but rather to First Day School.

In point of fact, all religions/ denominations/ societies reckon time by the significant dates in their religious history -- where they figure the start date from, what they call things, etc. It makes as much sense for Christians to reckon time as the (approximate) birth of Jesus as it does for Jews or Confucians to reckon it from Creation or Muslims to reckon it from the Hajj. By the same token, it makes sense for each of them to count time passed with reference to the things they consider holy -- the things of the life cycle, the yearly cycle, etc. The names of the days and months are no different, so it's a wonder that the rest of the culture didn't do as the Quakers long ago in naming the days and months since most of the culture was at least nominally Christian. -- VJR

Isn't the BCE/CE designed to be more inclusive of other cultures that do not believe in Christianity. For non-Christians, having the birth and death of Christ as starting points to a calendar must seem rather arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, on checking, I find that "common era" can be
*a generic term meaning ''any'' standardized system of numbering years based on any epoch, e.g. the Jewish year is in "the common era of the Jews."
*a term used to distinguish the "ordinary" BC/AD epoch ''from others used by Christians.'' E.g. "puts his death in the seventh year of Trajan, i.e. in 104 of the common era."[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC04334900&id=qLfiIApQVDkC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=%22common+era%22&as_brr=1]

And the phrase has been in use for well over a century.

Thus: "The common era of the Jews places the creation in B. C. 3760" (where B. C. here means "before the common era ''of the Jews.'') [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HE_WUCP1d5BX8OJ&id=GMfyJ2PeD-cC&pg=RA12-PA207&lpg=RA12-PA207&as_brr=1 1874: The popular encyclopedia, volume V, p. 307]

"It was probably the original intention of Caefar to commence the new year with the fhorteft day, the winter folftice at Rome, in the year 46 B. C. (common era)." [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03079044&id=cS8EAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA4&lpg=RA2-PA4&&as_brr=1 1889: "Handy-book of Rules and Tables for Verifying Dates with the Christian Era"]

"Prior to the year A. D. 1865, the Jewish style, namely, the year of the world, was observed by Red Men in dating their documents. At the council held in G. S. 1526, this system was discontinued, and G. S. D. or Great Sun of the Discovery was adopted, the year 1492 being considered G. S. D. 1. To find the date of the old style, add to the common era 3760; e.g. 1877 + 3760 = 5637. To find the date by Red Men's style, subtract 1491 from the common era." ("Red Men" here is a reference to a fraternal organization.) [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03825672&id=kZLbGv92SjUC&pg=RA16-PA495&lpg=RA16-PA495&as_brr=1 1893: Official History of the Improved Order of Red Men].

So it's not a ''new'' phrase. In fact, it seems to me that "Christian era" means "the system used by Christians," whereas calling the AD/BC system the "common era" means "this system used by everyone" and thus emphasizes that Christian usage is '''the''' general usage of our society.

The story may be more complicated than that, but that's what I've found so far. Not sure when, how, by whom or for what reason the abbreviations BCE and CE were introduced. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)

:That's fascinating material. Thanks. Maybe I'm obsessed with this, but it does seem odd that a phrase recently pushed by schools, Wikipedia writers and tests has unknown origin. It's not even in the 1972 dictionary!!! In a current dictionary, it's defined as a substitute for BC/AD without any reference to Jewish people. My quote from the online rabbi shows Judaism is not the source.
:I'll study your sources further. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Well, your quote from the rabbi shows that he doesn't know the source. In Rabbi Raphall's "Post Biblical History of the Jews", he uses BCE, and you start seeing "BCE" and either "ACE" or "CE" from 1890 on.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 13:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

888888888888888888888888888
What do you mean "It's not in the 1972 dictionary"? Is that the Complete Websters, the Oxford or some dog-eared little junior high book? Here's a current definition from a free on-line encyclopedia at http://www.reference.com/search?q=Common%20Era

"The Common era (also known as the Christian era or the Current era, abbreviated to CE) is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1 on the Gregorian calendar. The notations CE and BCE (Before the Common Era) are alternative notations for AD (anno Domini, Latin for "in the year of (Our) Lord") and BC (Before Christ), respectively. The CE/BCE system of notation is chronologically equivalent to dates in the AD/BC system, i.e. no change in numbering is used and neither includes a year zero. The abbreviations may also be written C.E. and B.C.E.

The term common era is preferred by some as an alternative to the more overtly religious AD and BC, since Common Era does not explicitly make use of religious titles for Jesus, such as Christ and Lord, which are used in the AD/BC notation. Some criticize Common Era notation as a euphemism that does not alter the pivotal year one still centering on the life of Jesus. Many others criticize the notation as an unnecessary attempt at political correctness."

This is the sort of clear and simple info, obtainable at the press of a button that the writer of this article has struggled for 25 years (in vain) to determine, receiving no help from a nameless "professor of European history" as quoted here:

"Now, 25 years and a number of common errors later, I assume that Common Era simply means "the date commonly accepted and used." But the truth is that I don't know, so I asked your question to a professor of European history. He didn't know either. (Last two sentences bolded to emphasise the enormous irony of it all)"

We are indeed fortunate that someone so self-confessedly ignorant on a subject should not have been deterred from knocking off a piece on that very matter for a global encyclopedia.

Some brief points:

1. I was taught that the BCE/CE dating convention was adopted primarily for works of an academic nature, typically in the fields of comparative religious studies and the like, where there is a focus on inter-faith dialogue, so as not to appear unnecessarily chauvinistic in asserting the tenets of Christian faith over those of others. In particular the Jews most expressly do NOT believe that Jesus “Was [their] Saviour” as is implied by the words behind the acronyms.

2. Call this a sop, or “caving in to the enemy” or whatever, but it was never intended to indicate that Christians were abandoning their faith, but merely as a gesture of tolerance within fields of study where respect for diversity (and OTHER PEOPLE'S faith) was essential.

3. To foment an acrid dispute over suchlike sounds a lot like the battle of the Big Endians and Little Endians in Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travellers”. Or, more recently and far less fictiously, the kind of throat-cutting vendettas pursued by Balkans over how many fingers you should use when you cross yourself.

4. Personally, if this upsets SOME conservatives so much - those who have divined in this practice a wholesale betrayal of the faith of their fathers - I would quite gladly recommend reversion to the earlier practice. Frankly, wise and well-intentioned man and women of all faiths would understand the nature of the predicament, more than many of you will begin to guess.

5. This controversy, and the even more asinine one on “American spellings”, seems to have provided the requisite steam power for blow-hards to arouse themselves to elevated levels of indignation and over what most other folk would perceive to be trifling matters of custom, protocol and etiquette. Here too, I would recommend adhering to American spelling, which is invariably simpler and more logical. But where would Conservapedia be if the Liberals relented on such epochal issues?
88888888888888888888888888888888

:One thing: how exactly is American spelling of English more logical or simple than any other spelling? "Organize" vs. "Organise." I'm having trouble seeing how logic applies. Bigotry, maybe. You're a moron. --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's probably an interesting story there. I grant you that the spread of BCE and CE probably ''do'' have ''something'' to do with acknowledging diversity, or political correctness, or liberalism, or something. It's always hard to find out how and why things go in and out of fashion, though. I have a long list of puzzles of that kind. Why did the phrase "to fill the bill" rather suddenly get replaced with "to fit the bill" circa 1990 or so? Why did the phrase "to go missing" or "went missing," which I'd always thought were British, suddenly become ubiquitous in the U. S. starting in, I don't know, the late 1990s? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 21 December 2006 (EST)

I heard that there were originally inacuracies in determining the times of various events which resulted in Jesus having been born in the year 4 B.C. It seems that with this information available, it would be foolish to continue saying that the year of our lord began when He was 4 years old. [[User:Scienceisstupid|Scienceisstupid]] 15:17, 21 June 2007 (PST)

== Original Research ==

Should original research be allowed in this article? Also, CE is not some conspiracy that is trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity. There are no citations in this article even attempting to show that this view is held outside of this web page. AD/BC where established by Christian scholars and prevailed because the "western" powers remained solidly Christian and happened to colonize most of the world. Now, the world might be 1/6th Christian, but the other 5/6ths are not. Science is a consensus of scientist from around the world and do not only include the U.S. So it would not be prudent to keep the current age as Anno Domini, since the "Lord" is no longer consisting of the majority of the world. The usage of AD is still valid, but CE is not trying to discredit or undermine in some way the original dating method. So I'm going to try to make this article more neutral in the future, but if a majority of you guys think i'm vandalizing or something like that, I'll move on.
As a side note, the Roman Catholic Church (the universal church of Christ) was responsible for the dark ages.

:So CE isn't trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity, but what it is trying to do is remove the word "Lord" from the vocabulary of the general public. I absolutely love Liberal Logic! --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:29, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: Well if I may, there is a real concern here for Jews and Muslims - saying that is the year of the lord is inaccurate and indeed arguably idol worship to use the term. So for those religions at least use of the term "AD" is very problematic (BC less so for obvious reasons). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: If the general public doesn't want the the word "LORD" in the vocabulary then it shouldn't be there. Unless Christianity suddenly implodes i don't think just because a shift in the secular world from AD/BC to CE/BCE is going to do anything. My main concern is if we are trying to counter bias with bias? Also, i'm going to get rid of the original research in this article unless someone adds some citations or something cause i'm not sure where that comes from. [[User:Pinion|Pinion]] 00:50, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::: If this was A Jewish or Muslim site, you might have a point. But as this is a Christian/Conservative Site that does not strive to be politically correct, your point is not valid. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::: I wasn't commetning on whether it should be used ''here'' I was commenting on how the general motivations of those who use it are not nearly as nefarious as some editors here seem to think. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Common Sense, ppl ==

I've heard some good evidence and argument in this talk page, but the idea that BCE and CE are a liberal agenda thing or one of "wikipedia's bias" signs is an absolutely baseless and, furthermore, stupid notion. Let me introduce a theory:

We don't know the year of Jesus's birth. We DO know that it is almost absolutely NOT 0 BC/AD. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_date.htm#year].

So BCE/CE was created with this date (since people are just used to it, no need to change it. Pretty conservative of them, wouldn't you say?) as the reference. It's just a reference date with no meaning, so we can have an absolute origin point on a timeline. Say it with me. "Its just a reference date." That felt good, huh?

Don't you think it's a positive thing for the Christian religion to remove an obvious error from it? Hell, they do us a favor by just separating the two topics. You should be thankful, not suspicious. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Rabbi Dialogue ==

This dialogue is pointless and makes this article seem fabricated and arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

What is the point of the dialogue between the rabbi and whoever? What purpose does it serve to illuminate people as to what CE means? Furthermore the "reference" doesn't have any other references, nor does it even say who the professor of European history was. It also doesn't have a copy of the transcript between the rabbi and the supposed professor. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 02:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:This section is unecessary and has to much first person. It doesn't sound encyclopaedic. [[User:Bobtexas|Bobtexas]] 02:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Anecdotal evidence is the most wonderfully personal evidence there is. Too bad personal isn't the same as important. Allow me to cite a conversation I heard once between an onion farmer and a prince. It seems there was this onion farmer, you see… --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The dialogue also does nothing to demonstrate the point it tries to make (illustrating that the term "Common Era" did not come from Judaism). Just because one rabbi was taught to refer to CE as the "Common Error" doesn't mean that all Rabbis were taught that (certainly not mine, who uses CE and BCE).

==Christian Era==
Where is the proof that CE stands for Common Era? I thought that it stood for Christian Era. As the article implies, the term CE was not in wide use 35 years ago. It has since caught on, but for what reason?

The term Christian Era appears to be much older, and it is listed in all the major dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, and Compact Oxford English Dictionary. It may be true that CE was promoted by people claiming that it was a non-Christian term, but maybe it only was accepted by people who took it to mean Christian Era. Does anyone know?

I think that the article should be revised to say that CE stands for Christian Era. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Yeah, then we can refrain from using CE, 'cause ''clearly'' it shows bias. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I can't source this, I assumed it was common knowledge....
An obvious reason for not wishing to use the BC AD system is that many feel term 'In the year of our Lord" aggressively exclusive. In an increasingly global society, we see most countries adopting our calender, and yet there is a great proportion, indeed a majority, who are not in fact christian and do not feel that God is 'Our' (Their) Lord. The point is that a calender does not need to be religious but by using the idea of Christian Era, no-one is denying the ancestry of the term (which debunks a fair portion of the current argument about anti-christianity)

== References ==

There are no references to whatever Common Era means only to some irrelevant site with a quotation explaining about someone not knowing what CE means.

== Lack of dictionary definition ==

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but might the reason for the fact that a 1972 edition of a dictionary might not have the term be that it wasn't in common use in 1972? You might try looking in a more modern dictionary. It doesn't seem like the most credible piece of evidence. [[User:Alethiophile|Alethiophile]] 18:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I couldn't agree more. I just finished a History undergraduate degree and we used CE/BCE exclusively. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm also inclined to agree. Currently the Merriam-Webster's Website does indeed have a definition for "Common Era", linking it to "Christian Era", which is defined as "the period dating from the birth of Christ". Other dictionaries such as The American Heritage Dictionary and WordNet also have similar definitions. Also of importance is that, while the 1972 edition was the seventh Merriam-Webster's edition, the most current is the eleventh. I would recommend a deletion regarding that particular piece of evidence.

== hahahahahahahahaha ==

are you freakin kidding me??? PLEASE tell me this is a joke...

== Unfortunate Truth ==

Unfortunately, no. There are, sadly, a lot of ignorant people in the world who truly believe that what they call "Conservatism" is, in fact, unbiased. This 'encyclopaedia' as they so insultingly call it is little more than an entire website subtly advocating the perpetuation of many of the evils which have led the world to the state it is in now. Intolerance, misinformation and insufficient education are but three of the factors in this ever-deepening spiral of destruction held on to by the last dying grasp of 'conservatism', a 'movement' which seeks dominion by stasis- a sheer lack of progress for the world. They try to deny such obvious truths such as Global Warming and Evolution while putting forward theories and hypotheses completely unfounded in science such as 'young earth theory'... seriously, who can say that this website is anything it supposes to stand for? Educational? It looks to me more like religious indoctrination like the old Taliban regime which they so criticize- little better than 'Terrorists'.
The terrorists issue is another point of failure for the Conservapedia. The rules and regulations clearly state- "No Liberalist Bias" and state the example of "terrorists" as "calling a spade a spade" so to speak and not attempting to hide their "true nature". But isn't the "terrorist" label just another way of dehumanizing people who are essentially the same as us? All these unfortunate victims of conservative government after conservative government have arms, legs, heads just like the governments themselves. The only difference, you could say, is the way they go about things.
I ask: how true is this for real? How does a terrorist make his point? by yelling something in arabic then blowing up a truck? How does the U.S. military (An admirably conservative organisation) make it's point? By yelling something in English then blowing up an oil derrick? Or some Iraqis? Really, whoever does it- the Terrorists or the oh-so-very-friendly US military the Iraqis kind of get in the behind, don't they?
Let's face it. Conservatives in positions of power have, over a period of less than 200 years, brought the world to a point of political and environmental destruction. How can they deny Global Warming when its effects are clearly visible in highly populated areas of the world. How can they continue chugging CO2 into the atmosphere, completely blind to the destruction they cause? It is little more than childish greed, greed for power, money and resources, childish because they care only for themselves- not even their children. Because, by the time the world is set on a path to complete destruction where not even the powerful conservatives can save it, all the living leaders today will be dead. And that is why the do not care. They do not care about the environment. They do not care about your lives. All they care about is their own prosperity and happiness and the continuation of the status quo- because this status quo, this conservative ideal, is the one where their lives are perfect, where they have what they want. It's not about religion. It's not even about political orientation. It is nothing more than an evil self-feeding cycle where only the Conservatives gain.

Conservatives ARE the Devil.

:Last time I checked, [[Global warming]] was not protected. If you have scientific evidence of the bad effects of higher average atmospheric temperature, please add it to the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:21, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

== Article Locked? ==

Why has this article been locked? Surely this is against the principles of a freely editable encyclopedia? Also and encyclopedia should present both the evidence/views '''for and against''' the topic in question - this article does not do this. --[[User:Tomt|Tomt]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Your thinking that this place is committed to neutrality. It's not. It's committed to promoting a viewpoint, one that is (happily) on the decline in the United States, where its proponents think it has its greatest strength. --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== I've always heard something different ==

I've always heard that CE and BCE are very old terms meaning "Christian Era" and "Before the Christian Era."--[[User:Ollie Garkey|Ollie Garkey]] 18:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Did you hear that from some Christians? Anyway, you heard wrong. --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Rabbi dialogue revisited ==

The person who added this to the article is, sadly, a moron. What exactly does this prove? Also, the term is "Common Era" not (chuckle) "Christian Era." The people who made the calendars were Christian. Now, in a global climate that has ''progressed'' to be more tolerant of individuals of different religious and cultural backgrounds, it has been decided by reasonable individuals not to enforce the religion of some upon the time-telling of everyone. So, rather than change what day it is and and change the dates of all of history, we simply change the suffix from something that blatantly promotes ''one'' of the world's major religions to something less, say, offensive. What exactly is the problem with acknowledging that not everyone believes what you do? --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Why do some feel the urge to censor references to Christ? If a date is based on the birth of Christ, then the basis for that date should be expressed in terms of Christ. Give credit where it is due, even if you don't agree.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia's bias regarding this term ==

This term is not used consistently on Wikipedia and liberals have seemed to make sure it's used in articles where it will generate the most scandal: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus Jesus]. (Indeed, the clumsy and unencyclopedic "BC/BCE" and "AD/CE" are used there.) Look at other articles about historic places and persons and you will rarely find "BCE/CE" used: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato Plato], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates Socrates], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun Tutankhamun], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia Persia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire the Roman Empire], etc. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:40, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

: Good point, but [[CE]] is used many thousands, and perhaps even millions, of times on Wikipedia. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Common_Era].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

::So why then do the major articles I cited still use only the AD/BC designation? (That's a rhetorical question.) Wikipedia has no policy whatsoever about the use of AD/BC and CE/BCE and they've left it up to the users - users who are overwhelmingly liberal. It's too bad that it's extremely difficult to tell which articles were first changed to replace AD/BC or include CE/BCE. If someone did find out, I wouldn't be surprised if the article about Jesus was one of the first ones to be changed. In any case, I did a search on the top online encyclopedias other than Wikipedia and none of them use CE/BCE in any way. Not a one. To me, all this just shows the liberal bias that exists on Wikipedia. The CE/BCE designation is not in use in any major encyclopedias. It's only in use by godless intellectuals who like to think they're avoiding paying lip service to Jesus Christ by using it even though it uses the same "starting point" as AD/BC: the birth of Jesus. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== more common ==

"Christian Era has a longer history of usage and appears in more web pages today."

The latter is easily contradicted by a simple Google search. The former is unsupported by any evidence. [[User:John Brown|John Brown]] 00:15, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Holocaust

2007-04-06T19:52:20Z

John Brown: commandment 5

{{stub}}
[[Image:Hgdye56.jpg|right|thumb|"Selection" of Hungarian Jews at the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp in May/June 1944. To be sent to the right meant slave labor; to the left, the gas chambers.]]
The Holocaust was the genocide of the Jews and others during [[World War II]] by the [[Nazi]] government of [[Germany]], which played on Adolf Hitler's widely held anti-Semitic sentiments. In addition to the genocide of 6 million Jews, several million other people were also murdered, which included Slavs, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roma, physically and mentally disabled people, common criminals, homosexuals, communists and other political opponents of national socialism were also exterminated.

The records of the amount of people who were killed in the Holocaust were never fully uncovered, yet estimates have read anywhere from 11 to 12 million total victims.

The occurence of the Holocaust is only in denial within small groups with anti-semitic leanings. The Germans kept accurate records of the massacres.
[[category:history]]

Holocaust

2007-04-06T19:52:09Z

John Brown: commandment 5

Theory of relativity

2007-04-06T19:49:46Z

John Brown: /* Political Support for Relativity */ removed opinion (commandment 5)

The Theory of Relativity is a geometrical theory of gravitation, it postulates that the [[speed of light]] and laws of physics are constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.

The theory of relativity was first proposed based on mathematical theory developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]]. This theory differs from [[Isaac Newton]]'s theory of gravitation by disposing with the idea of a universal, mutually agreeable scale of time (i.e. a universal clock that all times can refer to) and space (i.e. a universal sheet of "graph paper", which location refers to).

The famous equation attributed to Einstein, ''E=mc2'', describes the relationship between energy and the rest mass of a body.

In general terms, relativity predicts that space-time can be curved by massive bodies, so that (for example) near a [[black hole]] the sum of the angles in a triangle is not exactly 180 degrees, time passes more rapidly away from a black hole than near it (for a distant observer) and other apparent violations of [[geometry]] and common sense.

Relativity is important for massive or fast-moving bodies: at low mass and low speed, it can be accurately approximated by [[classical mechanics]] (such as [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion). At the two extremes, modeling the behavior of electrons requires that relativistic effects be taken into account (the chemically significant phenomenon of [[electron spin]] arises from relativity), and the course light passing through a region containing many massive bodies such as galaxies will be distorted ([[classical mechanics]], in which light travels with infinite speed in straight lines, does not predict this). These are both experimentally confirmed ([[electron spin]] was known before relativity arose, and telescopic observations confirm that galactic clusters distort the paths of the light passing through them).

General relativity successfully explains the seemingly anomalous precession of Mercury's perihelion. While other explanations based in Newtonian gravity had been proposed, none were consistent with observation.

British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Briton Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 with a local Army unit to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. Upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. In fact recent analysis of Eddington's work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data were inconclusive about the theory of relativity. The prediction was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] {{fact}}. Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.

::It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure. [http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm]

The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.

==Evidence for Relativity==

No particle accelerator built since the 1950s would work unless the mass increase predicted by special relativity not only occurred, but occurred to the precise degree predicted by the theory.{{fact}} In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and were directly able to observe the relativistic "twin paradox" the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy.<ref>as described in [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?], a personal web page, which cites Haefele and Keating (1972), ''Science'' Vol. 177 pp 166-170 as its source</ref><ref>Sullivan, Walter (1972), "Relativity Theory Awaits Affirmation", September 23, 1972, p. 61. Note: Article refers to a different experiment, which Sullivan discusses, saying that if successful it would be "the second time within a year" that relativity had been confirmed, then proceeds to discuss Hafele[sic] and Keating's experiment as the first.</ref>

==Pending Research==

Today some physicists are working on a [[quantum theory of gravity]] (the "theory of everything"), such as [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]]. Critics increasingly point out that [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]] are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by [[Karl Popper]].

== Political Support for Relativity ==

Relativity enjoys a disproportionate{{fact}} share of federal funding of physics research today, much of it unsuccessful{{fact}}. The billion-dollar LIGO project, for example, has failed to detect the gravity waves predicted by relativity.<ref>http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html</ref>

There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views{{fact}}, and there is an unmistakable{{fact}} effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity{{fact}}. Physicist [[Robert Dicke]] of Princeton University was a prominent critic of the theory of relativity and that may have hurt him professionally, though it also likely that this is because his proposed model of the effect of gravity on electromagnetic waves performed worse than Einstein's model:

::But the J.P.L. experimenters reduced the margin of error to 4% or less by locating the distant spacecraft within 100 ft. of their actual position. Thus, when they calculated that the signal to Mariner was slowed down by 204 millionths of a second on its round trip, they dealt the Brans-Dicke theory a sharp if not decisive blow. Their measurement was only 4 millionths of a second off the Einsteinian prediction, but 18 millionths of a second off the Brans-Dicke figure.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

== Links ==

The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz, http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm

France

2007-03-27T22:54:59Z

John Brown: decent source, please?

{{stub}}
[[Image:map_of_france.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|Map of France]]
France is a country in Western Europe.

At its height, the French Empire rivaled the British Empire, with colonies in every corner of the world. It continues to be a strong presence in academia and has been the birthplace of countless renowned scholars. It remains a powerhouse in the [[European Union]], often at odds with the [[United Kingdom]] on issues of EU policy. The capital city is Paris, often called the "City of Lights" due to its renown for a center of learning and philosophy.

France is also renowned for its cuisine and its wines. Good food (often opposed to fast food) is highly valued in France.

It was a founding member of the European Coal and Steel treaty which led to the EEC and EU. It greatly assisted then-Great Britain's North American colonies both militarily and financially in their effort to gain independence, and established universal legal codes in much of the non-Anglo-Saxon west. It has made a number of philosophical contributions to the world, including Descartes and Sartre, existentialism and post modernism. It gifted the Statue of Liberty to the USA in celebration of its independence, echoing the French aid given to the colonies during the American Revolutionary War.

In March of 2003 A.D., France was one of over a hundred nations that did not participate in the alliance that liberated [[Iraq]], with its aim of removing the [[Baathist]] regime of the dictator [[Saddam Hussein]], despite the clearly proven fact that Saddam Hussein was producing chemical and biological weapons which were found and destroyed by US troops.<ref>http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html</ref> French forces did, however, participate in the war in Afghanistan, and suffered casualties in the fighting [http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/oef.casualties/,/]

==Gaul==
Back during the time of the [[Roman Republic]], France was a territory called Gaul, populated by Celtic tribes. [[Julius Caesar]] conquered Gaul, thanks to the lack of unity among the tribes. Gaul remained an important part of the [[Roman Empire]] for several centuries.

==Frankland under Clovis==
France is named after the Franks, a Saxon tribe who established Soissons, the capital. A Frank called [[Clovis]] united the Franks and established Frankland. Franks were pagans but Clovis converted to Christianity (legend has it he prayed to Christ during a difficult battle, offering to become a Christian in exchange for victory ; shortly after that, the enemy fled).

[[Category:Countries]]

George Washington

2007-03-23T03:28:47Z

John Brown: commandment 6/expanded/fixed up a tad

[[Image:washington-deleware.jpg|500px|right]]
'''George Washington''' (1732-1799) was the unanimously elected 1st President of the [[United States of America]] and the Commander-in-Chief in the [[Revolutionary War]].<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html</ref>

After serving two terms, Washington chose not to run for a third. Washington is perhaps the only person to decline such enormous worldly power, in Washington's case by first refusing to become a military dictator or king and then by voluntarily stepping aside as the leader of a prosperous nation. His precedent was voluntarily followed for 140 years, when [[Franklin Roosevelt]] chose to run for a third term during World War II.

Washington bravely led the colonists in revolt against the unjust British government, and in its place established a new government. Fighting against the vastly more powerful British army, Washington lost nearly every battle in the American Revolution until winning at Trenton and Princeton, and then lost most battles afterwards until ultimately prevailing at Yorktown with the help of a new contingent of French troops.

The degree to which he was a Christian is disputed by historians; Washington only rarely declared his own beliefs. As General, he commanded that chaplains be included in every regiment: "The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavour so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier, defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country.<ref>http://www.amerisearch.net/index.php?date=2004-02-22&view=View</ref>

Washington declared in his Inaugural Address: "It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of Providential agency." Comments such as this one have led many modern scholars to conclude that Washington was in fact a deist rather than a Christian.<ref>''Id.''</ref>

On November 4, 1752, Washington was initiated into Freemasonry at Fredricksburg Lodge, Fredricksburg, Virginia. He was passed and raised at the same lodge, becoming a Master Mason on August 4, 1753. He later served as Worshipful Master of Alexandria Lodge No. 22 in Alexandria, Virginia. Upon his death in 1799, he was given a Masonic funeral at his wife's request.<ref>http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/washington_g/washington_g.html</ref>

==Parson Weems and the cherry tree story==
In 1809, Mason Locke Weems (1756-1825), usually referred to as "Parson Weems," published a book entitled ''History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits of General George Washington.'' This book contained many fanciful stories and half-truths, intended to present Washington as a larger-than-life figure. Perhaps the most famous passage in it is Weems' recounting of a story which he attributed to an unnamed "aged lady, who was a distant relative [of Washington], and, when a girl, spent much of her time in the [Washington] family:"

:"When George," said she, "was about six years old, he was made the wealthy master of a hatchet of which, like most little boys, he was immoderately fond, and was constantly going about chopping everything that came in his way. One day, in the garden, where he often amused himself hacking his mother's pea-sticks, he unluckily tried the edge of his hatchet on the body of a beautiful young English cherry-tree, which he barked so terribly, that I don't believe the tree ever got the better of it. The next morning the old gentleman, finding out what had befallen his tree, which, by the by, was a great favourite, came into the house; and with much warmth asked for the mischievous author, declaring at the same time, that he would not have taken five guineas for his tree. Nobody could tell him anything about it. Presently George and his hatchet made their appearance. "George," said his father," do you know who killed that beautiful little cherry tree yonder in the garden?" This was a tough question; and George staggered under it for a moment; but quickly recovered himself: and looking at his father, with the sweet face of youth brightened with the inexpressible charm of all- conquering truth, he bravely cried out, "I can't tell a lie, Pa; you know I can't tell a lie. I did cut it with my hatchet."—"Run to my arms, you dearest boy," cried his father in transports, "run to my arms; glad am I, George, that you killed my tree; for you have paid me for it a thousand fold. Such an act of heroism in my son is more worth than a thousand trees, though blossomed with silver, and their fruits of purest gold."<ref>British spellings are as they appear in the original text.</ref><ref>Weems, George Mason (1918), ''History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits of General George Washington.'' [http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/gw/chap2.html Chapter 2: Birth and Education], online at University of Virginia]</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC22316477&id=6tc56rgYE1YC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=mason+locke+weems&as_brr=1#PPP13,M1 The Life of George Washington] with Curious Anecdotes Equally Honourable to Himself, and Exemplary to his Young Countrymen. 1837, facsimile page images at Google Books</ref>

(Notice that Weems did not represent Washington as calling it "my ''little'' hatchet;" that appears to be a "familiar misquotation.")

----

'''Sources:''' <references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Washington, George}}
[[Category:Biographies]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

Richard Nixon

2007-03-23T03:21:24Z

John Brown: commandment 6

[[Image:Richard_nixon.gif|right|thumb|The 37th President of the United States, Richard Nixon]]

'''Richard Milhous Nixon''' (January 9, 1913 – April 22, 1994) was the 37th [[President of the United States of America]], serving from 1969 to 1974. He was the 36th [[Vice President of the United States of America]] from 1953 to 1961, in the administration of [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]. As a [[Congressman]] from [[California]], he investigated [[Communists]] and instigated the successful prosecution of [[Alger Hiss]]. Nixon served as Vice President under President Eisenhower from 1953 to 1961, and lost his first presidential race to [[John F. Kennedy]] by a tiny margin. In 1968 he was elected president, and was reelected in 1972 by a landslide, but resigned the presidency on August 9, 1974 due to a threat of impeachment by Congress for the [[Watergate scandal]]. The main impeachment charge was that Nixon obstructed justice by telling employees to mislead FBI investigators about the Watergate burglary. Other charges included lying to the American public.

President Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and was the first President to visit the People's Republic of China. He appointed a conservative (William Rehnquist), two moderates (Warren Burger and Lewis Powell) and a liberal (Harry Blackmun) to the U.S. Supreme Court. Nixon was from a Quaker family. His foreign policy as president was marked by détente with the [[Soviet Union]] and the opening of diplomatic relations between the United States and the [[People's Republic of China]]. His centrist domestic policies combined conservative rhetoric and liberal action in civil rights, environmental and economic initiatives. As a result of the Watergate scandal, Nixon resigned the presidency in the face of likely impeachment by the United States [[House of Representatives]]. His successor, [[Gerald Ford]], issued a controversial [[pardon]] that allowed Nixon to avoid prosecution.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Nixon, Richard}}
[[Category:Biographies]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

Ronald Wilson Reagan

2007-03-22T02:58:23Z

John Brown: /* Cold War victory */ better title

[[Image:Gorbachev reagan bush.gif|right|250px|thumb]]
'''Ronald Wilson Reagan '''(February 6, 1911- June 5, 2004), considered by many to be one of the greatest American Presidents, was the fortieth [[President of the United States of America]] from 1981 to 1989, following [[Democrat]] [[Jimmy Carter]] and preceding [[Republican]] [[George H. W. Bush]]. Considered by many to be one of the greatest American Presidents, Ronald Reagan is credited with leading America peacefully through the Cold War, lowering taxes (despite supporting tax increases in the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act and the Highway Revenue Act), promoting a free economy, and staunchly opposing [[socialism]] and [[communism]]. He was known affectionately to Americans as "The Gipper", harking back to a film where he was cast as All-American George Gip.)[http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp]

In one of his most famous challenges to Soviet communism in Europe, Reagan gave a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin in which he said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Reagan's economic policies became known as "Reaganomics" based the idea tax cuts will spur savings and investment. Reagan was strongly opposed to the concept of big government, advocating a reduction in the size and budget of the federal government. During his terms in office, he faced a divided government split between Republican and Democratic control for six of his eight years as President. Even then, when the Democrats gained control of the House and Senate, he was known for forging alliances with the Democratic Speaker, [[Tip O'Neill]], among others, to effectively pass legislation.

==Early Life==
Reagan was born and raised in Illinois and attended Eureka College, where he quickly developed a reputation as a "jack of all trades", excelling in the areas of athletics and theater. In his first year at Eureka, the president of the college tried to cut back the faculty. He graduated Eureka with a degree in economics. Reagan immediately helped organize a student strike. He became a radio sports announcer after graduation, and then a famous actor, leading the Screen Actors Guild. Ironically, Reagan was thus the only president to ever lead a [[labor union]], traditionally considered bastions of liberalism. (It should be noted that Reagan considered himself a liberal, and was a registered Democrat well into the 1950's. Reagan enlisted in the military during World War II, but his eyesight was not good enough for combat duty. He used his acting skills to make military training films and promote the sale of "War Bonds. <ref>http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/reagan.obit/index.html</ref>. Peggy Noonan, wrote: ''Even in his zeal to purge the communist influence from Hollywood, he fought those who engaged in witch hunts and defended those who had been falsely accused of involvement.'' Reagan met his second wife, actress Nancy Davis, when she ended up on the "Black List" and came to him for help. [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2001/11/17/noonan_when_character_was_king]

==Governor of California==
In 1966, he was elected the 33rd Governor of California. In 1970, he was re-elected. But in 1974, he chose not to seek a third term. Achievements during his terms included:

*Fighting the People's Park protests, and restoring order to California's chaotic University campuses.

*Led a massive revision of California's massive public assistance programs, actually increasing benefits to the needy.

*Working well with the Democrats to forge consensus on a variety of issues.

*Opposing the Dos Rios Dam

==Presidency==
In 1968, Reagan ran for president in the Republican primaries. However, [[Richard Nixon]] easily beat him. In 1976, he briefly challenged Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination, before withdrawing his name from consideration. Reagan knew if he continued, he would take the nomination away from Ford, and forever be branded as a Party spoiler. This he did not want, so he signaled his wish to be removed from consideration, and gave a very effective speech at the convention in support of Ford. Then, in 1980, he beat [[George H. W. Bush]] in the Republican primaries, and went on to oppose [[Jimmy Carter]] (incumbent) in the general election with G.H.W. Bush as his running mate. A poor economy and the incumbent's failing to deal with several international crises aided Reagan. As he put it, "I'm told I can't use the word depression. Well, I'll tell you the definition. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job; depression is when you lose your job. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." In the general election, he received 50.75% of the popular vote and 90.9% of the electoral.

Once in office, Reagan showed he was playing hardball. When the Federal [[Air Traffic Controllers]] struck illegally, Reagan gave them 48 hours before he fired all who hadn't gone back to work (11,359).

In 1984, Reagan won 49 out of 50 states' electoral votes, and the largest public vote in almost 100 years, 58.77%. During his second term, he helped end the [[Cold War]], with the help of [[Mikhail Gorbachev]], and [[Pope John Paul II]] by recognizing the weakness of the Soviet economy, and simply spending them out of existence.

==Presidential Legacy==

Reagan's 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative became popularly known as "Star Wars," the name given to it by critics because they thought it was pure fantasy like the popular George Lucas films. This plan was never actually fully instituted. Although billions of dollars have been spent on development, no space-based missile defense was tested successfully until 2006. While supporters of Reagan claim SDI gave the United States a large amount of leverage in its standoff with the [[Soviet Union]], many political scientists and historians note that Star Wars played a secondary role in the calculus of Soviet policy-making, where internal structural problems were paramount, but it should be noted that the threat the Soviet Union felt from the initiative was instrumental in making them step-up negoiations, according to many involved with diplomacy at the time. [[Henry Kissinger]] wrote: ''I know it's an axiomatic view of the Left around the world that missile defense is sinful, and that it's desirable to keep each nation as vulnerable as possible. But that's a debatable premise. The U.S. must defend itself against whoever has missiles that would threaten the United States. And you don't have to be able to name an enemy.'' [http://www.doublestandards.org/dreifus1.html]

Upon his death, Margaret Thatcher commented: ''As Prime Minister, I worked closely with Ronald Reagan for eight of the most important years of all our lives. We talked regularly both before and after his presidency. And I have had time and cause to reflect on what made him a great president. Ronald Reagan knew his own mind. He had firm principles - and, I believe, right ones. He expounded them clearly, he acted upon them decisively. When the world threw problems at the White House, he was not baffled, or disorientated, or overwhelmed. He knew almost instinctively what to do. When his aides were preparing option papers for his decision, they were able to cut out entire rafts of proposals that they knew 'the Old Man' would never wear. When his allies came under Soviet or domestic pressure, they could look confidently to Washington for firm leadership. And when his enemies tested American resolve, they soon discovered that his resolve was firm and unyielding. Yet his ideas, though clear, were never simplistic. He saw the many sides of truth. Yes, he warned that the Soviet Union had an insatiable drive for military power and territorial expansion; but he also sensed it was being eaten away by systemic failures impossible to reform. Yes, he did not shrink from denouncing Moscow's 'evil empire'. But he realised that a man of goodwill might nonetheless emerge from within its dark corridors. So the President resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own failures. And when a man of goodwill did emerge from the ruins, President Reagan stepped forward to shake his hand and to offer sincere cooperation. Nothing was more typical of Ronald Reagan than that large-hearted magnanimity - and nothing was more American.'' [http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/thatcher.asp]

===Economy===

Fueled by an over spending Congress that steadfastly refused Reagan's budget proposals, the national debt increased 160% during his two terms in office. The economic growth that resulted from tax cuts made deficits as a percentage of GDP lower than what they had been in during the previous decade of stagflation.

===Foreign policy===

In 1985, after Reagan won reelection to his second term, the focus turned from reviviing the domestic economy to several foreign policy matters which had been lingering throughout the decade. One such matter involved Iran, a long time ally of the Western Allies since 1941 that had experienced an Islamic Revolution in 1979 after President Carter announced [[Human Rights]] had superseded [[Containment]] as the primary focus of American foreign policy. Since 1980 Iran had been enmeshed in a brutal trench war with neighboring Iraq which was emerging as a potent military threat in the region to other allies. Members of the National Securirty Council staff, along with CIA Director [[William Casey]], persuaded Reagan much could be gained and several problems could be addressed simulataneousluy with an overture to Iran to restore relations.

The objective of the plan was fourfold (1) takes step to restore good relations with the [[Islamic Republic of Iran]] which was becoming increasingly hostile to the West; (2) take measures to convince Iran that Isreal could become a friend and ally; (3) insurance against Iraq becoming too strong which and become a threat to [[Kuwait]] or [[Saudi Arabia]]; (4) provide funding for other operations to continue the policy of containment in the Western Hemisphere, most notably [[Nicaragua]], and the violence the Soviet/Cuban/Nicaragua connection was creating in [[El Salvador]] and [[Honduras]].

There were humanitarian aspects to the proposal as well; (1) the Iran-Iraq War had stalemated for nearly six years and Reagan was advised that he was in the unique position as President to help facilitate bringing a senseless war with much suffering to an end; (2) the suffering of the people of the Central American Republics at the hands of Soviet inspired subversion which had in the decade of the 80s established a beachhead in North America; (3) Iran perhaps could be persuaded to use its good offices and influence hostage takers in Lebanon who had held several Western prisoners, many of the Christian Missionaries, for several years.

Reports had filtered back to Reagan that children as young as nine years old had been used by the Iranian clergy to clear minefields. <ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), ''Iraqi Retreats, 1982-84''], Globalsecruity.org, retrieved 20 March 2007.</ref> In weighing Iraq's delicate Sunni/Shia balance and the growing threat of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, the NSC staff and Casey recognized the dangers of an Iraqi collapse as well as the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing its ruthless and inhumane tactics. <ref>[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq53.pdf NSDD 139, 5 April 1984].</ref>

The Bohlen Amendment, a Vietnam era-style Congressional impingement on the legitimate foreign policy perogatives of the Executive via the power of the purse, was used to deny Reagan's recommittment to the [[Truman Doctrine]] which had been followed by every President since Truman, with the exception of [[President Carter]] who's [[human rights]] policy had brought one of the active belligents, the [[Ayatollah Khomeini]], to power. In three of the active Soviet fronts, [[Afghanistan]], [[Nicaragua]], and [[El Salvador]], some Congressional Democratic leaders were openly sympathetic to Soviet foreign policy.<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/591eifow.asp ''One Weekend in April, A Long Time Ago . . . What John Kerry thought about the Sandinistas in Nicaragua''], Hugh Hewitt, The Weekly Standard, 09/09/2004.</ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20060331222819/www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/7/234527.shtml ''Kerry: 'I'm Proud I Stood Against Reagan''] Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff, 7 June 2004.</ref> So the decision was made to fund [[Containment]] of Soviet objectives on an active front in North America with sales of TOW missiles to Iran. Isreal provided the TOWs because the Bohlen Amendment forbad direct US funding and it was a welcome opportunity for Israel to build bridges to a much needed friend in the Middle East.

===Cold War victory===
Reagan is credited for ending the Cold War in victory for the United States. Historian Tony Judt in ''Postwar'' credits Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, while the political scientist Jan Kubik presents a viewpoint that credits [[Pope John Paul II]][http://praguepost.com/articles/2007/02/28/letters-to-the-editor.php]. Other historians contend structural weaknesses within the Communist bloc meant Reagan's actions were inconsequential to the end of communism. This is the view adopted by Russians themselves, and many political historians, citing [''perestroika''] and [''glasnost''] as beginning an inevitable slow fading of central power, and a collapse by irreconcilable differences between the central Soviet [[Politburo]] and the constituent republics, especially the [[Ukraine]].<ref>David Remnick, "Lenin's Tomb</ref> In the end, the consensus seems to point to all of the above, that hastened the demise of the Soviet Union; Internal factors, religious pressure brought by the Pope, Gorbachev's "Perestrokia" and the united front of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, leading NATO and the West to imbed a missle defense system in Western Europe.

Columnist Cal Thomas wrote about it like this: ''He proved he was right about the big things. Faced with editorial denunciations at home and massive demonstrations in Europe against his plan to put missiles there to offset a Soviet threat, Reagan went ahead and did it anyway. The Soviets could not keep pace with the buildup or Reagan's proposed missile defense system (derided by critics as "Star Wars"). When those critics could not bring themselves to admit they were wrong, they unpersuasively claimed the Soviet Union fell under its own weight. More accurately, Reagan pushed it onto "the ash heap of history," with the able assistance of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II. What Reagan did more than anything else - and it will be his lasting legacy - is replace despair with hope. Most people, even his detractors, felt a glow from being in his presence. He was the kindest, most gracious president I have met, and I have met them all since JFK. In his presence you felt he was interested in you and not himself. He was a good man.'' [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2004/06/07/ronald_reagans_wonderful_life]

Brian Mulroney, the Canadian Prime Minister, said of Reagan: ''"Some in the West during the early 1980s believed communism and democracy were equally valid and viable. This was the school of "moral equivalence." In contrast Ronald Reagan saw Soviet communism as a menace to be confronted in the genuine belief that its squalid underpinning would fall swiftly to the gathering winds of freedom. Provided, as he said, that NATO and the industrialized democracies stood firm and united. They did. And we know now who was right."'' [http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/mulroney.asp]

==Miscellaneous Facts==

*The first, and so far only, divorced president.

*Reagan's 1994 announcement that he had Alzheimer's Disease brought large amounts of public attention to the disease.

*Reagan was a lifeguard for seven years growing up, and was said to have saved 77 people <ref>http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/reagan/stories/bio.part.one/index.html</ref>.

*The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum is located in Simi Valley, California <ref>http://www.reaganfoundation.org/visitorguide/hours_directions.asp</ref>.

*Was the first American President to have ever led a Labor Union, the AFL-CIO allied Screen Actors Guild.

*Reagan was the first president to break the "[[Curse of Tippecanoe]]"

*At 69, Reagan was the oldest man elected to the presidency.

*Reagan loved jelly beans <ref>http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/trivia.shtml</ref>. The blueberry flavour was made in his honor. [[Jelly Belly]] even created a [http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/bean_art_gallery.shtml Ronald Reagan portrait out of jelly beans].

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040614-646317,00.html Time Magazine Article on ''The All-American President'']
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html White House Official Page]
*[http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/ Reagan's Presidential Library]
*[http://imdb.com/name/nm0001654/ Actor Bio At IMDB]
*[http://www.ronaldreaganmemorial.com/ Official Memorial]

[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

France

2007-03-22T02:56:44Z

John Brown: more commandment 6 editing

France

2007-03-22T02:55:34Z

John Brown: /* Gaul */ ?

{{stub}}
[[Image:map_of_france.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|Map of France]]
France is a country in Western Europe.

At its height, the French Empire rivaled the British Empire, with colonies in every corner of the world. It continues to be a strong presence in academia and has been the birthplace of countless renowned scholars. It remains a powerhouse in the [[European Union]], often at odds with the [[United Kingdom]] on issues of EU policy. The capital city is Paris, often called the "City of Lights" due to its renown for a center of learning and philosophy.

It was a founding member of the European Coal and Steel treaty which led to the EEC and EU. It greatly assisted then-Great Britain's North American colonies both militarily and financially in their effort to gain independence, and established universal legal codes in much of the non-Anglo-Saxon west. It has made a number of philosophical contributions to the world, including Descartes and Sartre, existentialism and post modernism. It gifted the Statue of Liberty to the USA in celebration of its independence, echoing the French aid given to the colonies during the American Revolutionary War.

In March of 2003 A.D., France did not participate in the alliance that attacked [[Iraq]], with its ostensible aim to remove the [[Baathist]] regime, suspected of hiding weapons of mass destruction. This prompted backlash and a criticism from some Americans, causing them to question whether France's status as a U.S. ally had been undermined.
==Gaul==
Back during the time of the [[Roman Republic]], France was a territory called Gaul. It was home to many fierce Saxon tribes. [[Julius Caesar]] personally led the invasion.

==Frankland under Clovis==
France is named after the Franks, a Saxon tribe who established Soissons, the capital. A Frank called [[Clovis]] united the Franks and established Frankland

[[Category:Countries]]

France

2007-03-22T02:54:36Z

John Brown: removed content violating commandment 6 (opinions)

{{stub}}
[[Image:map_of_france.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|Map of France]]
France is a country in Western Europe.

At its height, the French Empire rivaled the British Empire, with colonies in every corner of the world. It continues to be a strong presence in academia and has been the birthplace of countless renowned scholars. It remains a powerhouse in the [[European Union]], often at odds with the [[United Kingdom]] on issues of EU policy. The capital city is Paris, often called the "City of Lights" due to its renown for a center of learning and philosophy.

It was a founding member of the European Coal and Steel treaty which led to the EEC and EU. It greatly assisted then-Great Britain's North American colonies both militarily and financially in their effort to gain independence, and established universal legal codes in much of the non-Anglo-Saxon west. It has made a number of philosophical contributions to the world, including Descartes and Sartre, existentialism and post modernism. It gifted the Statue of Liberty to the USA in celebration of its independence, echoing the French aid given to the colonies during the American Revolutionary War.

In March of 2003 A.D., France did not participate in the alliance that attacked [[Iraq]], with its ostensible aim to remove the [[Baathist]] regime, suspected of hiding weapons of mass destruction. This prompted backlash and a criticism from some Americans, causing them to question whether France's status as a U.S. ally had been undermined.
==Gaul==
Back during the time of the [[Roman Republic]], France was a territory called Gaul. It was home to many fierce Saxon tribes. [[Julius Caesar]] personally led the invasion. Eventually the Empire crumbled.
==Frankland under Clovis==
France is named after the Franks, a Saxon tribe who established Soissons, the capital. A Frank called [[Clovis]] united the Franks and established Frankland

[[Category:Countries]]

Battle of Waterloo

2007-03-16T02:49:23Z

John Brown:

The Battle of Waterloo took place in June 1815. It marked the end of [[The Hundred Days]], [[Napoleon]]'s attempt at regaining power after his initial defeat the previous year.

Once the United Kingdom's 67,000-strong army under the Duke of Wellington had forced a precarious stalemate against Napoleon's 73,000, von Blucher's Prussian forces arrived and were able to achieve decisive numerical superiority, forcing Napoleon out.

The battle marked the end of [[Napoleon]]'s reign and his exile to the island of Saint Helena in the South Atlantic.

[[Image:waterloo.jpg|thumb|]]

[[Category:History]]

Napoleon Bonaparte

2007-03-16T02:49:11Z

John Brown:

'''Napoleon Bonaparte''' was a famous [[France|French]] general and a military mastermind. He was the emperor of France from 1802-1814, rising to power from the chaos of the French Revolution.

He is most famous for his campaigns in Europe. His innovative victories achieved control over modern-day Spain, Italy, Germany, Poland, Croatia, and Benelux before finally failing in Russia, due to the bitter winter weather. In 1814 he was removed from power, but was able to return the next year and overthrow the restored monarcy. His subsequent effort to retake Brussels was defeated by an [[United Kingdom|Anglo]]-[[Prussia]]n army at the [[Battle of Waterloo]].

Napoleon's ambition and drive inspired the term "Napoleonic Complex", which is used to describe a power hungry person who wants to "conquer" everything in sight.

[[Category:Biographies]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-16T02:07:50Z

John Brown: /* Six times? Not even close. */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== "Debate" about reliability and disclosure ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Bell Trade act ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Mathematics ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:The following entry strikes me as wrong or misleading -

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

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

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

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

:::Using ''no'' number would make sense. To write a statement like yours shows that you understand neither [[bias]] nor [[epidemiology|how to measure the occurrence of a condition in a population]]. [[User:Nooj|Nooj]] 13:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

:::Can't resist:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While I appreciate the rigor in which this discussion page examines the underlying mathematics of the ratio, I think many have missed the underlying error in logic. Namely, you are comparing two entirely different things -- a group of people and a website. Therefore, you cannot somehow create a formula which attempts to quantify the latter. Some word substitutions will help illustrate my point:

''Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as '''"obese"''' compared with '''"thin,"''' and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as '''"thin"''' compared with '''"obese"'''. That suggests Wikipedia is '''six times thinner''' than the American public.''

''Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as '''"not likely to wear a hat"''' compared with '''"likely to wear a hat"''', and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as '''"likely to wear a hat"''' compared with '''"not partial to hats"'''. That suggests Wikipedia is six times more '''"likely to wear a hat"''' than the American public.''

I trust my point has been made. That such a glaring logistical error appears on the article describing Conservapedia's catalyst is something I find rather amusing. Then again, perhaps Conservapedia's best chance of survival is targeting those who are less adept at following logic and/or reading comprehension.
--[[User:Hopfrog|Hopfrog]] 19:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Regarding American versus English spelling policy ==

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

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

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

==LIBERAL BIAS==

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

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

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

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

== Re #32 ==

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

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

== On the definition of pseudoscience ==

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

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

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

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

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

:Testable theories, sir. Even falsifiable theories.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Abortion and breast cancer ==

The article claims that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Item 12==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Renaissance's Inspiration? ==

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

== My response ==

I'm just listing what I think of these.

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

Ill stop here. Feel free to respond ><

::I'll respond, I agree completely, Conservapedia is searching for Biases in Wikipedia to justify its existance. And doing so very poorly I might add. If I wasn't lazy, I'd respond with a paragraph for every single point on their and how ridiculously stupid it is. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 17:19, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

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

== Liberal Wikipedians as compared to conservative Wikipedians ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One must admit, it gives a bad impression to any visitor - and this is where many are going to be pointed. If nothing else, of the articles I've looked up, this one is the longest by far, clearly representing the most effort - to have it ''obviously inaccurate'' gives an even worse impression.

If twice as many Americans identify Conservative as opposed to Liberal, that's a 2:1 ratio. 1/3rd (33%) of Americans would therefore be Liberal. If thrice as many Wikipedians identify as Liberal, it's a 3:1 ratio. 3/4ths (75%) of Wikipedians would be liberal. This is fourth grade math.

: If you look at the poll numbers you will find that only 18% are liberal, 34% conservative, and 40% moderate. [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] forgot about the moderates in his calculation. Yet another self-inflicted black-eye. --[[User:Order|Order]] 16:03, 15 March 2007 (AEST)

It's actually therefore only 225% as Liberal by volume, just over '''twice''' as liberal. Nowhere ''near'' six times. All this aside from the unreliability of the Wikipedia "Poll". Frankly, to use these user tags is even less accurate than counting bumper stickers on your daily commute insofar as statistical accuracy is concerned. In fact, given the contention here that Wikipedia is, in fact, biased, doesn't it ''stand to reason'' that conservative editors would be less likely to make a point of their political leanings, to avoid the hypothetical consequences? This would skew the data even further. [[User:Sondergard|Sondergard]]

== How are we supposed to contribute? ==

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

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

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

== Examples of Bias in Conservapedia… ==

would be an ''excellent'' article. It could explicitly mention Examples of Bias in Wikipedia, rant about undetected vandalism and inaccuracies, and generally appear juvenile, irrational, and anti-intellectual. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 16:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== New Jersey bias in Wikipedia ==

247 Wikipedians self-identify as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Wikipedians_in_New_Jersey&until=User+New+Jersey Wikipedians in New Jersey]. 196 self-identify as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_in_Pennsylvania Wikipedians in Pennsylvania]. The ratio of New Jerseyan to Pennsylvanians on Wikipedia is 5:4. But according to a poll conducted by the U. S. Census Bureau, the number of people living in New Jersey is 8,414,350, while the number living in Pennsylvania is 12,281,054, a ratio of 2:3. (5/4) / (2/3) = 1.875, leading to the conclusion that

Wikipedia is 87.5% more New Jerseyan than America as a whole.

Critics charge that New Jersey bias is pervasive throughout Wikipedia.

*Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheesesteak Cheesesteak] alleges that the rolls used by Pat's Steaks in Philadelphia are made by a bakery in Glassboro, New Jersey.

*Due to the mob rule of New Jerseyans, a wildly disportionate amount of Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Island#Relationship_to_New_York_and_New_Jersey Liberty Island] is devoted to insanely exaggerated claims of New Jersey boosters, including false assertions that its proper street address is One Communipaw Avenue, Jersey City; that maps show it as being on the New Jersey side of the New York/New Jersey boundary; and that it is much closer to Jersey City than it is to New York. [[User:dpbsmith|dpbsmith's evil twin]] 09:00, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::But the Statue of Liberty '''is''' closer to Jersey City than it is to New York. [[User:dpbsmith|dpbsmith's sockpuppet]] 09:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''They've infiltrated here, too???!''' [[User:dpbsmith|dpbsmith's evil twin]] 09:02, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:: This New Jersy bias is interesting. Lets see what other categories we have... --[[User:Order|Order]] 16 March 2007, 2:00 (AEST)

== Wikipedia biased towards Erdős ==
Three mathematicians on Wikipedia have an Erdős number of 1 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_with_Erd%C5%91s_number_1 Wikipedians with Erdős number 1]). These are co-authors of [[Paul Erdős| Erdős]]. It has 7 with an Erdős number of 5 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_with_Erd%C5%91s_number_5 Wikipedians with Erdős number 5]). These are coauthors, of coauthors, of coauthors, of coauthors, of coauthors of Erdős. The average mathematician has an Erdős number of 5. This results in a ratio of 3/7 for coauthors of Erdős vs average mathematicians on Wikipedia.

According to the Erdős number project [http://www.oakland.edu/enp/trivia.html] there are however worldwide an estimated number of 504 mathematicians with an Erdős number of 1, and an estimated 87760 with an Erdős number of 5. This gives a ratio of about 1/175 for coauthors vs average mathematicians. This means there are about '''75 times''' as many coauthors of Erdős on Wikipedia, than there are among mathematicians.

Conservapedia in contrast has an estimated number of zero coauthors of Erdős among its ranks, while there are lot of very average mathematicians. --[[User:Order|Order]] 16 March 2007, 2:00 (AEST)

: Ha, ha, very funny. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Question about point 4.'''

I note that point four states: "Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration."

Dare I point out that the same could be said for the conservapedia article?

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia about twice as non religious as Americans ==

Polls show that about twice as many Wikipedias (35% in 2006) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion identify themselves as non religious compared with Americans. (19% ib 2001) http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

::I have said this so many times it's getting boring. Who cares how many Wikipedians are using Wikipedia as apposed to Americans? Wikipedia is a GLOBAL source. Edited by GLOBAL users, who all are supposed to be submitting factual information or for controversial subjects, both possible sides (or all possible sides if more than two). So no-matter what, the end-result on Wikipedia, after it is editted by its PAYED professionals and experts, is factual information and non-biased articles. Wikipedia, and any other site should not have to cater to the religious just because there are more of them in America. There are other countries too, and nobody is attempting to cater to them. There are other points of view, but nobody is catering to them. Facts are facts are facts, they remain the same whether they support religious claims or not. 100% of America could be Creationists, yet Wikipedia would still show every possible side of things, not ONLY the creationist part, if you understand what I mean. Every statistic that is used to try and show that Wikipedia has biased is 100% irrelevant in every way.--[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:26, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Personally, I like Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia is pretty good and reasonably free from bias... but, WIkipedia is '''not, not, not''' edited by "paid professionals" or by "experts." This is something that every Wikipedia user needs to understand. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::It is edited by anyone who feels like it, but they do hire professionals and experts to read the pages (obviously not all of them, but the more popular ones) to try and make it less biased, more factual, and include more sources. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 17:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

: Did you take actually alook at the page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion, other than scrolling to the end and squiting at the statistics? It starts right away by sayin that this is a self selected sample. And it is a small sample. And it contains the weirdest categories. And the page again says that the statitics are merely for entertainment, and not to be taken seriously. Its a joke. --[[User:Order|Order]] 16 March 2007 10:50 (AEST)

== Six times? Not even close. ==

I can't believe that an economics teacher could make these kinds of mistakes with basic statistical procedure. If Wikipedia were six times more liberal than 18%, it would be an impossible 108% liberal. Even assuming that 75% of Wikipedians consider themselves liberals (which, given that many people consider themselves neither liberal nor conservative, is ridiculous), 75/18 would give us a figure of roughly four times more liberal than the American public. (Not to say that that's the correct procedure.)

Regardless of the math, we must remember the stat teacher's old chestnut, "Garbage in, garbage out." Bad data gives bad results. The data from Wikipedia is based on voluntary response samples, which are notoriously prone to bias. (Remember Alf Landon and the ''Literary Digest'' poll?) The six times figure can only be attributed to serious mathematical error or intellectual dishonesty. [[User:John Brown|John Brown]] 21:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

In fact, with the data provided, the correct suggested figure would be '''2.25 times as liberal''', not 6 times. Let (AC,AL) be the percentage of conservatives and liberals respectively of all Americans and (WC,WL) the and = ratio for Wikipedia editors. Since these are probabilities, AC + AL = WC + WL = 1. Then the ratio of liberal Wikipedia editors to liberal Americans is WL/AL = ((WL/(WC + WL))/(AL/(AC + AL))) = (1/(WC/WL + 1))/(1/(AC/AL + 1)) = (AC/AL + 1)/(WC/WL + 1). Since the suggested ratios are AC/AL = 2 and WC/WL = 1/3, then WL/AL = (2 + 1)/(1/3 + 1) = 3/(4/3) = 9/4 = 2.25. [[User:Hdelbrook|Hdelbrook]] 21:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

: John Brown's mistake is that the term "liberal" applies to the overall concentration, such that halving the number of conservatives can also double the liberal bias. HdelBrook's error is that he assumes everyone is either liberal or conservative. My cited sources clearly show that not to be case.

: More interesting is how liberals deny their bias. Any guess as to whether the above two commentators are themselves liberal??? Notice how they don't disclose their own view. Conservapedia discloses its point-of-view, but Wikipedia denies its.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I forgot to disclose my view. I believe that committing math errors is a display of ignorance, not of conservatism. [[User:Hdelbrook|Hdelbrook]] 21:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with [[Aschlafly]] that if there is a third category (WC + WL + WU) for WU = neither conservative nor liberal, then there is clearly not enough data provided to form any conclusion. [[User:Hdelbrook|Hdelbrook]] 22:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:My apologies: I am a registered Republican, and consider myself a moderate. More to the point, you cannot possibly defend the six times figure. I will be glad to argue the finer points of statistics and politics another day, but right now, I simply ask you to admit that your numbers are incorrect. It happens. We're all human. [[User:John Brown|John Brown]] 22:06, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Oh, and while we're at it, here's some (still voluntary response-based!) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Moderate_Wikipedians data] for the third category. [[User:John Brown|John Brown]] 22:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-16T02:06:17Z

John Brown: /* Six times? Not even close. */

Dien Bien Phu

2007-03-16T01:55:14Z

John Brown: corrections, expansion

Dien Bien Phu (sometimes Dienbienphu) is a town in northwest Vietnam, famous as the site of the Battle of Dien Bien Phu.

By 1954, Vietnamese nationalists under the leadership of Hồ Chí Minh had been waging a guerrilla war against the French colonial government of what was then French Indochina since 1946. The Vietnamese insurrection was receiving significant military aid from China, which had officially become a communist state in 1949. The United States, at the time staunchly committed to stopping the spread of communism as per the containment doctrine, was in turn financing 80% of the French war effort.

Dien Bien Phu was intended to be a French bridgehead in the mountainous north of the country, which had long been a stronghold for the Viet Minh. However, Vietnamese general Võ Nguyên Giáp was able to quickly assemble a large force, including a minimum of sixty thousand men and a large amount of heavy weaponry. The French troops, outnumbered five to one and cut off from supplies, finally surrendered after a grueling two-month siege.

The battle proved decisive in ending support for an already unpopular war, leading to a treaty and the division of French Indochina into Cambodia, Laos, and North and South Vietnam. Ultimately, the outcome of the war would provoke the similar Vietnam War a decade later.

France

2007-03-16T01:39:08Z

John Brown: removed writing in violation of commandments 1 and 6, other corrections

France is a country in Western Europe.

At its height, the French Empire rivaled the British Empire, with colonies in every corner of the world. It continues to be a strong presence in academia and has been the birthplace of countless renowned scholars. It remains a powerhouse in the [[European Union]], often at odds with the [[United Kingdom]] on issues of EU policy. The capital city is Paris, often called the "City of Lights" due to its renown for a center of learning and philosophy.

[[Image:map_of_france.jpg]]

It was a founding member of the European Coal and Steel treaty which led to the EEC and EU. It greatly assisted then-Great Britain's North American colonies both militarily and financially in their effort to gain independence, and established universal legal codes in much of the non-Anglo-Saxon west. It has made a number of philosophical contributions to the world, including Descartes and Sartre, existentialism and postmodernism. It gifted the Statue of Liberty to the USA in celebration of its independence, echoing the French aid given to the colonies during the American Revolutionary War.

[[Category:Countries]]

Fascist

2007-03-16T01:34:07Z

John Brown: Redirecting to Fascism

#REDIRECT[[Fascism]]

Nanjing Massacre

2007-03-16T01:28:44Z

John Brown:

The Rape of Nanjing (aka Nanking), also known as The Nanjing massacre, was a war crime committed by the Japanese military. The Japanese army committed atrocities against the capital of Nationalist China, famously murder and rape. The death toll is often given at 300,000.{{fact}}

User:John Brown

2007-03-16T01:24:46Z

John Brown:

Contrary to popular belief, I am ''not'' mould'ring in the grave. My truth, however, is generally agreed to be marching on.

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-16T01:17:00Z

John Brown: Six times? Not even close.