Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Draft Conservapedia Application to Become SES Provider

2009-02-25T03:58:56Z

LuciusF: /* Legal problems */ new section

How can we use Conservapedia materials at all, when the application says masterials should be secular, neutral, and non-ideological?
And do you want suggestions just written in under each heading?

PS it looks like we should concentrate on Section D (do we have assessment programs?) and B )beef up citations in the lectures). [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:35, 11 February 2009 (EST)

: Good catch about the requirement that materials be "secular, neutral and non-ideological." I think we meet that requirement better than public school textbooks currently used. I don't think they can ban someone simply for being conservative, although some liberals may try! The teaching materials themselves (i.e., the lectures and tests and homework) meet this test better than often-used textbooks.

: Don't think the lectures need more "citations". It's the application that needs citations to research, as odd as that may sound.

: Thanks for your good insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:13, 11 February 2009 (EST)

:: P.S. Current [[SES]] providers include The Archdiocese of Newark, The Diocese of Camden, The Diocese of Metuchen, The Diocese of Paterson, and The Diocese of Trenton. I don't think Conservapedia is any less secular, or any more ideological, than they are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:25, 11 February 2009 (EST)

<edit conflict> 
My impression is that the courses will have to align with the NJ state standards. Standards for early world history are [http://education.state.nj.us/cccs/?_list_cpi;c=6;s=3;g=8 here], and they continue [http://education.state.nj.us/cccs/?_list_cpi;c=6;s=3;g=12 here]. Standards for US history are [http://education.state.nj.us/cccs/?_list_cpi;c=6;s=4;g=8 here] and [http://education.state.nj.us/cccs/?_list_cpi;c=6;s=4;g=12 here]. (Note that New Jersey history must be included.) Frankly, looking over these standards, there are some areas which might be problematic. Note also that the Social Studies Skills standards are to be integrated with the various subject courses. High school students are expected to do [http://education.state.nj.us/cccs/?_list_cpi;c=6;s=1;g=12 the following]:
# Analyze how historical events shape the modern world.
# Formulate questions and hypotheses from multiple perspectives, using multiple sources.
# Gather, analyze, and reconcile information from primary and secondary sources to support or reject hypotheses.
# Examine source data within the historical, social, political, geographic, or economic context in which it was created, testing credibility and evaluating bias.
# Evaluate current issues, events, or themes and trace their evolution through historical periods.
# Apply problem-solving skills to national, state, or local issues and propose reasoned solutions.
# Analyze social, political, and cultural change and evaluate the impact of each on local, state, national, and international issues and events.
# Evaluate historical and contemporary communications to identify factual accuracy, soundness of evidence, and absence of bias and discuss strategies used by the government, political candidates, and the media to communicate with the public.
Hope this helps, --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:30, 11 February 2009 (EST)

=="Evidence"==
When they say provide evidence of this or that, how do we do that? Letters of recommendation? I don't see there being citations online which report us comprehensively or favorably. Just another thought. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 22:32, 11 February 2009 (EST)

: I think we could cite to material covered in class. By "evidence" I think they mean detailed descriptions with meaningful data, such as how students did on standardized tests or where they went to college. I would include some of the data at [[User:Aschlafly]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 11 February 2009 (EST)

::See [http://www.state.nj.us/education/title1/program/ss/application.pdf page 13], which explains the type of evidence needed for each type of thing. For example, to show that you have adequate liability insurance of at least $1 million, they want "a copy of adequate liability insurance", which I assume means some kind of statement from the insurance provider. They also need a business registration certificate, evidence of the alignment of the curriculum with state standards, documentation of instructor qualifications, tax returns, credit rating, and so forth. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:01, 11 February 2009 (EST)
:::Oh, here is more about the insurance, on [http://www.state.nj.us/education/title1/program/ss/application.pdf page 33] - they want "a copy of the policy cover page depicting amounts per incident and per occurrence". The whole thing needs to be in a 2" binder on white 3-hole punched paper, single-spaced in 12 point font. Mr. Aschlafly, are you ''sure'' you want to work with under-achieving public school kids? Were you able to go to the SES info sessions in January?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:24, 11 February 2009 (EST)

::::It's charity. As I conservative, I support charity with my time and donations. (I would have gone to the information session had I known about it.)

::::Our application may be rejected. I might be better off if it is rejected! But I'm going to act in good faith for the deprived kids, and I hope and assume someone receiving the application will act in good faith also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)

== Status of project ==

Should this be accepted, would Conservapedia be liable to receive payment for this education, and if so, how does that alter the status of Conservapedia as a voluntary project - would new editors have to sign formal contracts and so on? Or would professional editors/educators be hired? [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 03:14, 12 February 2009 (EST)

==Assessment Programs==
Section D, which ask for assessment programs: what do we have to answer for this one? It seems to me that most of the sections are just a matter of gathering data we already have, but this one (and sec. E) ask for stuff I'm not sure about. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 12:48, 12 February 2009 (EST)

: Not a ton of points at stake in D and E, but it seems like we would do well by emphasizing:

:: weekly homeworks
:: midterm and final exams
:: friendly competition
:: reports by email to students and parents

: How's that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:00, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Good for you for offering your time to at-risk kids! Some thoughts that may be helpful:
*As for the weekly homeworks and exams, you'd have to beef up the assignments in US History to include the skills standards. For example, I don't remember any assignments where the students had to use multiple sources, and except for the cartoons, there wasn't much use of primary sources. (I didn't follow the course closely, so I may have overlooked these things.)
*The emphasis for this program is on language, math, and science, whereas your work so far has been in social studies. You'll want to think about whether you plan to incorporate the focus areas into your existing social studies classes, such as having your students do essay writing, or whether you plan to develop new material in the desired areas.
*The SAT has historically been considered an aptitude test rather than an achievement test (I'm not sure if this has been changed recently; I know there has been some talk about that), so it may not be a good tool to assess achievement. The SATII subject tests may be a better approach.
*I'm not sure that looking at your previous student's results will be all the state needs, in that they are not remedial students. It will provide evidence of your ability to teach, but it doesn't speak to improving the performance of students who are significantly behind.
*Section D is asking about evaluating a particular student's needs (in advance) and tailoring the work to address their weaknesses - you'll have to decide how you're going to do this, and you'll need to use research-supported strategies for both assessment and remediation.
*The reports by email are OK, but remember that they asked how you would communicate with families who do not have access to computers, and/or the ability to use them.
Remember that this is a ''significantly'' different student/family population than you have dealt with in the past, and the challenges are quite different. Do you have in mind running a course very similar to what you've been offering, only in an after-school setting? Or are you looking more at a one-on-one tutoring situation? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:08, 12 February 2009 (EST)
::This is an interesting project, and towards that end Hsmom made some great comments above. The one thought that stood out is that the courses offered on CP to date do not seem to have been designed to help remedial students as much as they seem to be intended to serve general-population students. It might make sense, then, to approach the application process by creating alternate versions of these courses for a remedial audience, running one or two groups of students through them, and collecting the performance metrics the SES application is looking for. That may be a more effective means of attaining SES approval than trying to apply using the course-content and records available today.
::On a more general note, is the scope of this application meant to apply to the specific online courses offered on CP, or to the entirety of Conservapedia project/site? Getting approval for the latter would be unlikely, I'd think, so I'm wondering if the online courses should be placed into a standalone namespace. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:21, 12 February 2009 (EST)

== Just a thought ==
Would it be possible to save paperwork and time by simply linking the authorities to the relevant pages on this site? I feel that this would give them a better idea of CP too(this would work in your favour, as some of the children whom you would teach under the SES may be from broken communities; it is possible that board overlooking your application will decide that the CP community may partly make up for this and help the children further, helping your application). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:40, 12 February 2009 (EST)

==Examples==
So is this along the lines of what you need? For the first subsection of Section C (that section looks like the most important):

In the Economics class offered by Conservapedia, the final exam was modeled after the CLEP exam. A large number of students achieved college-level passing marks. All students (mention how many?) who took the actual CLEP exam based on the course passed and earned college credit.
Ten students in the American History class scored over 600 on the SAT II US History exam, including one perfect score of 800. (one more set of examples?) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 18:05, 12 February 2009 (EST)

And for subsection 4: Student attendance has been nearly constant in past Conservapedia classes. Many students progressively improved in their performances on exams and homework as the classes went on. (Quotes or testimonials) (College acceptance info) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:06, 13 February 2009 (EST)

: Good suggestions. I'll take a look at some of the aggregate data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:26, 16 February 2009 (EST)

:: Don't forget to include the total number of students in your data. For example, looking at the [http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/ra/sat/SubjTestPercentileRanks.pdf 06/07 scores], a 600 on the SAT II US History exam is the 46th percentile. To get a sense of whether ten students scoring above 600 is a good thing, the reviewer will want to know the total number of students taking the exam. You might also want to mention how many students scored in the top quartile (above 700), and the bottom quartile (below 520). (I'd provide quartile or percentile information rather than, or in addition to, a raw score.) You'll also want to provide a sense of what kind of students you've been working with - how many were remedial students, average students, and high achievers before they began your class - to show that your results were, ideally, higher than expected. Remember they want to see how you have ''improved'' the student's academic achievement. This is an ambitious project and I'm impressed you're taking it on. Do you plan on doing one-on-one tutoring, or offering after-school remedial classes, or just letting the remedial kids take your regular classes? Either way, you've got a lot of work to do - the standards compliance part alone is going to be a challenge, let alone the rest of the application - good luck! --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 17 February 2009

:By the way, section B DOES seem to demand citations in the educational materials:
Key instructional practices and ''major program elements'' must be (1) high quality, (2) based on research (citations required), and (3) specifically designed to ''increase student academic achievement''. This could mean our materials would need some improvement. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:49, 17 February 2009 (EST)

:Sections A and C look the most important. I don't know anything that they ask for, however. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:50, 17 February 2009 (EST)

:: I'll work on those here now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:54, 17 February 2009 (EST)

:::If you didn't see my email, why don't you ask for testimonials by email from all our homeschoolers? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:49, 18 February 2009 (EST)\

:::I'm thinking another citation for sec. B. One is not enough.

Under the first answer in sec. C, you say "best university in New Jersey." Should probably name it.

Under answer two for sec. C, where we describe homework completion, also mention our midterm exam and perhaps the average homework scores themselves, which were very good. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:58, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Sec. D: I don't know anything about that. Should we develop our own diagnostic test or something, or can we use public school evaluations? As for Individual Student Plan to track individual students, do we have to develop that too? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:08, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: I'll get too many testimonials if I ask everyone! Another citation for Section B would be nice. I'll change "best university" to "a leading university." Thanks.

: Don't know about Section D. We're not going to test anyone in the next few days, when this has to be wrapped up. Suggest what you think is best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:10, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:: The only obvious option available is to use the tests from the last course and compare the mid-term and final exams to show progress and measurement of progress. Is the deadline really that soon? [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:25, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:::Good idea. That works. The deadline is relatively soon. I suppose we could create a new test somewhat different than the midterm and finals, but I don't know if that's necessary. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:41, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Answer 1 sec. E:
Student progress can be reported to parents and families through returned homework asignments and tests (either in person or over the internet), as well as through communication with individual parents and families as necessary, including email and phone communication and in-person meetings.

How's that? I posted it already, of course to be improved as needed. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:20, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Our info for section G should be substantially beefed up. Evacuation plans? Or is everything covered already because we're using school facilities? And I suppose you would certainly need fingerprinting is necessary. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:52, 18 February 2009 (EST)

We also have to look into how our lectures align with the standards, which are linked to at the top of the page. As part of that, my guess is that creationist content in the world history lec. 1 would not be considered acceptable. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:55, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: The lectures are factual so I don't see a problem there, unless there is something in the state standards that says that a teacher must deny facts! Please feel free to check the state standards.

: As to fingerprinting of employees, are you saying it is required? That's an expensive hassle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:42, 18 February 2009 (EST)

::I don't know for sure about fingerprinting. However, it seems to be a standard procedure for hiring positions like this. I know at our church sunday school teachers get fingerprinted. By the way, how many employees are we going to have, anyway? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:15, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Section A ==

2. They ask for a clear, demonstrable link between the academic program provided and the regular school day. Now there are fifteen points at stake on the answer provided here, so I think it's important to emphasize that a program that increases test scores and academic proficiency is complementary to any regular program (obviously not in those words). Particularly, familiarity with a subject naturally increases a student's ability to cope with any manner of course on the same subject. Is it safe to assume that by looking into what the state standards comprise it can be deduced how the equitable Conservapedia programs can be complementary? [[User:Joe B|Joe B]] 17:50, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: Yes, please proceed and edit the content page as you think best. Improving history and government test scores seems like the best fit for us.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:02, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:: I'll edit the content now based on what I read regarding the CCCS. The problem is the CCCS is really specific in some places, yet entirely vague in others.--[[User:Joe B|Joe B]] 18:53, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Heartfelt Thanks ==

A heartfelt thanks to all who had suggestions and insights concerning our SES Provider Application, which is complete and will be copied and sent Wednesday.

I would post our entire completed application publicly if there were not so much liberal vandalism on the internet. Maybe in five years there will be less liberal vandalism and more public posting will be possible. With more movement away from liberal ideology and less enabling of moronic and liberal vandalism, that may become possible.

Regardless, a heartfelt thanks again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:55, 24 February 2009 (EST)

== Legal problems ==

Looking around on the internet about your application, I came across another site (that I can't name) and specifically [http://www.acandidworld.net/2009/02/19/conservapedia-wants-state-funding-to-teach-your-kids/ this site,] which points out that you would have to teach a "secular, neutral, and nonideological" class. 20 U.S.C. § 6316(e)(5)(D). Based on your lectures, I don't think you can do that, and they'll reject your application.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 22:58, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-02-24T00:01:07Z

LuciusF: /* Affirmative Action Question */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

== Trip to Canada ==

Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States occured yesterday, to Canada.

Most telling, he declared "I love this country [Canada]" - has he ever even uttered such words about America?

: *sigh* [http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama-loves-america-no-really/ yes, yes he has] --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:40, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Demanding Major Change ==

I'm not well educated on Obama enough to write an article on him, and even if I did I would not know where to start, but come on! Someone step up to the plate and correct this article. We atleast need a rewrite that presents a case for him being a christian. It can include all the Rev. Wright stuff you want, but if Conservapedia wants to become "The trustworthy encyclopedia" it has to convey both sides.

As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.

: It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small "c" want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)
:: Mr. Schlafly, how that makes someone less christian then somebody else is beyond me. Petty remarks like that does not help conservapedia's image at all[[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:52, 18 February 2009 (EST)
:::Reminiscent of those who assert the title of catholic with a small c, which in fact means something wholly other than a Catholic (i.e., a Roman Catholic) with a large C. (All Christians are in fact catholic with a small c if I understand it's fairly broad meaning.) --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 23:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't think you can "demand" anything here. This is not a place where you can get what you want with the well-worn liberal tactic of stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum.
: If you have proof that Obama is a Christian, then let us see it. As far as I can tell, he is completely uninterested in Christian fellowship of any kind, which to me is very telling.
: It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:
: '''Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'''' (Matthew 7:22-23)
: When and if Barack Hussein Obama shows some evidence of having been washed clean in the blood of Christ, then we can talk. I'm not holding my breath. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::DeanS, you have proof, it's been shown to you multiple times. All the people seem to be interested here is raising a conspiracy theory. They are so set in their ways that arguing against them will yield no results. That's the whole thing about conspiracy theorists: it doesn't matter what proof you show or how complete it is, they will find some hole, real or imagined, and fill it in with whatever belief they hold to actually add strength to their theories. A quick review of the page reveals 3 telling conspiracy theories that are held in belief by the people who hold power on this website: 1) That Obama is a Muslim (he isn't) 2) That Obama wasn't born in Hawaii (He was), and 3) That the majority of Obama's campaign contributions came from anonymous donors (they didn't). That's why this page has been locked from editing, because it has become a war zone and is unlikely to change if it was unlocked. The only solution at this point is to try and gleam what facts you can from this article, and do your own independent research for more facts concerning Obama. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 09:14, 6 January 2009 (EST)
::: First of all, I'm David, not Dean. Secondly, Obama certainly doesn't ''act'' like any sort of Christian I care to know: he supports [[abortion]], he is a radical [[socialist]] (possibly a [[Communist]]), and he tells falsehoods. I don't know if he is a Muslim or not, but it seems quite likely, and the page has a lot of evidence showing that he is. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 11:44, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::First, my apologies on the name. Secondly, I'm not claiming that Obama is a good Christian, just that he most certainly is not Muslim. The evidence on this page, many of which are blatant falsehoods, are hardly conclusive proof of anything. I have no doubt that if I held any user here under the same scrutiny that Obama has, I could gather enough "evidence" to make a case that they are any religion I choose them to be. Thirdly, just because he may not be the type of christian you want to know doesn't make him not christian. There are many Christians that I [[Ku Klux Klan|don't care to know]]. Does that make them not Christian?--[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 12:13, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Islam is a religion trained to not be noticed, it encourages Muslims to remain hidden, any evidence that Obama isn't Muslim is denied by the one fact that Islam is a religion designed to remain hidden until the moment is right to strike. Recent "negotiations" with the Middle East prove this! --[[User:Deadpool]] (EST)

:::::: Even if he is a muslim ,(which i am sure he is not), how does that change anything. Are you suggesting that everyone who is muslim is an amoral terrorist with an agenda to kill all christians and destroy our family values? Are you suggesting that every single muslim follows the tenets unfailingly? Even the most devoted christians i have met follow all of the tenets. A person is a person, religion may play a part in their every day life, but the amount of people willing to die or kill for it is very few. I met the now-president myself once. He was a good man who loved his family and his country, more so than many people I have met, liberals AND conservatives. Even though I voted for McCain, he seemed like a good candidate for president. [[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:51, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Atheism ==

I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that "Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it "as a choice, not an epiphany."<ref>http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama</ref> It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.

In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?

Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama Arab-American ==

This article should, at some point, actually say that Obama is African-American, making him the first black president. If you really want to leave room for speculation about Warren G. Harding's ancestry, you could write "first openly black president" or something. But Obama's blackness is clearly a large part of his personal and political identity, and is probably going to be remembered as one of the most historically significant aspects of this election. An article on Barack Obama should contain a direct statement of this information, period.

The editors should also consider putting that information in the first paragraph. I understand that there is no established rule about the ordering of information in a Conservapedia article. However, an uneducated reader looking at this article would learn how long his campaign was before learning that he is the first black president, which doesn't make much sense to me. [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 16:20, 9 January 2009 (EST)

There is much distortion in the media about Obama being African-American. '''Obama is actually Arab-American''', and I agree that this page should reflect his race.

Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). --[[User:Cwcopela|Cwcopela]] 14:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:Does it really matter? It's not the technicalities that define what race Americans perceive Obama as - He looks more black, than white and arabic and that's how people will perceive him - They won't perceive him as another rich religious white guy or as an arab because of technicalities like that. --[[User:Atheuz|Atheuz]]

:*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:Wait, by your own admission Obama is half-Caucasian. Shouldn't we say "first president with significantly ethnic roots" or something (not as politically correct, of course)? [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)

== Small comments ==

Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a "family" section in this biography, it seems rather lacking on this point? For the rest it seems very informative, but rather cluttered. Would it be more logical to use a chronological build-up for this biography, such as placing the parts relating to his presidency more to the end of the biography, and his earlier endeavors to the front? Perhaps it would help if the contents table was moved up, at least to end up higher than the first muslim president bit? Let's hope I'm not asking any all-too-stupid questions! ;-) Regards, [[User:AVanbeek|AVanbeek]] 22:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't see any of your suggestions as an improvement. Obama's presidential ambition predates the other items you mention, and his personal beliefs are the most significant. Encylopedias, like newspapers, prioritize presentation based on significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: Shall I go ahead then, and erase "Family" Sections on George W. Bush and McCain's articles? Their great accomplishments surely predate those insignificant sections. [[User:AMurdoc|AMurdoc]] 13:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::Why not go ahead and make some positive contributions to this encyclopaedia by creating wanted articles, rather than attempting to be satirical? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 14:18, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I'd also note that Michelle is refered to by her maiden name in the info box. Checking the previous Presidents, their wives are referenced in First Last or First Maiden Last (Laura Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton). Any reason not to have Michelle Obama or Michelle Robinson Obama? Is there some dispute about her legal name? As her name has changed in the popular view and the law, this information would appear to be just wrong.

== Lincoln's Bible? ==

Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/</ref>. I think it's fairly safe to say that it will not be a koran. I also think it is safe to say that this is exactly the kind of trickery a manchurian muslim would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely muslim" section?

[[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)

: I agree, it is safe to say it will not be a Koran. I think i'ts also safe to say this is exactly the kind of "trickery" a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely Christian" section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)
: So Obama is damned if he does use a Bible, and damned if he doesn't. Seems a bit unreasonable. None of those other candidates were ever accused of being "Manchurian Muslims" just because they DID use a Bible to get sworn in. Then again, none of those other candidates had brown skin and a funny name, right? [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 12:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)
::None of the other candidates hid from questions about their past, it's Obama's own fault. Nobody ever said his name was funny except Obama. The brown skin comment is over the top racist ploy. You know very well that there are more respected, patriotic, qualified 'brown skin' people that are deserving of presidency, Obama isn't one of them. FYI- slanderous allegations are deserving of a permanent block here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:03, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion? Do those count?

:::I'm not accusing anyone of racism per se. I'm just pointing out that no other presidential candidate has ever had to prove to the country that he is not a Muslim. And let's be honest - that's because all the other presidential candidates have been white guys named George or Bill or Ron or Jimmy, and this one is a black guy named Barack. If people WANT to believe he's a Muslim (the authors of this article clearly do) it's easier to do so. If you can't see the connection between his race/name and the popularity of the belief that he is a Muslim, you're not looking hard enough.

:::Anyway, this is all a moot point. He's not a Muslim. As time goes by after Obama takes office, this page will look increasingly loony. I guess if Obama really turns out to be an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent poised to sabotage the United States in a plot straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, I will be the one looking loony. But I think I'll take that chance.[[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 17:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)

== References ==

Barack Hussein Obama (born in Honolulu,[1][2][3] August 4, 1961) served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2004-2008) and then, along with his running mate Senator Joseph Biden, won the presidential election[4] after twenty-three months of campaigning, raising an unprecedented $750 million and spending over $700 million of it,[5]. Post-election, Obama indicated that he would make an unprecedented speech within his first 100 days from a Muslim capital.[6] (7][8]

Obama has espoused the idea of "spreading the wealth,"[10]
in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay income taxes.[11] His health care plan requires employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will require many into a single payer system.[12] To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of others.[13] During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.14]
{{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009

The claim that Fareed Zakaria's book ''The Post-American World'' "is written from a Muslim point-of-view" is not supported by the reference, [35]. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)

: Ah yes, Fareed Zakaria is actually a Jewish name, written from a Juda perspective. Let's get serious ok? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 15:53, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:: The ''Village Voice'' article that was referenced describes Zakaria as a secular Muslim, but it doesn't mention the book at all. Do you not think it's possible for someone to write a book on a secular topic without injecting his religious point of view? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:20, 19 February 2009 (EST)

==Picture==
[[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)

: Interesting, Steven. But where did you get it from? The uploads should reflect the source and claim of ability to use it, unless before 1923 (in which everything is public domain).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)

::Oh yes. sorry, i got it from the msn.com do i need promission to take photos from there? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 14:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama/Muslim Support ==

In the May be a Muslim section, it says that he had an increased support of Muslim voters. How does this prove he is Muslim? While this should be kept, It should be moved to another section.

== I know we lost a week... ==
But we can't stay in some alternate universe where G.W.Bush is still president forever, especially if this article is going to link to the front page. We need to update this article to show that Obama is now president. I would do so, but its locked. As it has been. For quite some time. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 23:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)

== Low Res Pic ==

Why is the leading picture of Obama such a low resolution version? It looks crappy when stretched [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:20, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: That's the only picture we could get from the White House Web site. It certainly surprises me, because I would have thought that they would have a very high-resolution picture of..."Him." We might try the White House site again to see whether "He" has corrected this—er—oversight.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::Wikipedia found one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:29, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::(I could have sworn i edited this already, did we loose some more from the database?) The orginal high resolution image can be obtained from the change.gov site; http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg . Updating to this version should fix all the scaling artefacts --[[User:SCarter|SCarter]] 22:10, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Second swearing in ceremony? ==

I'm surprised that this isn't even mentioned in the article, but when Obama retook the Oath he DIDN'T USE A BIBLE. In fact, there was no video recording of the session and the picture taken only showed him from the chest up. This is profound evidence of being Unchristian at the very least. Since we can't see his left hand during the ceremony, it could be on anything ... dare I say, the Koran?? (source http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-takes-oath-office/) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:40, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: I consider swearing on the Bible to be un-Christian, because of Matthew 5:34-37, where swearing on anything is expressly forbidden by Jesus.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly "private." There were a number of reporters present. Even if it were private, the first ceremony is the one that is constitutionally binding. In any case, the allegation in the main article needs a citation. There are plenty out there, so get to it!

== Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) ==

This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:

''Rejects ID''
From the responses to a Q&A sent out by Nature: Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?

Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny. <ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/</ref>

''Pushes Evolution Over Christianity''
Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. "It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain," Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of "faith" would hurt him a national election. "Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels." <ref>http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp</ref>

Wow. [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Allegedly born in Honolulu ==

Why does it still say he was allegedly born in Honolulu? Later on in the page it says the it was proven his birth certificate is genuine. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Maybe it should be rewritten then since now it reads more like it states a fact that the birth certificate is indeed genuine. I'm guessing 99% of people never even check the reference.[[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Additionally, he's already been sworn in as president, so arguing over where he was born is a moot point. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 23:57, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Why no family section? ==

The Obama article has no family section. Neither does Clinton's or Carter's. However, Reagan's, Bush the elder's and W.Bush's articles have them. Why none on the democratic presidents'? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)

There's a simple answer: Obama, Clinton, and Carter are Democrats. They belong to an anti-family party, therefore their family is irrelevant to their political existence. Family is central to Republican policy, and so it is impossible to understand President Bush without mentioning his family.
[[User:LatinScholar]] 1:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

:He has a family though, doesn't he? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 13:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, but a Democrat family, which is something entirely different. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 2:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)

: How about adding a family section now mentioning his half brother in Kenya who was arrested for drug possession? Shouldn't there be something about him on the page? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 08:02, 1 February 2009 (EST)

== Some Changes ==

Why is this locked?
Obama has not been succeded by "incumbent" nor will he be.
Obamas term in office might not go to 2013, it might go further, it might not go that far, unless you are psychic this should be changed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:"Incumbent" means he is the current holder of the office. It's simply a term to indicate that he is the most recent. And while it is true that Obama could be elected to a second term and thus serve until 2017, he hasn't. His first term expires on 2013 regardless of what happens between now and then (barring impeachment or death, of course) so it's factual to list that date. Listing a second term when he's only a week and a half in his first one is speculative and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 14:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)
It's the exact same thing we did with [[George W. Bush]] - <s>there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.</s> - saying incumbent merely confirms that he is the current president - no one has succeeded him yet.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

==Is he or isn't he President?==
This article has a lot of wildly inaccurate and unsourced information in it. It also can't seem to decide whether BO is President or not - the picture on the right says he is, the text varies from claiming he's won the election, to him being Senator. I'd love to help clean this up, but can't seem to edit the page? Ready to help. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 15:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Yes, it's pretty weird isn't it. One would have thought that if it was important enough to protect then it would be important enough to update. But the failure to update tells the casual reader what to expect in respect of the general accuracy of the article - so it's probably not a bad thing.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:12, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::I notice the article has been updated to make it somewhat more reality-based. Good. However, I would expect - almost to the case of 'demand' - that the article on the current POTUS begin with the short and simple line "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Instead, the first sentence about this, arguably the world's most important person, is overlong, appallingly punctuated, begins immediately with unfounded gossip and wanders off into some other random irrelevant facts and utterly lacks focus. It says a lot about what the reader can expect from the entire article to follow. I wish I could help rewrite this article so as it would be more based on fact and reality - and particularly, better written - but as it's locked, that's impossible. So all we, the casual readers, can do is suggest things which need to be done to improve the article. I would begin by recommending the deletion of the entire monster and a total rewrite from scratch. There's nothing here of substance and nothing that will engender any respect for this supposed 'encyclopedia'. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 13:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::It's a shame we can't all be as learned and insightful as you, FNNoonan. However, I dare say all the hard-working editors here will jump up to obey your lofty commands. If you want a 'better' article, why not write one on your userpage/in a sandbox and submit it to the criticism of your peers? Or is this a case of 'those who can't, criticise'? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 14:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::: You must not have read my comment, in which I made a suggestion to improve the article's first sentence. What's yours? You might try contributing something to the debate rather than trying to shoot the messenger. The message is - the article's a disaster. Now, what are you doing about that? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 16:24, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::::I don't think it a disaster, but a multi-layered and well-argued piece. Looking at the revision history and talk pages, I see that some of the best minds on Consercvapedia think so, too. Therefore I have no need to do anything. You, on the other hand, see faults, but do nothing except indulge yourself in corrosive criticism. [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::::::I would also point out that the article even fails to mention which country he's President of. I would again recommend the inclusion of my suggested opening sentence - "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Thank you for helping to improve this terrible article. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

The article should begin with "Barack Hussein Obama is currently the 44th President of the United States of America." Someone please make this change. [[User:Gadzodilo|Gadzodilo]] 23:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for improving the article's first few words - we now know what his job is and of what country he's President. But I would ask that someone PLEASE look at the grammar in that first sentence - it's absolutely atrocious. Again, since I cannot edit the page, I cannot help but instead can only point out the problems here. First, if you want to make the point about his birthplace, the correct place would be later - and then with an explanation of why this might be a problem (the Constitution states that President's must be born in the USA - there's no mention of this anywhere in the article). If you want to make the point where it is, despite that being a nonsequitor, simply add a period after 'States' and remove the word 'although'. Also please note that the word 'although' is a conditional - and what follows the word 'although' has nothing to do with the opening part of the sentence. You might as well write "He is the President of the USA, although he apparently doesn't like cheese". The two items have no connection. Subject-Object. Next, the entire first sentence is utterly malformed, with a punctuation that woulod shame a four year old, including a period in the middle of the sentence. There is what is presumably a birthdate just floating in the middle of the sentence, undescribed. This is followed by a close-parentheses, where there was no open-parentheses. The sentence then runs on with some gibberish about electoral donations. It also appears as if Joe Biden was his running mate while he was a Senator from Illinois. The first paragraph continues in what can barely be described as comprehensible English with a stream of random, unintroduced facts. Finally, it ends with a nonsensical reference to the absolutely normal practice of politicians referring to the practices of their nation, and addressing their nation as a collective body. I would love to help tidy up this amateur article, but the childish English throughout, combined with the fact that the article is locked, leave me to believe it is not possible, and this encyclopedia is anything but 'trustworthy'. Would you trust your children with this article? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:16, 4 February 2009 (EST)

== Real Bible NOT Koran ==

Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:

“Look, I wrote here and in the article that Obama would swear on the Koran, and now I’ve just got to eat humble pie. See, I was wwoo….wrooggga…woolooo..wopppaaa. wrong. There, I managed to say it, and I feel better for it.”

Yeah, I been waiting for that one, but I’m not holding my breath. But since Obama DID in fact swear on Lincoln’s Bible that means (check this one in archives) you clowns owe me $100. Each. (American notes thank you.) [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 18:31, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: You're clueless, Myles. Obama's real oath was not on the Bible. I don't know if it was on the Koran. Do you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 28 January 2009 (EST)

OP Myles back. Right, let me see if I can sum up the state of play. Obama tries to take the Oath on the Lincoln Bible, which presumably has special powers not available to the usual Gideon’s Hotel edition. Anyways, Chief Justice Roberts manages to bellyflop his role in history. It’s like the guy who needs play only one note on a triangle during the symphony and manages to foul that up. Along with 90% of the world, I thought that Obama was completely blameless for this glitch, and actually quite gracious. His face and bearing said “Hey, you stuffed up, but I forgive you. Let’s try it again.” This was not what the foaming at the mouth crowd saw, and talk here was of how Obama was not properly inaugurated, and that somehow it was all his fault. Then, to satisfy the New Philistines, he takes the oath, again. This time, no one of the Born Again crowd who frequent these occasions thinks to bring a Bible, but it is Obama’s fault once more, because apparently he should have one in his back pocket at all times. He takes the oath again. Hey, that’s good enough for me, but apparently I’m clueless, according to Andy, who, in one of his regular 2 line missives from above believes there’s more to this than meets the eye.

Well, let me see. I suppose Obama could have paid Roberts off in the first instance to screw up the wording, so he would not have to put his hand on the Bible. (Because then he would wince with pain as the Word of God burnt his skin, or something.) This set up the SECOND inauguration at which everyone was paid to make sure no Bible was there, so Obama gets to be Prez while cunningly evading the Bible. You see, it all makes perfect sense, don’t it? Yeah, and I’M the one who’s clueless! Truly, what a man believes, he sees. Look, I’ve got an idea. Instead of hurling everything you got including the kitchen sink at Obama on a second by second basis, every time he so much as scratches his nose, let’s take the fair-minded, objective, dare I say American approach. It’s the customary 100 day honeymoon. Why don’t we all give him those 100 days, and THEN have a look at the plus and minus sheet? Sound like a sensible notion? Of course, that would mean putting your knee in some other crotch for that time, which is asking a hell of a lot I know. But then you would have some REAL grievances at the end instead of the kind of sort of all this relentless muck-raking on the basis of trivia. And just think of the size of the bonfire you could build then.

You know, where I come from conservatives are known as people with a sense of honour, with ethical standards, polite and cultivated, aware of etiquette, educated, and with a keen sense for fair play. You might be using a different dictionary. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

*Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing. Your non-American spelling of "honor" is also a giveaway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)

::Somebody decides to spell 'honour' the way that it is spelt correctly in '''English''' (the mother-tongue of '''England''') and you decide to try and be insulting about it. Classy.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this "swearing in on the Koran" business because it is purely insulting speculation.
::And I have to ask... why is using non-American spelling a liberal trait? Our Prime Minister up here in Canada is as conservative as they come... [[User:SJames|SJames]] 13:37, 30 January 2009 (EST)
::: It doesn't show you're non-conservative. It shows you are not American, or an un-American person. [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)

== Incumbent ==

In the box to the right of the page it says that Obama will be succeeded by [[incumbent]]? Doesn't this imply that he will have two terms? I'm a bit confused. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:I can understand the confusion, but all it implies is that he is the current President. It would probably be better if the whole line was removed until we actually know who he would be succeeded by. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 13:09, 29 January 2009 (EST)

::Well, I tried to fix it up, I really did. But it was hard what with the lock down. I tried dabbing liquid paper on my monitor but that didn’t work very well either. Normally, “Not known” or “To be announced” or “To be determined” are the accepted forms, but hey, what about "Sarah Palin"? Let’s be positive and proactive about this. That lady is gonna wipe the floor with this Obama ring in. I’m marching in her parade right now. “Palin ain’t for failin’ “
::Whoo hooo!!” [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:::I fixed all this....what's the problem now, Myles? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:46, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Stylistic matter ==
Technically, it is proper to simply list the day of Obama's inauguration followed by a dash, as, God forbid, he might be reelected in 2012. So we can't say until the election when his last day in office will be... --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 09:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*I believe you are not correct. ''Technically'' he was elected to a four year term. The text for the info box says term of office, no? That would be four years from his inauguration, 20 January, 2009. One doesn't typically take into account the possibility of death, resignation or re-election. Perhaps you are saying what is "typical" for Wikipedia? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:52, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::This[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=598707] seems like a reasonable template "typical" for Conservapedia. The Bush entry was changed from "present" to January 20, 2009 less than three weeks before the date that he was definitively leaving office.[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 14:51, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::What he was elected to and his actual term in office can be different things. William Henry Harrison was elected for a four year term but his actual term was one month. As I recall Bushes article said 'present' until several days after his term was over. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:11, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Actually, that's almost universal. We don't know when his term will end. He could be re-elected in four years, or shot tomorrow. We can't say when his term will ''actually'' end. Wikipedia, by the way, doesn't even have a dash- just "assumed office," "incumbent" and "January 20, 2009." If accuracy is our goal, it's best to simply put a dash, or a dash followed by "present" or "incumbent." --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 15:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Article Naming ==

As the article for [[Barack Hussein Obama]] includes his full name, [[John McCain]] should redirect to [[John Sidney McCain III]], [[Joe Biden]] to [[Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*No. But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about. What inconsistency? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 7:08, 30 January 2009
::They are referring to the fact that only Barack Obama's middle name is included in the article name, while the others are not. They are wondering why that is.
::The obvious answer: Hussein is a Muslim name. It helps when trying to portray the slant that President Obama is lying about being a Christian. "Sidney" and "Robinette" are regular Western middle names and serve no significant purpose. A similar line of reasoning can also explain why the Table of Contents is oddly out of view in President Obama's article. [[User:AdamSchaley|AdamSchaley]] 19:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Leave it to a liberal to reduce this discussion to nonsense, innuendo, and pointless name-calling. What's the use of even trying to have this discussion when you won't discuss things rationally? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 19:42, 01/09

::I should remind you that this is a Conservative Christian encyclopedia with an ADMITTED BIAS. The goal is obvious: To show readers that Obama is a Muslim, however this is in line with the principals of the encyclopedia, so there isn't anything really to complain about. Conservatives want everyone to understand Obama is a Muslim. There is no NPOV, get over it (my $.02) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 21:56, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Change of wording? ==

I think "Obama will likely be the first Muslim President" would be better written as "Obama is likely the first Muslim President" ... just a thought [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Update picture? ==

I'd just like to rerequest that the Obama main picture get updated with a higher resolution version. It looks very bad stretched. Here is a URL to an official version (http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)
[[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)
:Done. Thanks for the link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)

::Thanks. Looks a lot better [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 12:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama's religious outlook ==
'''Obama's "outlook is Muslim"? That is simply not true'''

The Obama article presently reads: "Obama's background, education, and '''outlook''' are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity."

I don't think the above sentence is true and I will give two notable cases where it can be shown that Obama's '''outlook''' is not Muslim.

First, Obama heavily promotes the abortion ("pro-choice") ideology.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72511] How many Muslim countries promote the abortion ideology? Not many at all. I cite the following: "The rules are also influenced by the role of religion; in most Muslim countries abortion is prohibited and it is also restricted in Catholic Latin America."[http://www.newsbatch.com/abort.htm]

One of the first things the Obama administration did was to put on the White House website that they were going to promote the homosexual agenda. I cite the following: "President Obama had not even finished his inaugural address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to "overturn" the Supreme Court's precedents on discrimination claims and to demand new laws requiring employers to provide special protections for homosexuals and others with "gender" issues.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86633] I do know for a fact that homosexuality is presently generally looked upon very unfavorably in Muslim countries. I cite the following: "Same-sex intercourse carries the death penalty in five officially Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen. [3] It formerly carried the death penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and in Iraq under a 2001 decree by Saddam Hussein. The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is unclear. In many Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria or the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time, fines or corporal punishment. In some Muslim-majority nations, such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, or Mali, same-sex intercourse is not forbidden by law. However, in Egypt gays have been the victims of laws against "morality"."[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm]

I think it is untrue to say that Obama's outlook is Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)

:His background is [[Islam]]ic, but I am unaware of his theological beliefs. Has he ever espoused a particular Christian or Muslim idea? If so, what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:43, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Historical Ignorance ==

The first statement in the Insights section claims that "Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation."

There are a few things wrong with what Obama said about Pearl Habor, but none of them constitute ignorance. The only things wrong with what he said are that he a) did no pluralize the phrase to "from the bombs that fell on Pearl Habor"; b) he wasn't accurate in the kind of weaponry used because they were actually torpedoes (which is hardly ignorance as it is a largely insignificant fact); or c) the fact that he failed to properly pluralize 'bomb' means that his phrase seems to reference a far more infamous bomb, the one on Hiroshima. This last point of course does not constitute ignorance. Even if he did mistaken Hiroshima for Pearl Habor I would see that as a gaff rather than evidence of impeded ignorance towards American history. But, given that, in the context of 'constantly evolving danger' and the other historical references contained within the whole statement, it is quite clear Obama did not mean Hiroshima, I would be inclined to either edit or remove this phrase entirely.

Politicians make gaffs all the time. If you want to find actual evidence of Obama's 'ignorance' towards American history look somewhere else.

==Rearranged content==
First, very little was removed or changed, but there was some there which was either repetative or in the wrong context. This I hope was corrected.

Second, the place of birth was changed to Hawaii. There has to be ''proof'' that he was ''not'' born in Hawaii, and we cannot allow someone else's opinion in the article which states that he was not. But, the birth controversy is still a relevent topic as far as his possible history and the campaign is concerned, and this feature has been preserved.

And third, there are minor corrections to be made to the article, which include writing and grammer, accuracy, and minor info that could be added as to his presidency. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:50, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I think that Andrew Schafly was right to move the sections back into their previous order. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]]

:I think that speculation should come after factual information in an article. Why are we talking about what Obama "may be" before what he actually is? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 18:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::There you go again! "Actually is" ? I think first, JArneal, in the great tradition of liberals, you need to define what "is" -- ''is''! Please find a new hobby, JArneal, as your present one of constantly arguing and disputing doesn't wear well. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::Why must liberals censor that Obama is likely a Muslim... get over it guys --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Why can't conservatives accept the fact that he isn't...get over it guys --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Sheesh, TK. I'm sorry if I offended you. Do you really want me to define "is"? I was just asking why we don't put factual information in front, and speculation in back. Is there a reason? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama and Sexism ==

In the "Presidential Campaign" section of this article it states "Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being '''a woman''' and outsider." The evidence of Obama mocking Palin for being a woman is explained later: "Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her." Are you talking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eu9Z2hXky0&eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php ? How is this video a "sexist" smear? Not only that, but there is little evidence to support the claim that Obama hired Winner to make this video.

The article suggests that Obama was caught for hiring someone to make a sexist smear video. I am asking for definitive proof that Obama was behind the video, AND definitive proof that the video is a "sexist" smear. If there is no proof, I am at least requesting that the untrue statements about Obama mocking Palin for being a woman are removed. If I do not get a response from one of the editors of this article I will email the owners of Conservapedia directly. [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 19:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)
:First, if you have correct information as to who was actually behind the video in question then it needs to be brought to our attention in a fair manner. Second, the way you brought this about, by making your statement here in the form of a DEMAND, is not going to be tolerated. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)

First of all, if my tone sounded as though i was demanding something from you or seemed disrespectful in some way I apologize, that was not my intent. I am merely requesting that the article changes it's tone. It states: "Obama was caught..." we do not know for certain that Obama was behind the video at all. Are we as Americans not considered innocent until proven guilty?

And what about the charges of sexism? The article calls the video a "sexist" smear. Will someone please tell me what was sexist about it? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:Looking at the references, it is a documented fact that this video was made professionally; it is not an amateur attempt at all. It's also documented that Winner & Associates (including Ethan Winner) are die-hard Obama supporters who have given much to the campaign. While it is not proven from these pages that Obama supported such a video, it is also not proven that he didn't help out the creation of it in some way. I added Ethan Winner's ''alleged'' claim that he made the video alone. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:17, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Well that is a start, thank you. I honestly didn't think I'd get anyone to change anything in the article. But there are still those sexism charges. Can you provide some explanation to those? The line reads: "Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her." Do you think you might be able to take out that word sexist? And maybe reword it in a way that doesn't immediately imply that Obama is behind the video (Until damning evidence is brought forth)? And there is also the claim at the beginning stating: "Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider." The only evidence supposedly supporting the claim that Obama mocked Palin for being "a woman and outsider" is this smear video. Am I just missing something here? How is Obama mocking her for being a woman in this video? How is the video itself at all sexist? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)

*FairMan, you are in danger of being blocked. There was a well-documented news story, during the campaign, showing women were getting paid less on his campaign staff and in his Senate offices, which was hugely embarassing to Obama. [http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obamacommentary/222679,CST-NWS-sweet22.stng] Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called "lack of experience" even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. Please stop your liberal excuse making and time-wasting. Learn the truth, and it will set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Why exactly am I in danger of being blocked? I am aware of that news story, I will save that for another place and time (I don't want to stir up more trouble then I am already in). My main complaint is that the article claimed that Obama mocked Palin for being a woman. The only evidence that supports this claim in the article is the link to the smear video mentioned previously (If there is more evidence then please add it). It is claimed that the video is a sexist smear. Why is my questioning of the label "sexist" being ignored every time someone replies? Please tell me if I am missing something obvious here. It is not my intent to waste anyone's time. I am just looking for answers.

"Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called "lack of experience" even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. "

That is a great example! That is something you could add to the article to back up the claim of Obama mocking Palin for being an outsider. Currently there is nothing in the "Tone" section of the article backing that up.{{unsigned|FairMan}}

*Then that is what you should have said, is exactly my point! Everyone wants to be a critic, while offering nothing, as the box at the top of this page says, that will improve it. If one doesn't do that, how am I, or any editor to distinguish you from the dozens of trolls and disruptor's who sign up everyday? You know how long it took me to find that citation? Less then two minutes. I ask for your understanding, but do not apologize for my comments, simply because I have just pointed out why I would think what I did. "Assume good faith" is something attempted by lots of other places, but it rarely is achieved, and certainly not so often here, where even the most casual reader/editor knows we are constantly set-up by liberal trolls and parodists. Your last comments let all of us see your motivations are perhaps better than assumed, and I do thank you for that. This is how you will build your reputation here, and anywhere else in life. I look forward to other suggestions, offered in the same spirit, and in fact, if you want, put them on my talk to make sure I see them, if you want. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 02:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)

== Category ==

Could a sysop edit this page to add it to [[:Category:Barack Obama]]? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 14:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)

*No, sly mis-naming of the object isn't it? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)

==Minor Edits==
There is a missing parenthesis in his date of birth, and in the "Birth certificate controversy" section, the word "intelligible" should be "ineligible". Those are the only 2 I caught in a quick scan of the page. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)
:Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Hi, I'm a new user. I was curious as to whether this talk page is actualy considered in the editing of this article. What i mean by that is, as this article is locked-down, does the editing administrator read this page and make changes to the article, or will the article always be left as it is? ( I don't mean to offend, as Imentioned, I am a new user, and I am honestly just curious)

==== Flag Pin "insights" ====

This section require major change. First, it says Obama didn't provide "adequate" explanation. "Adequate" is subjective. He either provided and explanation or he didn't. The citation indicates he explained. Second, the word "presumably." Encyclopedias aren't supposed to presume things. Third, the word "likely." Again, just an opinion. "Recently" is a vague term; be specific. The assumption about military donors is unsupported speculation. If anyone cares about making this into objective encyclopedic content, it should read as follows:

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it, explaining he felt that "Patriotism to me, isn't what you wear on your lapel. "It's what you carry in your heart. I don't need a pin to certify my love for this country."[59] As of DATE, he has begun wearing a pin again.

==== Michelle ====

Could we link to her? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)

==== Hmmm... ====
Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is no requirement that one must be Christian to be President. Ah, I just checked the constitution and it mentions nothing about religion except once, in the first amendment. He's not a Muslim, which has been confirmed, and even if he were, what does it matter? Maybe this should be reconsidered?[[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: You're wrong on multiple points. How about learning first, and then preaching second?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:: Actually, I'm correct on multiple points as per the United States Constitution. And Hussein is not a 'Muslim' name. Muslim is the word used to denote a person whose religion is Islam. Hussein is an ''Arab'' derived name Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::: The Constitution also mentions religion in Article VI "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Whatever faith Obama is, he is not a Christian<ref>http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Xld3RpINYVUJ:www.conversantlife.com/politics/is-barack-obama-really-a-christian+obama+quote+christian&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us</ref>. For he fails to acknowledge the Nicene creed. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)

==== Affirmative Action Question ====

If all of Obama's achievements are linked to affirmative action, how did he get around Harvard Law's anonymous grading procedures? Did he find a way to communicate his race to his professors on his exams? Is there evidence of this? I know that Andy Schlafly was at HLS at the same time as Obama. Maybe he could shed some light on how Obama accomplished that. Was this not official policy when you went to Harvard: http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/handbook/rules-relating-to-law-school-studies/examinations.html {{unsigned|RickD}}
:Law schools have almost always graded anonymously. Journals like the Harvard Law Review do, admittedly, have affirmative action policies in selecting their editors, but they do ''not'' use affirmative action in selecting board members. So at most Obama got onto HLR by affirmative action, but his grades and election as President were his own accomplishments. Great point RickD.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 19:01, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Glenn Beck

2009-02-23T23:58:48Z

LuciusF:

[[Image:Beck Glenn Fox.jpg|right|thumb|200px]]
'''Glenn Beck''' is a [[conservative]] talk-radio host and television anchor. His radio show, The Glenn Beck Program, is syndicated by over 230 radio stations across the [[United States]]. His television show, Glenn Beck, appeared daily on [[CNN]] Headline News. Currently, Glenn is employed with [[Fox News]]. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/tv_fox_beck_cnn/2008/10/16/141295.html Glenn Beck Leaving CNN for Fox News] AP, October 16, 2008</ref>
Glenn Beck is the author of three books, ''The Real America: Messages from the Heart and Heartland'', and two #1 New York Times Bestsellers, ''An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World's Biggest Problems,'' and ''The Christmas Sweater.'' Glenn Beck is a [[Mormon]], having converted after recovering from [[alcoholism]].<ref>Glenn Beck. (2008). An Unlikely Mormon: The Conversion Story of Glenn Beck [DVD]. Deserest Book.</ref>

==Controversy==
Glenn Beck allegedly threatened [[Michael Moore|Michael Moore's]] life, in the early days of his radio broadcast.<ref>http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180008</ref>

==See Also==
:[http://www.glennbeck.com/home/index.shtml Glenn Beck's personal site]
:[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov09/0,4670,APonTVPostElection,00.html Glenn Beck jumps from CNN to [[Fox News]]]

==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT: Beck, Glenn}}
[[Category: Broadcasters]]
[[Category: Television]]
[[Category:Conservative Commentators]]

Conversion therapy

2009-02-23T23:27:36Z

LuciusF: /* Opposition and skepticism to reparative therapy */

'''Reparative Therapy''' is [[therapy]] aimed at helping a [[homosexual]] get rid of his unwanted same-sex longings.

Joseph Nicolosi wrote:

:The fact that so many men continue to feel "dis-eased" by their homosexuality can be explained in one of two ways. Either society and the [[Judeo-Christian]] ethic have coerced these individuals into thinking they have a problem; or, the homosexual condition itself is inherently problematic. <ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/repair.html</ref>

For those seeking to leave the homosexual lifestyle, [[Exodus International]] is one example of a [[Christian]] group that helps practicing homosexuals by giving them freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ.<ref>http://exodus.to/content/view/736/0/</ref>

==Opposition and skepticism to reparative therapy==
In general, the therapeutic community in the United States has refused to consider the possiblity that RT is effective:
{{cquote|"NARTH offered to join with the American Psychological Association (APA) in conducting a detailed study of the effectiveness of reparative therapy. The APA refused to cooperate."<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm#study Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance]</ref>}}
However, no objective authority has ever been able to demonstrate the effectiveness of reparative therapy. The only study to demonstrate its effectiveness appears to have been premised on subjective information only, and was never published in a peer reviewed journal,<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm#study]</ref> The other dominant study in the field proved only that reparative therapy seemed to cause depression and suicide in "patients" subjected to it.<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exst.htm#sch</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{homosexualityb}}
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Talk:Conversion therapy

2009-02-23T04:45:16Z

LuciusF: /* Excellent summary of opponent's approach */

{{unprotected|29 December 2007|Ed Poor}}
I made these changes after an argument with Ed Poor on IRC. In an effort to be fair, I have divided the page into sections for & against.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:For and against is a good division. This is a hot topic, i.e., hotly debated. The fur may fly. Let's try to keep it cool. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==Example 1==

This is flawed citation, '''American Psychiatric Association''', [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Reparative_therapy&diff=128816&oldid=122468] it is the American Psychological Association. I'll give AmesG one warning, as I believe he understands the issues. This is integral to this discussion and debate regarding representation of the science and research on homosexuality. I will accept it as a one time error in good faith, henceforth "errors", and misrepresentations of citations like this, '''will be regarded as deliberate deception, and trolling.''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:If you block him, please make it a short one. I myself have trouble keeping the two psych groups apart in my mind.

:Also, we need to distinguish between "[[brainwashing]]" (coercive changes attempted on prisoners) and "counseling" (voluntary changes attempted on clients). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:16, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::That's a very easy mistake to make and there's no particular advantage to citing one APA over the other. I doubt it was an attempt to be misleading. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Murray, I disagree.

:Ed and AmesG, I haven't had much interaction with AmesG in editing, but he should understand, I can handle all kinds of personal abuse, etc., one thing I am [[intolerance|intollerent]] of, is misrepresentation of sources. This instance was as plain as the nose on your face, however when someone cites a source to make it say something ''other than what it says'', or does not say at all, I am as equally intollerent. IOW, read your cites, understand completely what they say, ''before'' using them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, that's the part I agree with 100%. It's one of the main reasons I'm so inactive at Wikipedia.

::The desire to make the source '''seem''' to say what you want it to say ... --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::A very recent discussion appropriately enough on the [[Deceit]] talk page is the best example yet. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Deceit&diff=126167&oldid=126157] An editor claimed Paul Wolfowitz said such and such on a date specific. Click on the link, and it was his interviewer quoting Wolfowitz from a previous interview. After I pointed out to the editor this was an extremely bad "example" of deception, to my surprise he immediately returned with the original interview. Reading the first two exchanges of that original interview, [http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0305/S00308.htm] it quickly became obvious ''why'' this editor deliberately engaged in this calculated deception. I wish to make the emphatic point, I ''personally'' get offended when someone insults me with this kind of garbage, as if I am too stupid to discern the facts. It really is very much a personal attack. ([http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Deceit#Paul_Wolfowitz Full discussion]). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, that's a whole can of worms + another full can of scorpions!

::I remember when the liberal press decided how to gang up on Bush about the invasion rationale, because it came right after one of the few times I actually listened to a presidential address on live radio.

::There's a whole lot of misinformation "out there", which simply underscores the need for us to make a trustworthy encyclopedia.

::I only hope we can do it with ulcers, heart attacks or strokes! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You mean Bush and Hillary; as Hillary said, "this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming....there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks." [http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs] Let's be fair about this. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I fail to see what the problem is here, yes the citation had an most likely unintentional spelling error on it, if that is the problem, why not just correct it, no need to remove all of the content. Allso American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association seam to share the same opininnion that reparative therapy isn't usually helpfull, on the contrary it's usually harmfull [http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html] So i see even less reason to over react to this error. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 13:58, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Correction was done, and as stated above, the editor understands the issues, which is not an unqualified statement and I can ''personally'' attest to. What flowed from that "errant" citation was a whole series of faulty, and deceptive references and editing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:42, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::After going thro the page history im quite baffled, what series of faulty and deceptive refrences and editing do you mean? This article only has few edits and only one even touching the whole subject is you when deleting AmesG:s edits. This all makes one wonder what your true motivations where. Either way, i take you don't then oppose me adding that information again with small modifications and the right citation? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Let me make this clear, the text that was reverted has been rejected. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::On what grounds? After correcting the citations and mayby few small modifications it should be well sourced and supported claim. To remove it there would need to be some reason. Might you specify one? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 16:58, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==Example 2==

*''the theory maintains, homosexuality can be "cured" or remedied.''<ref>[http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=282 Sexual Activity and the Gay Agenda]</ref>
Neither citation, the original ''Sexual Activity and the Gay Agenda'', or what it is quoting from, [http://www.narth.com/docs/cases.html Healing Homosexuality: Case Stories of Reparative Therapy], use the word "cured", yet it is represented here in quotations. This misrepresention will not be tolerated. So AmesG has been put on notice. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:42, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:In other words, don't use scare quotes in an article, especially in a sentence or paragraph with footnotes. It seemed apropos to check the APA Publication Manual, and here's what they say:
:*"Use double quotation marks to introduce a word or phrase used as an ironic comment, as slang, or as an invented coined expression. Use quotation marks the first time the word or phrase is used; thereafter, do not use the quotation marks." (2001, 82)
:*"Do not use double quotation marks to hedge. [For example,] ''the teacher "rewarded" the class with tokens.''" (2001, 83)
:I can certainly see the slangy nature of the word "cure" in this context, as most authorities would state that "curing" homosexuality is a ''prima facie'' impossibility; it is not an illness. On the other hand, that's almost the same as hedging an expression. APA isn't very helpful here. I would say the sentence should be reworded to make it clear that the word "cure" is not being quoted from the cited material, or do away with it.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 14:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*''most authorities ''
**Who? the American Psychiatric Association or the American Psychological Association? It would have helped to begin this discussion with a little good faith (on the original editors part). However, its all moot at this point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==Example 3==
*''the American Psychological Association flatly rejects the theory as insulting, degrading, and potentially damaging..<ref>http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html</ref>
Nowhere does the word "insulting" appear in the mirepresented link. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== Keeping Balance: Let ME Make this Clear ==

Reparative theory is controversial. Most of the legitimate medical world rejects it. Both perspectives need to be offered, or the article will be wrong.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:42, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Ames. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 16:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:I have no objections to telling both sides of the RT story. Now, let's see, where's that nice book [[Dr. Laura]] endorsed? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:53, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey Rob, great job discussing it on the talk page. You need to raise the objections to the "theory" from the APA; otherwise it's wrong. Say it's the APA; not "some groups." And remember, it's just a theory ;-) -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:04, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Well you can begin straightening out any bogus text and citations you wish to add here on talk before the page gets unlocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Tell me how your version's better. Mine is more balanced, better organized, and cites more than just sources that support one perspective. So, yours is...? -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:12, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Read the above three Examples and respond specifically, otherwise it's just trolling. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
I fixed your comments as requested. How is yours better than my fixed version?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:That's what I thought. My version was better. Change it back.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Not Any Scientific Reasoning" ==
You realize there's no scientific basis for calling homosexuality a mental disorder, right? And, assuming ''arguendo'' no evidence for NOT calling it a mental disorder, don't you think it's best to err on the side of declassifying, so as not to offend? And do you not further realize, that "disorder" is a relative term, judged by society's values, et al, not an objective term of art?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Gender identity disorder]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

...which is different than homosexuality in many important elements. And I'm not talking about your hatchet job on that article, I'm talking about this hatchet job.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Not what the DSM IV says. [http://www.mental-health-today.com/gender/dsm.htm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
They seem to suggest that homosexuality is necessary for a diagnosis of some, but not sufficient for it. You are aware of the distinction?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Who would this diagnosis apply to other than latent or active homosexuals? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Let's draw a Venn Diagram! "Gender identity" seems to be, from the perspective of the article, a ''subset'' of homosexuality. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's what your source argues. It does ''not'' argue that "gender identity disorder" = homosexuality.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Let's qualify my source first. My source is the APA DVM IV. This is the diagnositc manual of psychiatric disorders. All subsidiary pschyotherapists bow and genuflect to this source. It is the textbook of medical conditions and diagnosis. If it's not in here, its not a medical or psychiatric condition. If it is here, it is a profressionaly recognized and treatable psychiatric condition. Would you agree with that characterization, or can you cite a more qualified source than the APA on recognized psychiatric conditions and mental illness? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
: I never impugned the quality of your source. I said it doesn't support the equation of gender identity disorder with homosexuality.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::I have heard only theological speculation (from lay Christians) about gender identity disorder being related to homosexuality. Feeling that you're the wrong sex tends to lead to cross-dressing. Feeling that you need to unite with the <s>opposite</s> sex leads to homosexuality. The two disorders might be similar, but for our purposes they're distinct enough for separate articles. We need to dig into authors like Socarides, Medinger, Cohen, Schlesinger, Dobson, etc., for solid psychological and religious views. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:07, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::What an embarassing typo (thinko?) I made! I meant ''unite with the same sex'', of course. :-( --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:23, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
AmesG, who, other than a latent or active homosexual, could be diagnosed with gender identity disorder? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Sigh, right, your source argues "all gender ID sufferers are gay," not "all gays are gender ID sufferers." Do you understand the distinction?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:19, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::The diagnosis is, all gender ID sufferers are gay who complain about it. Point being, cancer symptoms are not symptoms of gender ID disorder, whereas homosexual desires are a symptom of the mental illness. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The source demonstrates that homosexual desires in ''some'' people are the result of a mental illness, not anything else. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 03:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::I'm not certain I understand this. You mean the gay gene causes mental illness? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:03, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::No. I'm afraid I don't understand why you don't understand this issue, so I'll put the logic out in a step by step fashion. Apologies if it seems condescending, but I see no other way.
#Gender ID disorder ''is'' a mental illness
#According to how the source is reported on this page, all gender ID sufferers are gay
#Gender ID disorder is ''not'' the "gay gene"
#Not all gay people have gender ID disorder
#Therefore, only a subset of gay people have Gender ID disorder
#Therefore, only a subset of gay people have a mental illness.
[[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:24, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*''According to how the source is reported on this page, all gender ID sufferers are gay ''
:Where does it say this, and what language would you propose to clarify it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Not all people with GID are gay, either. The DSM only gives stats for men who were diagnosed in childhood. Of those, 75% as adults are either gay or bisexual, 25% are heterosexual. And Rob, "homosexual desires" are not a symptom of GID. It's about wanting to be the other gender. For example, in kids, one symptom is a "strong preference for playmates of the other sex" (p537 of DSM). Sexual desire isn't even mentioned in the diagnostic criteria. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the arguement is, "strong persistent cross-gender identification" refers to something other than homosexuality.[http://www.mental-health-today.com/gender/dsm.htm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yep. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. You have several times linked to the site that lists the DSM diagnostic criteria. Perhaps you could point out where it says that it refers to homosexuality? I can't find anything in my copy. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Define "strong persistent cross-gender identification" then. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:47, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::The feeling that one should be or would rather be the opposite gender. Wanting to take on roles that traditionally belong to the other gender. Often to the point of feeling so uncomfortable with one's gender as to try to pass as the opposite gender, or to have surgery to actually become the other gender. Read the entry again - it says virtually nothing about sexuality at all. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:55, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Ok, let's confine this discussion to humans. So this means a man wants to have a baby? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:08, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::I guess I missed the point at which non-humans came up. Sure, that would be consistent, though not necessary. And? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:30, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::So we can rule out [[asexual]]s then. But "strong, persistent cross identification" goes beyond wanting to wear high heals. It deals with sex, either a man wants to have a baby, or woman feels she can impregnate someone, or there is a desire to have sex with members of ones own sex. Would that be fair characterization? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:37, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

No, I don't think it would be. If a man wishes he could get pregnant, it doesn't follow that it's because he wants to have sex with another man. If it was about sex with another man, why would pregnancy come into it? It's more likely a desire for motherhood (see 2nd para under '''Diagnostic Features'''). It is beyond wanting to wear high heels, but that doesn't make it about sex. It's about (assuming we're talking about a man) wanting to live as a woman, with everything that encompasses. High heels, makeup, etc., are symbols of womanhood. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT) Adds: There may be a desire to have sex with someone of the same gender but that's peripheral to the definition of GID. And it's more about wanting oneself to be the opposite gender, and therefore be having sex with someone of the opposite gender, if you know what i mean. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:So homosexuality enters into the equation. And by definition, this diagnosis could not apply to anyone ''other than'' homosexuals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:53, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Then how is it that the symptoms usually fade as childhood goes on, and that 25% are heterosexual by late adolescence? The diagnosis still has nothing to do with whether a person wants to have same-sex sex. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:02, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry I missed that stat. It does say men outnumber women who seek sex change operation by a 3/1 ratio. This is an interesting stat, given that nature provides roughly a 50/50 ratio of births, men to women. You'd think, since nature screwed up, the ratios would be somewhat more equal. How do we explain this disequilibria? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:24, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::There are any number of diseases/disorders which effect one sex more than the other. Nothing particularly unusual about that.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 16:33, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's true. Prostate cancer is extremely rare among women. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
It should also be pointed out that individuals diagnosed with gender identity disorder typically also present some form of mental stress because of the identity crisis and subsequent conflict. Many who are homosexual but not diagnosed with the geder identity disorder do not exhibit stress due to their sexual orientation per se, but because of the reactions they observe from others. -Prof0705
:I get it, others are making them sick. Their victim status leads to an illness, or is it the other way around, their illness leads to a victim status not enshrined in law yet? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Nature screwed up? I don't necessarily agree with that but I'm glad to see you accepting that homosexuality is biologically determined. Regarding the gender distribution of GID, a reasonable hypothesis is that something about prenatal brain development (eg, hormone levels) was different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually no. I didn't express a personal opinion. I am reciting the theory of science behind both gay gene theory and this diagnosis. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:23, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I shall list the specific DSM-IV criteria here, and express why they do not apply to the vast majority of homosexuals:

:1. There must be evidence of a strong and persistent cross-gender identification.

"Cross-gender" identification includes but is not limited to the persistent desire to be the opposite sex, or to associate with the opposite sex. This includes for Male-to-Females, makeup, heels, and dresses. While it has been claimed above that it doesn't just cover "wanting to wear heels" in fact, it does, if that desire is sufficiently persistent. In order to meet the criteria for GID however, all criteria must be met. This can also refer to strictly gender roles, which are not necessarily connected to sexual or reproductive habits and behaviors. There are a number of social and cultural differences in the behavior of men and women, and anyone who wishes to fill the gender roles of the opposite gender qualify in this parameter.

The best test for this is to ask a man, "Do you want to be a woman?" and to ask a woman "Do you want to be a man?" A response in the affirmative is a positive indicator for this criterion, a response in the negative is a definitive contra-indication of Gender Identity Disorder.

::What if (a) the person is lying, or (b) the person is incapable of making a rational judgement, or (c) due to social or cultural homophobia the person feels pressure to go along in order to get along, or (d) due to internalized homnophobia, he's in denial? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:55, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Well then, (a) this presumption can be made of any disease, that's why there is counciling to determine the reasons and appropriateness of treatment. (b) GID is not to be treated in the case of a coinciding medical/psychiatric condition, this means not for people who potentially have multiple personality disorder, or some other psychiatric disorder where treatment would only result in worse results for the patient. In the case of a defense mechanism in response to a sexually tramatic experience, GID is contraindicated. For instance, a girl was raped and as the only way she can resolve the issue psychiatrically on her own, she presumes that she needs to have a gender change. GID, and its therapy is also contraindicated in this event. (c/d) gender identity therapy begins with vetting the patient to ensure that they're not simply distraught with being gay, or some other such reason. Gender therapy begins off immediately with the idea that gender reassignment therapy (which consists of counselling, hormones then surgery over the course of at least one year) should be the last option chosen. If there is anyway for a person with GID to live in their assigned gender, then they are recommended to persue that, and not face the discrimination, and unnecessary nature that would be their treatment. There is also significant interest in ensuring that treatment is only given to those for whom it is appropriate.

:::If the treatment would cause more harm than good, then the treatment is contraindicated. In Iran, I mentioned that transsexuality is accepted, as a result gay, and lesbian people are pressured to change gender in order to have sex with the people they are attracted to, this is widely regarded as inappropriate in the western world. If gender reassignment therapy is carried out upon someone who is not transsexual, or significantly transgendered, the situation which they are placed in is just as emotionally and psychiatrically damaging as the situation that you are moving transsexuals out of. As a result, hormones and therapy are denied without approval from an appropriate therapist, and surgery in particular requires the sign off from a Ph.D. This intented to raise the bar sufficiently that anyone doing it on a whim will not be able to do any lasting damage to themselves by lying in order to gain treatment. Therapists are well accustomed to behaviors and stories that indicate a person lying about their experiences of GID. In all cases however, if someone were to simply express that they have homosexual desires, the therapy would '''not''' travel towards treatment, but towards treating that person's discomfort with their homosexuality, whether than means resolving them to their heterosexuality, or having them come to acccept and embrace their homosexuality. Either way, homosexuality alone is immediately a disqualifying factor for treatment and diagnosis of GID. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 18:37, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

While gay men and butch lesbians typically express their gender roles quite broadly, and may take up gender roles typically considered outside of their traditional roles, such as men paying more attention to their looks, clothes, and fashion, and women caring significantly less about it, and acting more physical, reardless, if you ask them "Do you want to be a woman" and "Do you want to be a man?" they will answer in the negative. They are happy with their gender, they're simply attracted to the same sex.

:2. This cross-gender identification must not merely be a desire for any perceived cultural advantages of being the other sex.

The person can't have these feelings simply because for instance, a woman wants to "break through the glass ceiling", or a man wants to enjoy having their dates paid for, doors opened for them, etc.

There has to be distinct evidence, that even if changing their gender meant total loss of all advantages that they would still be willing to undergo the change. A good example here would be male to female transsexuals in Iran. As men they have significant advantages, and as women they lose enormous amounts of rights, yet they still change. (Yes, Iran condones gender change, they make it mandatory once approved, and the health care system pays for it.)

:3. There must also be evidence of persistent discomfort about one's assigned sex or a sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex.

This is the easiest contra-indication that gays have Gender Identity Disorder. They are quite happy with the sex they're assigned, and feel appropriate in the gender that they live in.

This is quite different from someone suffering from severe stress, and depression over their body being the wrong sex, such to the point that they would consider mutilating it in order to acheive a correction of their body.

:4. The individual must not have a concurrent physical intersex condition (e.g., androgen insensitivity syndrome or congenital adrenal hyperplasia).

"Intersex" means that you're born somewhere in between the genders. Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (the body does not properly matabolize testosterone) only affects genetic males, and can vary significantly from simply low infertility, through infertility, through ambiguous genitalia, all the way until you reach a female external form, with internalized testes, and significant lack of pubic and ancilliary hair (arm pits). Pubic and ancilliary hair grow as a response to testosterone, and thus, when the body is insensitive to it, it will not grow. In the later case, few people have any idea that anything would be wrong with their daughter until she didn't start her period in a timely manner, and they brought her to her doctor to figure out why. It's estimated that 6% of all cases coming to fertility clinics are because the mother has undiagnosed AIS. The reason AIS only affects males is because women do not have sufficient testosterone to affect their external development anyways.

Congenital adrenal hyperplasia only affects females, as it refers to an abnormal amount of testosterone affecting a developing fetus, which results in the genetically female body developing externally down the path of virilization.

There are a slew of other intersex conditions, basically, this criteria is to ensure that GID is only indicated in those who have no known biological reason to have cross-gender feelings.

:5. There must be evidence of clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

The most common response to "why did you change to a woman?" by male to female transsexuals is that they came to an impass, and it was either change or commit suicide. The stress upon their life creates severe depression, it can lead to socially abberant behavior, antisocial behavior, and numerous other issues.

Basically, the person cannot be able to function in their current life without therapy to resolve their feelings.

Gay people are normally quite successful, they don't have such odd social behaviors, or psychological stress (to the degree of GID patients) that cause them to really require the necessity to transition. If you ask them, "Would you be able to continue to live your life as your current gender?" their response would be positive, while someone with GID will expressly respond in the negative, stating that if they were unable to change, that they would face catastrophic life consequences, such as suicide, total failure of work life, decent into "uncurable" depression, etc.

There are a lot of reasons why gay people do not typically have GID... the biggest indicator is that they are happy with their life. When lay people get ahold of some DSM criteria, they may not understand the actual meanings and intentions of that text, while even a psychiatrist/psychologist who is not familiar with GID itself would be able to assess the GID criteria, and state blatently, that it would not apply to gays and lesbians. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 15:55, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, so you've made the case why "the vast majority of homosexuals" do not suffer from GID (in the United States). Yet in the [[Gender identity disorder]] article you've stated, "in Iran Gender Identity Disorder is recognized and sex reassignment therapy, and '''surgery is compulsory''', and '''paid for by the state'''." Neither claim is supported by the underlying document you provided. [http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=11423] ''In fact,'' the underlying document '''contradicts''' what you have claimed:
:*state health organisation '''may''' also subsidise...
:*...one such theologian ...is even writing a thesis..."Teachers, colleagues and officials from the '''judiciary have been very encouraging towards my thesis'''... We have to differentiate between sex changes and homosexuality."... Kariminia acknowledges that he is under pressure...

:This is a far cry from "surgery is compulsory," as you have claimed. This needs some explanation, or proper sourcing, or you may be blocked from further editing for violating several of CP's core Commandments and Guidelines. Thank you. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:24, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

::Widely available sources, and information. Why don't conservatives papers tend to cover this topic? Because they generally take the opinion that transsexuality is homosexuality, and thus a Sin. Another source is http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/35/15513 I have however altered the "will pay for" section. Although saying that a socialist healthcare system "will pay for a heart transplant" ignores that medical reasons may play a reason why a heart transplant would not be allowed, and thus not covered by the state. Certainly at least saying "The state will pay for approved sex reassignment therapy and surgery" is also a definitively true statement.

::To follow up on your questions regarding compulsory, for legal recognition of your gender, you require surgery, without legal recognition you are legally a male engaging in sexual acts with another male. Legally, that is homosexuality, and homosexuality is punished by death. Therefore, opting to not have surgery, will keep you legally your original gender, and thus a homosexual. Simple and clear extension of legal fact. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 16:05, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Very good. I think you've come close to putting your finger on the point. This subheading, for example, is "Not Any Scientific Reasoning," you proceeded to make a lengthy and rather thoughtful exposition about how GID is not necessarily the same as homosexuality, and how DVM doesn't consider it homosexuality a disease ''or'' disorder. Fine. We know all that. This appeared to be really very scientifically based and keeping with the topic under this subhead questioning "scientific reasoning." Ok, fine. Then your next edit to mainspace appears highly ideological, and politically motivated, what I would refer to as [[activism]]. That has little to do with the ongoing discussion of the science. Then, in what would appear suspiciously motivated circumstances, you make various claims to a mainspace article regarding social policy and Islamic law unsupported by an illusory source. All this does not look good, and I hope you can understand our concerns.

:::Bottomline is, we are not a propaganda mouthpiece for disinformation. Subtley in any context will be meticulously reviewed. Mixing a poltical agenda with science, which either misquotes or misinterprets the underlying science, or conversely uses junk science to push activism, I personally am rather disposed to prevent. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:04, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== The purpose of Exodus International and Reparative Therapy in their eyes ==

::::The mainspace edit was not politically motivated, but rather truthfully motivated. Not all reparative therapy sucesses end with "I'm a heterosexual now." Rather, the goal of reparative therapy is to correct homosexual behavior, and have the people overcome that. That still leaves the option of the person going to asexuality, and celebacy as an alternative to heterosexuality, and bisexuality.

::::Being that the article specifically is addressing Exodus International, let's use their words exactly:: "What is Exodus? Exodus is a nonprofit, interdenominational Christian organization promoting the message of Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ." http://exodus.to/content/category/6/24/57/

::::The purpose and intend of Exodus International is to "help practicing homosexuals to overcome their homosexual desires." Not the further goal of ensuring that everyone who successfully goes through it is heterosexual at the end. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 18:28, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Well again, you appear to be on some sort of mission, or other. This mainspace page is entitled "Reparative Therapy." You have placed a description of an organization about its primary mission, and not what the organization says about Reparative therapy. What Exodus International ''in fact'' says about Reparative Therapy, (and not itself which is what you are using to define Reparative Therapy), is,

:::::''reparative therapy — a holistic, counseling approach to addressing unwanted same-sex attraction — can be a beneficial tool. Exodus International is not a clinical facility and does not conduct clinical treatment of any kind.''...
:::::Frankly, at this point, it now appears you've gone from using a biased journalist with ''Agencie France Presse'' as a source for statements that the jounralist himself never reported on, to alleging a "Christian organization promoting the message of Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ" is "Not Any Scientific Reasoning." [http://exodus.to/content/view/736/0/]
:::::I would suggest you get off this track you're attempting to pursue. Contrary to many stereotypes, many Christians are not fools and idiots. Many of us are very familiar dealing with the types of distortions and disinformation you are attempting to place here, and have had decades of experience dealing with it. It is just not going to work. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:48, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, it went off topic, I've now split the two discussions, so that it no longer appears that Exodus International is "Not Any Scientific Reasoning". In fact, I make no such claim at all. Reparative therapy can be a good thing in many cases.

My desire in my mainspace edit was simply to note that Exodus International and Reparative Therapy, even as you present their statement, do not make people heterosexual, they make them non-homosexual. This allows for celibacy and asexuality, of which the later's existince you have acknowledged. I am not trying to "push an agenda" here, and I understand that you would see my actions as some sort of mission. Which I sort of am, my mission is for the truth.

I *am* a Christian, and I know we're not fools. But certainly you wouldn't call an apple purple when it's red... If the goal of reparative therapy is to help an individual overcome their homosexuality, that is not the same as making them heterosexual. It also includes making them asexual. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 19:18, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== This article is currently of poor quality. It is mighty thin on citations. ==

This article is currently of poor quality. It is mighty thin on citations. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:34, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Are there any other groups besides APA that reject Reparative therapy? ==

What other groups besides the APA reject Reparative therapy? [[User:Danbarker|Danbarker]] 22:00, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:Off the top of my head, the other APA (American Psychiatric Assoc) and the American Medical Association. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:And after a quick search, the American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of School Psychologists, American Association of School Administrators, National Education Association, and American Federation of Teachers. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:06, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think we've covered this ground. These groups all follow the lead taken by the American Psychiatric Assoc. None of them go contrary. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for answering the question. The American Psychological Association came first, actually, 1990 vs 1998. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:20, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::That's not the issue. The issue is over what the diagnosis of the illness is. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Umm, ''What'' "illness"? [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 22:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Well, we've been having discussion on several pages over varius diagnosis. [[Gender identity disorder]] is one, [[Homophobia]] is another. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

(unindent)Oh, okay, for this article I'd guess you'd being thinking of something along the lines of ''Sexual orientation dysphoria''. [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

:RobS, you raised the issue, I was pointing out that in this case that's not correct. The relevant diagnosis (ie, what someone would likely be in reparative therapy for) is sexual disorder not otherwise specified, one example of which is persistent and marked distress about your sexual orientation. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:03, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::So, we see there is not only disagreement in the therapeutic community over treatment, there is disagreement over diagnosis as well. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:08, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Not sure what you mean. Those are 2 different diagnoses, given for 2 different sets of symptoms. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:10, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::There is controversy over those diagnosis, and then there are other controversies as well. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:22, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
It's an issue of sourcing. There is a controversy in the American Psychiatric Assoc. These controversies need to be articulated. What is not acceptable, are non-medical and non-psychiartric sources for criticism of this psychiatric therapy. That means no LGBT, no American Psychological Association, etc. etc. etc. as sources. Sources as critics of this therapy must be Psychiatrists. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:That's ridiculous. On what basis? Psychiatrists are not particularly well-trained in therapy compared to other fields. And what is the controversy over the diagnoses?[[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:03, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::The question is over a medical diagnosis. American Psychological Association takes its lead form the American Psychiatric Assoc. No one else is qualified, and even at that, the question is extremely controversial in the psychiatric profession. We have an unknown variable, there are many gay activists who have permeated the professions. They may have a conflict of interest in pushing pseudoscience in pursuit of a political agenda. This is well known and has been occurring for decades. And how would we know if they had this conflict of interest or not, unless it's disclosed. There are other factors as well. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:42, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The claim that only a psychiatrist is qualified to assess the value of this or any form of psychotherapy reveals a lack of understanding of the profession. The vast majority of psychiatrists don't do therapy and even in med school don't get a great deal of training in it. And how would we know that a psychiatrist doesn't have a conflict of interest, in the same or the opposite direction? You seem to be claiming a conspiracy of some gay cabal that has taken over other professions as far as this issue is concerned. Also, I believe you overstate the controversy. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:55, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Controversy has been raging for decades now, and again, it's not so much the therapy at the heart of the controversy, it's the diagnosis. It was a scientific fact one year ago there were 9 planets; today its a scientific fact there are only 8 planets. It was a scientific fact homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Assoc thirty-odd years ago; who's to say it won't be considered as a scientific fact a mental illness again tomorrow. The true facts are, we demand much from these experts and professionals, but maybe they just don't want the rest of society dumping all its unsolvable problems on them. Who knows. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

(unindent) Why should M.D. psych's get priority over Ph.D. psychs? Are we assuming that the [[human mind]] is a purely physical thing? Is the mind only a manifestation of the [[brain]]? What about the human [[soul]]? If there is [[life after death]], then some part of you or me must continue to exist even after the brain turns into dust. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Because it's a medical diagnosis. Name one other instance where pschyologists recognize as a mental illness that the field of psychiatry does not. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:37, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't understand why the American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of School Psychologists, American Association of School Administrators, National Education Association, and American Federation of Teachers weren't enough.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:16, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Because even if the entire Catholic Church said the Earth is stationary, it would not make Galileo's defense of the Copernican system of "planets revolving around the Sun" any less true. Citing scientific bodies is a political strategy, same as the [[anthropogenic global warming]] advocates citing the "scientific consensus" of the UN assessment (see [[IPCC]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:49, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ed Poor's recent edits. ==

Recently Ed Poor made the edit of removing: "'''Reparative Therapy''' is the idea that [[homosexuality]] can be cured by prayer and reflection. It is based on the idea that homosexuality is a choice." That's a very clearly POV edit, as the sentence following and describing Reparative Therapy is accurate, and factual. That is unless, and only unless it can be shown that there exists a Reparative Therapy method that does not rely upon religious tenants.

There is now a very strong bias on this page against Reparative Therapy. Not only does the last section criticize Reparative Therapy, but the first quote in the first section biasedly criticizes Reparative Therapy.

The edits to the first section are simply unacceptable from an accurate and factual point of view. If the first quote should be kept, then it should be placed in the section "Misinformation about reparative therapy" which first of all is entirely biased simply by the language.

Would someone PLEASE revert these edits, they're entirely unacceptable.(except the changing to the reflist template.) --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 16:33, 7 November 2007 (EST)

It occurs to me that perhaps Ed Poor's edits were at the behest of someone else. In either case, the edits are inappropriate. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 16:39, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:It's better to refer to the content of the editor, rather than the name of the editor. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:06, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Arguments of opponents==
Cut from article:

*Opponents of reparative therapy characterize it as the idea that [[homosexuality]] can be cured by prayer and reflection and claim that it is based on the idea that [[Homosexuality and choice|homosexuality is a choice]].

*[[Richard Cohen]] says in rebuttal, "No one chooses to have same-sex desires."

We need to distinguish between PR campaigns which put words in people's mouths or otherwise distort their positions - and arguments which correctly state a position and then rebut it. The two sentences above confuse the issue (a typical [[gay agenda]] tactic).

There are two main anti-homosexuality views, the religious and the psychological:
*Religious people stress the effectiveness of prayer, even to the exclusion of therapy. They also emphasize the role of choice (see [[free will]]) in regard to sexual acts.
*Psychologists tend to ignore prayer entirely, or to give it merely a supporting role in therapy.

Both schools of thought recommend reflection. A homosexual needs to consider what he gets from maintaining his condition: for example, is homosexuality making him happy or unhappy in the present? What are the longterm consequences? Would a course of prayer and/or therapy be helpful? (No one says, "Just do it.") --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:06, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Excellent summary of opponent's approach==

----
Hi Ed, I recently left a comment for you regarding "reparative therapy." It's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mystery%3AWhere_is_Hell%3F&diff=628725&oldid=628667 here], but the substance follows. {{cquote|Ed, by pushing the idea that homosexuality can be "cured" or somehow altered, you're foisting a deliberate and damaging falsehood. The only scientific studies ever to look into conversion/reparative therapy found that any "success" was offset by the [http://tech.mit.edu/V119/N11/col2.11c.html nearly doubled rates of depression and suicide] in the victims of this treatment ([http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exst.htm#sch see?]). Any belief that reparative therapy works is only wishful thinking. You may not like homosexuality, and even think that it's a sin or an abomination. But by trying to change it - or suggesting that it CAN or SHOULD be changed - you're encouraging the negligent homicide of thousands of gay Americans. Please, please [http://www.acandidworld.net/2008/09/07/the-horrific-evils-of-reparative-therapy-and-its-unsurprising-adherents/ read the facts] on this dangerous "treatment" and consider its results objectively before arguing for it here.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 15:29, 21 February 2009 (EST)}}
An admin told me to post this to your talk page rather than there. So here we go! I look forward to your reply.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 20:53, 21 February 2009 (EST)

:Well, it wasn't an Admin who made the request, but since you placed your comment on the Mystery: Where is Hell, its no wonder you were asked to post somewhere else. All things, BTW, with God's help, and a sincere desire to do so, can be changed. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:38, 22 February 2009 (EST)
----

I copied the above from my talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:13, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I am, of course, opposed to the spreading of deliberate falsehood in any encyclopedia. But you are right about one thing: the central claim of reparative therapy is indeed "damaging" to the campaigns of the [[gay rights movement]]. The mainstay of their ship is the notion that [[homosexuality]] is an unalterable trait. They argue that it's either inherent and inborn (presumably we'll locate a "[[gay gene]]" someday) or that it develops so early in childhood as to be incurable. And they've gotten the APA to vote that way.

But science is not actually done by vote. It's done by proposing theories and formulating hypotheses, which are then put to the test. Results consistent with the theory give us a measure of confidence, but results which contradict the theory require us to discard the theory immediately (or at least to get working on modifying it.)

What makes you think that the '''only''' [[scientific study|scientific studies]] had negative findings? How hard did you look for opposing studies? I bet you didn't even check out [[NARTH]]. I love the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, because they are the biggest website that gives [[Unification Church|my own church]] a fair shake, but they are utterly biased when it comes to homosexuality, which they regard as not being any kind of [[sin]].

Your appeal to emotion is also out of line, suggesting that advocacy of RT is akin to "[[negligent homicide]]". I wonder if you are aware of the differences between modern RT offered to those who want to change and some of the atrocious forcible methods tried in the past. RT also contrasts with merely resorting to prayer and determination.

I have yet to find an opponent of RT who knows anything about it. They just quote [[authorities]] who condemn it, without giving any rational basis for that condemnation. This is being very unscientific, which would be ironic if it weren't so downright sinister, since you opened your rejoinder with an appeal to [[science]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:26, 22 February 2009 (EST)
:Thanks for you reply Ed. I appreciate the time but I take issue with some of your characterizations.
:Firstly, I don't think any argument for gay rights need be premised on the existence of a "gay gene." Religion, for example, isn't "immutable" or genetically coded, but we still protect it through nondiscrimination laws. The question predicate to whether something ought to be protected is whether forcing someone to change the trait would work a great and unjustified hardship. I aim to prove that reparative therapy DOES work such a hardship.
:You suggest I look to NARTH as an example of an "unbiased" survey of the effectiveness of reparative therapy. NARTH - the National Association for the Research and Treatment of Homosexuality - is the epitome of a biased source. Its entire existence is predicated on the effectiveness of reparative therapy. I would take their research with a grain of salt, and also internalize the [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm#study grave errors pointed out] by the Religious Tolerance group. For one, it wasn't published in a peer reviewed journal, or even error-checked!
:I'll submit to you that you've failed to rebut my argument that reparative therapy is useless at best, and affirmatively damaging at worst. I'll bolster it with this anecdote: have you ever ''met'' anyone who's undergone reparative therapy? I have. It nearly killed him. His "treatment" involved sleep deprivation, starvation, isolation, and all the other horrors typically associated with torture, added with daily shaming and deliberate attempts to subvert any notion of his self-esteem or individuality. Thankfully, the treatment failed: years later, he's still gay and comfortable with himself. Is that so wrong?-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 23:45, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Debate:Where is Hell?

2009-02-21T20:29:21Z

LuciusF:

<div style="text-align:center"><div style="margin: 0 auto 1em auto; width: 75%; text-align:center"><big>''"Can you fathom the mystery of God? Or can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are high as heaven. What can you do? They are deeper than Sheol. What can you know?"''</big> - Job 11:7-8</div></div>

[[Image:Gfdyte7y6.jpg|right|thumb|250px|[[Dante]] portrayed Hell as stretching down to the center of the Earth.]]
In ancient times, people believed that [[Hell]], or the [[underworld|land of the dead]], was a physical place that could be traveled to. [[Greek]] heroes such as [[Odysseus]], [[Orpheus]] and [[Hercules]] were all able to reach [[Hades]] and return to the land of the living, while [[Dante's Inferno]] portrays the [[Christian]] [[Hell]] as a subterranean pit that stretches down to the center of the Earth.

Now that a complete map of the world has been built up through exploration and aerial and satellite photography, we of course know that Hell is not a physical place of the kind that people used to believe in. However, Hell remains an important part of [[theology]]: it does exist, and people (or their [[soul]]s) do go to it and inhabit it.

My question is, '''what is the nature of Hell's existence?''' Does it occupy a "spiritual realm", similar to the "alternate universes" or "parallel dimensions" that are conceived of in [[science fiction]]? If so, is this realm subject to the same physical laws as our own? For example, do light and sound exist there?

Naturally, we cannot know the answers to these questions for certain. But I would be keen to hear the views of others, so I invite anyone with comments, theories or insights to post them below.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]]

==Responses==
The answer to this question is quite simple and not a mystery at all. Hell simply doesn’t exist, either physically or in any other form, such as alternate universes. Hell is merely a concept, a figment of the imagination. You are very right when you say hell is not a physical place on earth, just like heaven isn’t a physical place in the sky. These are just ideas that exist in the minds of people. We need something to either look forward to or fear, and churches around the world recognized that and this also serves as a way to keep people in check, to establish moral values. You can either live a good life and be rewarded in heaven, or a sinful life and be punished in hell. But the reality of it is, this is the only world we exist in and we must make the most of it now. We can’t be bogged down our entire life trying to make it to heaven. We need to just enjoy life. Because we might be very disappointed when there are no white gates greeting us after we die. But, if there is a hell, just keep the old saying in mind: Hell for company, heaven for climate. – Conservativedude.

:Hell is a very real place where selfish people go after they die. You won't like the company there any more than the climate. People who care about each other will go to Heaven. There are stages of heaven and hell, and the deepest reaches of hell are reserved for the worst sinners. But no one is assigned to heaven or hell: each simply goes where he feels most comfortable. - [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]

Ed, your argument is a little confusing. If no one is assigned to heaven or hell, what is the purpose of either? Wouldn’t everyone claim they feel ‘more comfortable’ in heaven, no matter how bad a sinner they are? You also say people who care about each other will go to heaven. Does this include atheists or homosexuals who care about other people? And if hell is a very real place, perhaps you could tell us where it is. I offered up my explanation of where hell is, that being the mind. Does it exist somewhere else? – conservativedude.

:Jesus emphasized Hell more than Heaven. Those who complain about a lack of justice on Earth are in denial about the final chapter of each person's life.

:Hell exists and no one escapes it by pretending it isn't there. Some get a glimpse of it at times in their life, but the full horror is far worse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::Perhaps no one escapes it by pretending it isn’t there. But what about the people who genuinely believe it does not exist, or those who have no concept of it at all, for example remote tribes or ancient peoples? How can they go to a place they have no concept of? – Conservativedude.

::: Jesus said the worst punishment awaits those who misled others. So people who teach there is no Hell will likely feel it the worst. It's perfectly logical, and it's illogical to deny it. Don't worry about how God will deal with the person who was misled beyond his control, or kept in complete darkness. No one who visits this site, or who can use the internet, is such a person.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::::First, bear in mind that Andy and I have different conceptions of the [[afterlife]]. Second, hell is in the [[spirit world]], the place where your [[spiritual self]] or 'soul' lives eternally. If you're a materialist, this won't make sense to you, but if you believe in [[life after death]] then it will.

::::Being a "[[sinner]]" is not merely a matter of violating the rules in some book. It's about selfishness. A good atheist is more likely to feel comfortable (if a bit astonished) in heaven. But homosexuals and adulterers will probably find the atmosphere of heaven unbearable: see Rev. 22:15. While Obama might feel that "[[tolerance]]" requires him to be "humble" about asserting what God's will is, I'm here to tell you that any sexual intercourse outside of (heterosexual) marriage will only hurt your ability to love properly.

::::Don't imagine that you'd like hell. There might not be flames and pitchforks, but you're better off searching for the truth and living by it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:02, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Every day there are people who felt they could escape judgment but are standing before a judge at sentencing. "Conservativedude", I encourage you to attend a sentencing hearing. It's public. Ted Bundy had lots of fun with his deceit and selfishness, and then was petrified worse than a little baby when he was eventually sentenced to death for it and executed.

:::: Atheism is often selfishness and deceit in disguise. Polls confirm atheists give less than others, and they certainly demand censorship of Christian insights. I'm not fooled by the label. I doubt God is either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 20 February 2009 (EST)
::::: I believe the question was "where is Hell", not "Who goes there". The answer is probably the similar to "where is Heaven?", which is most likely somewhere not physical. As for the nature, I don't think it's as much fire and brimstone or physical punishment as it would be psychological and emotional. Knowing you blew your one chance, you are segregated from God would be far greater punishment than flaming whips. [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 21:54, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: (interposed) I don't know anyone who sincerely denies the existence of the unseen, the spiritual, etc. Sure, there are materialists who will play the fool and claim nothing unseen exists, but I doubt they even believe that.

::::::: As to the rest of your statement, people obviously get more than "one chance", but it's not infinity. Justice necessarily entails harsh punishment for harsh crimes, and even the death penalty here on Earth. Perhaps Hell is being ruled by the devil, and yes he does enjoy whipping and burning people to to an unimaginable extent. In fact, he delights in it. Suit yourself in trying to downplay it. Logic and evidence say you're wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:26, 20 February 2009 (EST)
::::::::By "one chance" I meant your life. I apologize for any confusion. Obviously you have multiple chances to be saved, but after you are dead not as much. And my statement about the physical punishment comes from the fact people eventually acclimate to harsh conditions, but not as much to the psychological. Of course, it could easily be a combination of the two. If you are there for all eternity, and nobody can (or will) help or even comfort you, that would be despair beyond anything.

:::::::::::(breaking in later) My response will differ from Andy's because I'm a [[Unificationist]], but I agree about the psychological aspect. People genuinely suffer in hell, and the worst part is probably regret. But unlike most Christians, I believe that it is possible to get a second chance after death. In the Unification Church, we call this "[[returning resurrection]]". Don't confuse it with [[reincarnation]] (a doctrine we regard as heretical at best, and probably pernicious as well).
:::::::::::If there is a way for spirit men to influence earthly humans, then might they not "come down" in some way and help us attain [[spiritual growth]] "since God had planned something better for us, so that they would not be perfected without us." (Hebrews 11:40) I know this is not mainstream Christianity, but it's what [[Reverend Moon]] teaches. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:09, 21 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Also, to CD's question about those who never had the chance to know God, there's a few ideas about that. Though not canon, Dante described the "virtuous pagans" and unbaptized as going to Limbo, the outermost ring of Hell where there is no punishment, but no chance of salvation either. There's also the idea of Purgatory, where they atone their sins before entering Heaven (as far as I know this is mostly a Catholic belief). [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:50, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::::: There wasn't any confusion. I was objecting to your characterization of an entire life as "one chance." People get multiple chances every day, 365 days a year, and decades of years. It takes determination to be hostile to every chance. And that determination ends up in depression, crime, misleading and harming others, and ultimately Hell. The logic is pretty obvious and undeniable. Notice how you didn't reply to my observation that the devil delights in harming people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:53, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::::::I didn't reply because I'm sure that he does in fact enjoy doing so. However, there are many ways to harm a person. And yes, there are multiple chances in life, I'll admit it was a faulty characterization. I'm sure that neither of us have any wish to see or know exactly what the Devil does in Hell to punish the damned. Perhaps it is something too terrible to imagine that makes whips and fire seem pleasant in comparison. [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 00:10, 21 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don’t think people are teaching others that hell does not exist, it is just a belief they carry and they shouldn’t be punished for it (I’ll return to this idea in a moment). And I think we should worry about how ‘God’ will deal with those who are ‘in complete darkness’ because it raises an interesting point. Christianity is relatively new when looking at the scope of Human existence, so what is to say its doctrines are right and all others are wrong? Do all ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptian’s, and so on go to hell because they did not accept the Christian teachings? And why is it relevant if they use the internet or visit this site? It’s not in my opinion. Furthermore, to reply to Ed, homosexuals are just as loving and caring as any heterosexual person is, so why do they deserve to be punished? And Andy, I am from Canada and we do not have the death penalty, which is very beneficial I believe. The state should not have the right to put someone to death (but that is another debate). And I completely disagree that atheism is selfishness and deceit in disguise. Returning to my point at the beginning of my post, I believe in this: Atheists are simply questioning their existence, they are seeking another truth that is not god. Therefore, IF god does exist, an atheist should not be punished by god for simply utilizing their cognitive ability to question their existence and creation, assuming god is ‘all loving.’ And if the atheist is right, well, we all know how that story ends. – Conservativedude.

:::::::CD, atheism in Canada has led to far less charity than in the U.S., both in average dollars and percentages. Atheists as a group censor Christianity, as in classroom prayer and preaching from the Bible. Let's tell the truth here: atheism is hostile to Christianity. Don't expect Christ, a real person, to be pleased about that. Our criminal justice system punishes people who selfishly cause harm. God can be expected to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:50, 20 February 2009 (EST)

(unindent) ''homosexuals are just as loving and caring as any heterosexual person is'' - I disagree. Research shows they are not. Where did you get that notion?

And there is no "[[punishment]]": the consequences of leading a life of homosexuality are natural (compare [[logical consequences]] in [[child discipline]], regrettably a red link at this writing - but this debate might become famous later on).
===Reparative therapy===
The problem with [[homosexual acts]], as with any other sin, is that it retards our spiritual growth or oven undoes it. People who steal, for example, necessarily lose their respect for other people's property and well-being. People who fornicate (i.e., engage in [[sexual intercourse]] outside of marriage) are largely using each other. The only way to express conjugal love properly is in the husband-wife relationship, as God ordained (Genesis 2:24). As to why this is so, you'll have to read [[Richard Cohen]]'s book, ''[[Coming Out Straight]]''. There are summaries and excerpts available at http://www.gaytostraight.org/ if you want to read more about this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:33, 21 February 2009 (EST)

:Thanks to all who've responded so far, and particularly to ConservativeDude for starting things off. It takes some courage to share personal thoughts on issues like this, so I appreciate you all contributing.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:04, 21 February 2009 (EST)
::Ed, by pushing the idea that homosexuality can be "cured" or somehow altered, you're foisting a deliberate and damaging falsehood. The only scientific studies ever to look into conversion/reparative therapy found that any "success" was offset by the [http://tech.mit.edu/V119/N11/col2.11c.html nearly doubled rates of depression and suicide] in the victims of this treatment ([http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exst.htm#sch see?]). Any belief that reparative therapy works is only wishful thinking.
::You may not like homosexuality, and even think that it's a sin or an abomination. But by trying to change it - or suggesting that it CAN or SHOULD be changed - you're encouraging the negligent homicide of thousands of gay Americans. Please, please [http://www.acandidworld.net/2008/09/07/the-horrific-evils-of-reparative-therapy-and-its-unsurprising-adherents/ read the facts] on this dangerous "treatment" and consider its results objectively before arguing for it here.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 15:29, 21 February 2009 (EST)
== More responses ==

An interesting discussion, and so one that I'll put my two bob's worth into.

I don't have any real issues with CPalmer's opening paragraphs, but will quibble about one minor point. He says that "we of course know that Hell is not a physical place of the kind that people used to believe in.". Well, no, we don't know that, for certain. Just because we've mapped ''most'' of the Earth (there's some parts that are not well explored, especially including to ocean bottoms), doesn't mean that it couldn't possibly exist on Earth, and neither does it mean that it's not a physical place somewhere else in the universe. I'm not claiming that either of those are the case, however.

Conservativedude's response is little more than unsubstantiated opinion masquerading as argument. His only attempt at support (that hell was invented to control people) is itself unsubstantiated polemic. I have quite different views to Ed Poor, so I won't comment on Conservativedude's reply to him, and I think some of Andy's comments are not ones that I would make, so I also won't respond to most of Conservativedude's reply to him, except that I will point out that his question, "How can they go to a place they have no concept of?" is nonsense. If you discover a native in the jungles of the New Guinea, for example, who has no concept of Australia, does that mean that he can't go there? Of course not. All it needs is for someone to take him.

I'll also reply to Conservativedude's claims about Christianity and God. Christianity itself may be relatively new, but it is the natural continuation of the belief in the true God which is traceable back through the Israelites, Abraham, Noah, and etc. to Adam. As for ancient Greeks, Romans, etc., ''everyone'' has had the opportunity to acknowledge God: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 8:20). Many Christians are unsure just how God is going to handle this situation, but they have faith that the perfect, loving, and ''just'' God will handle the situation fairly.

Now to my views...

Is hell a physical place? We are told that when we go to Heaven, we will receive new bodies. From a science fiction point of view, "body" usually indicates something physical, as opposed to a non-material being. And the same seems to apply in the Bible. God is a bodiless spirit, but when He came to Earth as Jesus, He did so with a physical body. So likely that new body will also be physical. This is further supported by a reference (I'm sure, but I don't recall where) about Jesus' wounds (from the cross) still being visible in Heaven. Nevertheless, I believe that there remains the ''possibility'' that the new body will not be a physical one. But if it's physical, then this implies (requires?) that Heaven itself be a physical place. And I believe that this is how most Christians understand it. Although some references to it in the Bible may be symbolic (streets paved with gold, for example), many references do imply something physical about it.

That therefore suggests (but doesn't prove) that hell is also a physical place. However, there is also the possibility that that will be one of the horrors of hell—no bodies!

I don't think this discussion on the ''location'' of hell can avoid the question of the ''nature'' of hell, so I'll address that.

Just like the story of the blind men who describe an elephant in quite different ways because they are feeling different parts of it, I believe that there are a number of characteristics of hell that appear to be quite different yet really are talking about the same place.

One way of looking at hell is that it is nothing more or less than the place where God isn't. That is, there may be no actual punishments, tortures, or the like there at all. The torment will be nothing more than the absence of God. '''However''', as God is the creator of everything, and the Bible tells us that God "... is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:17). So what happens when everything that God has provided—our bodies, our friends, our ability to love, our curiosity, etc.—are no longer held together by God? Simply being somewhere that God is no longer "holding together" would have to be the worst torment of all—''without God actually doing any tormenting''! That is, those people who have rejected God have simply gotten what they wanted—existence without God.

But of course this doesn't mean that all those "horror stories" about how bad hell is are nonsense. Hell ''is'' a horrible place, but only because God isn't there. So does that mean that it's a place of eternal punishment, or not? I guess that depends on how you define "punishment". If "punishment" is defined as the consequences of your actions (rejecting God, in this case), then yes it is.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:05, 21 February 2009 (EST)

: I would agree with you there PJR, in my opinion Hell isn't the stereotypical brimstones and fire, it is your soul's absence from God for eternity which is surley the greatest "punishment". Another interesting point is, once a soul is in hell, is redemption ever possible if you accept God and seek forgiveness? On the topic of where Hell actually is, I don't think its anywhere that is physically accesible to us while we are alive, however that is merely speculation, one can't rule out the possibility of it being located somewhere physically in this universe since we have not and most probably will not ever be able to explore it all. [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 07:41, 21 February 2009 (EST)

:: Again I object to the attempts to downplay or dilute the suffering in Hell. It's illogical to pretend that Hell is a "not so bad" place. Very harsh punishment is a basic attribute of any system of justice, and just visit a courtroom one day if you don't believe me. Note also that the devil, to the extent he (or evil) rules over Hell, delights in harming people as much as possible.

:: There is real suffering on Earth. There is no reason to expect there is not even worse suffering for those, like atheists, who engage in selfishness (e.g., less charitable giving), deceit, and harming people by censoring Christianity (e.g., censoring classroom prayer or criticism of evolution).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:26, 21 February 2009 (EST)

::: I'm not sure which one of us you were replying to. Neither of us is "downplaying" the suffering of hell. If anything, we're doing the opposite. Eternal separation from God is the worst possible torment/suffering that one could experience. Yes, far worse than anything on Earth, where God is still present, and holding all together.
::: What makes you think that Satan will be ruling over hell, given that he is also subject to eternal punishment?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:06, 21 February 2009 (EST)

:::: I think the fact that when a soul is in hell it is not in a physical form, like you would be on Earth, means what we would concieve as torture would not work on a non-physical being. Instead the emotional torment and quite frankly terrifying emptyness is by far the worst punishment possible. I agree with you Andy that Satan orcestrates and presides over this, and even though he himself is subject to eternal punishment, part of this punishment is "being in charge" as it were. [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 10:06, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks to those above also for their full and thought-provoking responses.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:09, 21 February 2009 (EST)

[[Image:Devilbar trans.gif|center]]
[[Category:Eschatology|Where is Hell?]]
[[Category:Mystery|Where is Hell?]]

Talk:World History Homework Two - Model

2009-02-16T19:57:13Z

LuciusF:

==Serious instructional problems==
Writing assignment for JonathanL, based on his "model answer" @ H1: please explain how Jesus' teachings would have influenced Socrates, given that Socrates was dead before Jesus was born, and how that point answers the question to begin with. Go!-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 14:49, 16 February 2009 (EST)
:Also, @ #6, "The Republic" is emphatically NOT about republican government. It's a defense of enlightened monarchy/"philosopher kingship." It defined Augustus' vision of the way the Roman Republic should be, NOT the American gov't.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 14:57, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:World History Homework Two - Model

2009-02-16T19:52:36Z

LuciusF: oops! wrong homeschooler

Writing assignment for JonathanL, based on his "model answer" @ H1: please explain how Jesus' teachings would have influenced Socrates, given that Socrates was dead before Jesus was born, and how that point answers the question to begin with. Go!-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 14:49, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:World History Homework Two - Model

2009-02-16T19:49:04Z

LuciusF: New page: Writing assignment for StevenH, based on his "model answer" @ H1: please explain how Jesus' teachings would have influenced Socrates, given that Socrates was dead before Jesus was born. Go...

Writing assignment for StevenH, based on his "model answer" @ H1: please explain how Jesus' teachings would have influenced Socrates, given that Socrates was dead before Jesus was born. Go!-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 14:49, 16 February 2009 (EST)