Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Essay: Video Games: a form of Media or a Liberal Tool?

2011-06-18T01:03:08Z

MHarris: Took care of the lies that Liberalism is ruling over Video Games and douced

Video Games: A form of Media, or a Liberal Tool?

An Essay by Mark Andrew Harris [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

From it's invention, Video Games have been a means in which to entertain people like the Radio and Television before it. From the moment when the first 'beep' and 'boop' came from the televisions of homes everywhere, people have challenged themselves and others in matches of skill and wit. As time passed and the computers powering the games grew more powerful, stories started to get woven into the entertainment as players took up the roles of soldiers, knights, merchants, bards, other people, animals and even gods to fill their time and find entertainment. Though the longer people have played video games (gamed) the more questions raised about the effect on the Gamers in question. Specifically, if the games aren't trying to infuse Liberal ideas into the players. I will be addressing and with any luck, putting those doubts in their place.

::: What I want to do before I began is lay out two facts so I won't have to repeat them for each issue.
*They are just games.
*They are works of Fiction.
==Anti-God?==

The first thing I want to address the attacks that because God (specifically the Christian/Jewish God) Is not included in the games, the games are trying to promote Atheism or at least demote Christianity or more so attempting to promote paganism. A lot of games don't include God as a major figure, only have God as a minor figure, or have different gods. This is mainly because God is ether hard to include effectively in the games or because the inclusion of God is not such a need as to warrant it. Looking at the Call of Duty games for one, to have a Chaplin fighting along soldiers is not going to help the player, nor is it true in history that they would be everywhere a soldier is.

In the case of supposedly promoting paganism, the critics point to fantasy games such as Pokemon which have beings that are classified as 'gods'. (There is the evolution issue, but that shall be handled later on) What should be noted is that these 'gods' are capture-able like other Pokemon and also are defeat-able, their godlike status is just because of how powerful they are. Several other games use multilevel gods because of how they can be used to grant different abilities. It is a function of the game, not an attempt to promote paganism.

Another game that raised a lot of questions about Gaming's ideas for or against Christianity and monotheism in general is the game Black & White and others like it were you play as a god. This writer wonders how such a game can do so. The player is a new born god brought to life by a prayer. From then on, they can choose to do good acts or evil ones as guided by their advisers, an old man on a cloud representative of Good, and a nude devil representing Evil. From an outsiders perspective, this might seem like a very anti-God game. A man putting themselves on the same level as God? Preposterous! But players instead find little of putting themselves on the same line as God. They haven't made the people they are guiding, they aren't able to do things just by thinking it, they have to rely on the beings they are guiding to give them power to do anything worthwhile.

I conclude by pointing to many other works of fiction outside of Video Games that don't include God in anyway and a lack of any solid proof that they games directly made people turn away from their beliefs. Video Games are a form of media like computers, television or radio that is used to entertain people and if the developers and producers can see a profit or a good reason to promote Christianity, then they will.

==Promoter of Liberalism?==

A few relitively new claims that I have been hearing is that Video Games are promoting a Liberal agenda, or at least is anti-Conservative. The bases of these claims are build, rather weakly, on how violent video games have become. With a person being able to chainsaw a monster in half with blood coating the screen, horror games that have detailed death sequences for the characters and more. I can understand were a misunderstanding can come from. But that is exactly what it is, a misunderstanding. The number of games that show these traits are few and far between but it is because we are so fearful of these traits in video games (an conveniently, not in movies or TV) that they get headline news. I will address some of the major players so I can explain them the best I can.

'''Violance being the main feature''' in games have raised a lot of eyebrows of parents. Games like Grand Thief Auto were you play as a criminal in some form, Gears of War were as I said above you can chainsaw a beast in half, and Modern Warfare that had a stage that includes gunning down people in an airport to try and pass off as a terrorist had not helped. But with each violent game that exists there is another that is good and clean. To use a classic Conservative phrase: "Don't punish the whole for the failure of the individual." If these games are found troubling to an individual than it is the individuals responsibly to speak against the game individually. Not all games are violent.

'''Sex in Video Games''' is no worse than sex in movies, books or TV. The only difference is that, besides that Gaming is a young industry, you actually can control when and if it happens, rather than if you watch or read it. This issue got the limelight with the Hot Coffee Mod first appeared in the game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. The mod opened up a secret, unfinished minigame that was very explicit. Although Rockstar trys to play it off as hackers re-writting some code in the game, when it happened on the Playstation the excuse lost base. What most likely happened was that during development, the makers were ether having some fun or perhaps it was done without Rockstar's knowledge. Such things are not uncommon but it is when the sex is knowingly applyed in game, such as Mass Effect, that things get a bit harder to explain. Unless you are clear minded enough to see that such a tame sex scene is not even worth noting. You can easily view it on Youtube and it is safe for work in my option. Before people attack video games for being so sexual, maybe they should look at their favorite TV shows and Movies.

'''Direct Liberalism''' in this writers option does NOT exist in Video Games, it has never been done before and I doubt it will be done in the future. There is no game were the goal is to get free money to lazy people by taxing hardworking people. There is no game were you free people from the freedom of their republic. There is no game were you destroy an economy, kill an entire race of people, or enslave others and it be a good thing! Excluding of course the games were you play a naturally evil or dark character. Though if an evil character did those thoughts, it wouldn't be supporting Liberalism, would it?

(Next up, games that can teach Conservatism.))

Essay: Video Games: a form of Media or a Liberal Tool?

2011-06-18T01:01:23Z

MHarris: Took care of the lies that Liberalism is ruling over Video Games and douced

Talk:Facebook

2011-06-18T00:10:44Z

MHarris:

Has anyone ever thought to create a Conservapedia Facebook account? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 20:57, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

== Concerns ==

Wouldn't it be appropriate to mention that the privacy controls on Facebook are much better than on other networking sites? The article as it stands makes it sound like anyone's personal information will be available for everyone on the internet to see (as with MySpace), but in truth under the default privacy settings it would only be viewable by people in the same university or network, and privacy levels for every item can be customized. The Bob Jones article about employers using Facebook to research applicants does not seem to take this into consideration either, which makes me question its reliability as a source. The article is completely devoid of details (which employers are doing it), and seems not to notice that it would be mostly impossible for an employer to do this on Facebook. 
I'm giving this one 48 hours for debate, and will trim the "concerns" section accordingly if no one objects. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:49, 17 May 2009 (EDT)
::Done. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:50, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Okay, but that's like saying using a condom while being promiscuous is less risky than not using one. It's still risky (among other things).

:::If there's a social networking website with less risk (and higher morals), let's identify and promote it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

See Main Page news item I just placed. The Marine Corps has identified all major social networking sites as too vulnerable to malware and other malicious problems, and blocked them from its entire network..... --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:25, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

===Privacy===
The Privacy Issues section only has ''one'' source, and that AllExperts page looks out of date... For example, it says only people with a valid school-email address (or from certain other organizations) may sign up, not true anymore... Also un-sourced: "Facebook refuses to admit that its privacy settings that apparently allow only "friends" to see certain information are completely bogus and can easily be cracked by people with little to no hacking experience. Instead, Facebook actually encourages young users to only allow "friends" to see certain information, rather than just warning them that what they post can be seen by the world and to not post what they wouldn't want people to see."

== Liberal? ==

This website seems to be vehemently opposed to facebook, claiming it is liberal. Is allowing people to have their relationship status with another of the same sex really enough to make the website "liberal"? Also the page mentions that the site leads to divorce. What does that have to do with liberalism? If the site really does lead to divorce it is only because people can see what their spouses are doing when they think no one is looking, something that has nothing to do with facebook's policies but rather infidelity in and of itself. This is probably the most bizzare article on conservapedia.--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 19:18, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:By almost any measure, Facebook is a [[liberal]] company/project. Take your pick: whom Facebook hires (former Clinton Press Secretary Joe Lockhart), to whom Facebook caters (Obama), the impact of Facebook on relationships, to which candidates Facebook employees contribute, how Facebook is run, the effect of Facebook on productivity, etc.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
:: I was with you, Asch, until you got into things that can't be backed with fact. I see a lot of potential in Facebook. It can be used to bring people of similar thinking together, though not in the strictly political idea as with FreedomConnecter. I am part of a LOT of conservative groups in Facebook and my productivity is not suffering in the least by me being part of it. If someone suffers from the inability to pull themselves away from the program, that is the fault of the individual, not the whole.

:: blaming the whole for the fault of an individual is a very liberal way of thinking, Andy. Just an FYI. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

:::I don't doubt that some people can use facebook productively and not waste time on it, just as there are conservative people and groups. But on the whole, FB is exactly as it's described in the article. I realize this comparison is out of proportion, but it's analogous to drug use - some may be able to use drugs without ruining their lives, but that doesn't change the fact that drugs in general are very destructive. I suggest adding some information to the article about the more reasonable uses of FB, and perhaps examples of conservative political groups; then the article would show that, as you say, there's a minority on FB who aren't unproductive liberals, without denying the general nature of the site. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:21, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
:::: My point still remains, don't blame the group for the fault of the individual. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]
:::::A.Sch, regardless of the views of their employees, facebook not a partisan group. Obama may take advantage of the site, but so do Sarah Palin and many other conservative groups. And what does facebook's "impact on relationships" or "effect on productivity" have to do with liberalism?--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 19:18, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::The structure of a forum can have inherent political biases. That's already been seen on Wikipedia, for example. Facebook is another example. When something is inherently gossipy, self-centered and unproductive, it's going to be more [[liberal]] than [[conservative]] in result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Don't blame the whole for the faults of the individual. If people gossip, are self-centered or unproductive then it is their faults, not the fault of the tool that can be used to do so. All forms of communication can be used to exhibit those traits.
::::::::A.Sch, ignoring the fact that ''you'' run a website with an inherent political bias, your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy. "Begging the question" to be more specific. You are arguing on the ''assumption'' that A) Facebook is unproductive; and B) that unproductiveness leads to liberalism, neither of which do you provide proof. --[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 23:03, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: (edit conflict) "All men are created equal," but not all systems of government, not all constitutions, not all schools, not all websites and not all encyclopedias. Different rules have different biases. The National Enquirer is not equal to the Christian Science Monitor. Facebook is more like the National Enquirer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:12, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::"''The National Enquirer is not equal to the Christian Science Monitor. Facebook is more like the National Enquirer''" And why is that? (and what does that have to do with anything?) You have yet to provide any proof or evidence to any of your assertions, further suggesting that your argument is based on the logical fallacy "begging the question"--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 23:18, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

I too want to register a complaint about the nature of this article which lambasts a company for what it perceives as "liberal" and dangerous tendencies but fails to acknowledges that Facebook is a private company that generates revenue through legitimate and legal means like all other businesses which operate in the United States. An affront on Facebook is an affront on all websites who make their money through advertising which is just about all of them. Secondly, there are valid issues about privacy but this article never considers fact that users are not compelled by anyone to use Facebook and all information entered is voluntarily given up. What happened to "let the buyer beware"? Is that not a tenet of conservative thought? 
Facebook represents an online presence for individuals and I hardly believe that makes the company liberal by definition. It seems that the issues raised by the authors of this article are on the amount and types of expression that are capable on the site which can be defined as liberal. Don't forget that Facebook allows people to do what they have been doing for decades (sharing photographs, sending messages, inviting people to events and allowing for RSVPS, etc). My suggestion, rewrite the article to make the claim that Facebook is a privately owned company that allows for social networking purposes. In subsequent sections go crazy on the the liberal threats Facebook poses to society. --[[User:Churchofthetrail|Church of the Trail]] 23:36, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:Hear Hear!

::Is the article protected for admins only? If not, happy trails! Go ahead and point out how the private company allows users to voluntarily post their information.

::On the other hand, Facebook does have problems. If we've overemphasized them, then deemphasize them or better yet provide some balance. Less complaining, more writing!

::Here, I'll even help. My own church has trouble finding people who are adept at making websites. So they prefer to use Facebook to publicize church events. Assuming (as I do) that my church has good goals, this is a good aspect of Facebook! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:44, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:: (edit conflict) [[Facebook]] encourages people to waste time with [[gossip]] and other self-centered, mindless activity. It destroys marriages, and displaces healthy social gatherings. Facebook lowers academic achievement. No one is doubting Facebook's "right" to waste people's time and disrupt marriages, but surely there is full [[free speech]] to criticize it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:58, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::: This is gonna be the first time I say this to anyone besides an Evolutionist or a Liberal but Aschlafly.. PROVE IT! [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

:::: (edit conflict) Which do you doubt, and have you looked for studies on the issue yet?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
::::: Heh, conservative beat me to it. v If those stats are true, then TV is more of a Liberal tool than Facebook for pulling away from productivity than Facebook. And you have yet to supply your statements with facts so I question if you sir are just trying to stir up a baseless issue. Is that a red herring or a strawman? [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]
:::::: And you undo my attempt to make the page more like an encyclopedia and STILL don't back up anything you say with fact! This is becoming the Conservative version of Wikipedia and that isn't a good thing. We are supposed to be better than this. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]
:::::::"''No one is doubting Facebook's "right" to waste people's time and disrupt marriages, but surely there is full [[free speech]] to criticize it''"....Again. Begging the question. Whether or not Facebook is a waste of time is an opinion matter. What i want to know is why you use these qualities as evidence of some kind of liberal agenda. And the thing about disrupting marriages, like i said before, the only effect facebook can have is ''exposing'' infidelity. The problem lies with cheating itself, and not with facebook. And seriously, even if facebook was out to break up every marriage, what does that have to do with liberalism? This sub-topic is about facebook's supposed liberal agenda. You have posted some (unfounded) reasons for disliking the site, but you have not shown any correlation to liberalism--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 13:40, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I think there's plenty there to link FB to liberalism - the founder is a liberal, his staff is overwhelmingly liberal, the site exemplifies liberal values and the population of the site is heavily (although not entirely) liberally biased. All of that is well documented; is that not enough to say that FB is liberal? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:05, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: So you have the staff roster, Jcw? You have it were they checked off 'Liberal' in their application? You have their business plan that says 'Lets do things that are more Liberal!' in big bold letters? Do you have any proof to back up what you are saying? If you do, I would love to see it.
::::::::::No sooner said than done: [http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/all_summary.php?id=D000033563&nid=0 facebook staff campaign contributions.] [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:47, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: Oh wonderful, you've shown that the majority of people within the company who donated their own private money went for Obama. Now, how about you try and prove that the company is actively trying to lead people to Liberal ideology, ruin marriages, promote gossip, and everything else that is being said on this page. I would love to see that. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]
== Facebook's harmful effects ==

Facebook problems seem to be a small societal issue. I cite: "Back in June 2009, Nielsen estimated that the average U.S. user spent four hours and 39 minutes on Facebook per month. That’s about 9.3 minutes per day in a 30-day month. In August, that number rose to five hours and 46 minutes, or 11.5 minutes per day."[http://mashable.com/2010/02/16/facebook-nielsen-stats/]

Here is the June 2011 stats for TV watching and it seems people watch far more TV:

"Nielsen polled about 2,600 people who said they watched videos online in the first three months of the year, and divided them into fifths based on how much they watch. The fifth that watched the most video online consumed nearly 19 minutes a day, and also watched the least amount of television, at about four hours and 32 minutes a day. The fifth that watched the least online video _ at less than a tenth of a minute a day _ watched the most TV at 4 hours and 50 minutes.

Nielsen said such a finding doesn't indicate that people are about to drop their pay TV packages to watch video only online, a notion known as "cord cutting." About 91 percent of TV households still paid for a TV subscription in the first quarter, and most of the changes had to do with people switching between cable, telephone and satellite companies.

Overall, TV viewing crept up by 0.2 percent from a year ago to 158 hours and 47 minutes a month, while video watching on the Internet jumped 35 percent to 4 hours and 33 minutes per month. Watching on mobile devices such as smartphones rose 20 percent to 4 hours and 20 minutes a month."[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/jun/15/us-nielsen-online-viewing/] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:23, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:Interesting data, but they omit demographic differences and fail to address effects like destroying marriages and lowering academic performance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:00, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
::::It would make sense that the data above referring to the heavier users of Facebook would probably apply to the younger demographic. Those heavier users of Facebook still watched a lot more television as a whole. Next, this Brazilian study indicates that television watching has a significant effect on divorce rates.[http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=1856109] Television also affects sexual behavior and levels of violence in a negative way. [http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/facts/mediafacts.asp] Since most people, which probably includes the younger demographic, watch far more television, it would make sense that television causes more harm to society than any negative effects caused by Facebook. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:19, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::In addition, television tends to lower academic success.[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7626-watching-tv-harms-kids-academic-success.html] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:22, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I have decided to retire permanently from the discussion about Facebook. I hope the information I provided was useful. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:30, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

We don't delete factual information here, or downplay it by placing it later in an entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
: If you have facts, then put it on the page. I just see unfounded statements. Citation please, specifically for these:
* Other studies done have shown that the use of Facebook is associated with poorer performance in school. Facebook use is also associated with a substantial percentage of marital problems. The site is heavily promoted by liberals, presumably because it is so unproductive or even counterproductive.
* Anybody with an account can create an unlimited amount of unproductive pages, which can then be "liked" by other users. (The 'Unproductive' part)
:And how is this statement 'fact'? "Users can waste their time on it in a variety of ways: by uploading pictures (typically of themselves), by gossiping about others, by interfering with marriages and personal relationships, and by acting like a busybody."
: Looks to me like an option. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

::What do you seriously dispute about those statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::: Everything. How do you know that Facebook is the single cause of any negative or positive effect? How do you know that Facebook can only be unproductive? What definition of 'productive' are you using? How do you know people are wasting time on it? How is uploading pictures unproductive? How do you know that everyone is gossiping? How do you know everyone is interfering with marriages and personal relationships and being a busybody?

::: I use Facebook, and I don't do any of those things. No one I know does those things. You have not, nay cannot find anything to back your claims that is solid because there are none. You are using this page to attack Facebook because YOU don't like it. I thought Conservapedia was above such actions. Am I wrong, sir?

:::: It took me less than 60 seconds to find a study documenting the correlation between Facebook and lower academic performance ... as well students' unpersuasive denials of such an effect. [http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/facebookusers.htm] --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: Maybe you should have taken another 60 to read it. I quote; "We can’t say that use of Facebook leads to lower grades and less studying – but we did find a relationship there,” said Aryn Karpinski, co-author of the study and a doctoral student in education at Ohio State University." You have not found a study that links Facebook as the single force in reducing academic performance. I continue.

::::: "While this was a relatively small, exploratory study, it is one of the first to find a relationship between college students’ use of Facebook and their academic achievement." That tells me one of two things. Ether this is the first study done on this meaning that the information has not been proven repeatedly. Or this is the first of many studies that supports the claim, giving the impression that the case might be isolated.

::::: "Typically, Facebook users in the study had GPAs between 3.0 and 3.5, while non-users had GPAs between 3.5 and 4.0. In addition, users said they averaged one to five hours a week studying, while non-users studied 11 to 15 hours per week." One point? That's it? Big whoop. Its the difference between an A and a B, just be glad they got in college. And does 11 to 15 hours of studding really grant 1 point of GPA to every student? It would make me burn out and I might flunk out.

::::: "Students who spent more time working at paid jobs were less likely to use Facebook, while students who were more involved in extracurricular activities at school were more likely to use Facebook." Giving the impression that Facebook is something that is used to fill in free time confirming what Conservative said above

::::: "Science, technology, engineering, math (STEM) and business majors were more likely to use Facebook than were students majoring in the humanities and social sciences." Giving the impression that the more likely majors are ones that promote personal connections and the exchange of ideas while the less likely ones are not doing so or already have more physical connections though school clubs. Also; “Other research had indicated that STEM majors spend more time on the Internet than do other students, so that may be one reason why they are more likely to use Facebook,” Karpinski said.

::::: "Karpinski emphasized that the results don’t necessarily mean that Facebook use leads to lower grades. “There may be other factors involved, such as personality traits, that link Facebook use and lower grades,” she said. Don't blame the tool for the failures of the individual! People who use Facebook and have lower grades might already have a personality trait that makes them more keen to spend time on things that are fun than on things that aren't fun to them. We can do this study on ANYTHING and find almost similar results. (I say almost because people who do activities that are educational and that they enjoy might not be effected) And my statement is backed up by this; “It may be that if it wasn’t for Facebook, some students would still find other ways to avoid studying, and would still get lower grades. But perhaps the lower GPAs could actually be because students are spending too much time socializing online.” that was Karpinski, the one who did the study.

::::: Once again, you have not proven anything you have put on the page to be solid truth. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

:::: Not to weigh in on either side of this discussion, but it is important to remember when reading any type of study or research article that a '''correlation does not imply causality''' - this is a basic statistical principle that helps us to avoid erroneous conclusions based on coincidence. MHarris is correct to ask whether or not a factor being correlated to a negative or positive effect is actually responsible for this effect. To answer this question, the study must perform some kind of experimentation, set up their own system that can be perturbed to determine if the effect being measured is actually impacted by the factor of interest.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:58, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::But not in the way MHarris has asked - or rather, ''demanded'' - for proof. It's one thing to ask, and then sit back and merely wait for a response, but another to badger to the point of antagonism. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:02, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Sorry, I tend to get a bit.. heated about things like this. But my point, I believe, is still valid.
::::::::Yes, you do have a valid point, but it's best to ask, and ask just once. If possible, it could take you a few clicks of the mouse to find a valid reference either proving or disproving the Facebook/liberal theory. But here's a fact that ASchlafly did prove: you spend time away from your homework to do other things, your grades will go down, and it doesn't matter if the other thing is Facebook. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:12, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: Aschlafly wasn't trying to prove that, sir. He was trying to prove that Facebook specifically was lowering grades. I am trying to refute that people who let themselves be pulled away from homework is at fault, not anything that the people do. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

== Facebook use is also associated with a substantial percentage of marital problems ==

I talked about this at [[Talk:Social_media#Citations]]... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:59, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:Should I point out here or there that the first pool was about what the lawyers did, not what the people in the relationship said or did nor does it raise up if the lawyers actually found anything substantial when they researched the person's Facebook? Or what about the second link that didn't actually talk about any research, but just what a few divorce firms have found on not only Facebook, but Second Life and another social networking site? [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

::[[User:Jpatt]]'s source relies on the discredited articles mentioned at [[Talk:Social_media#Citations]] and anecdotes. Therefore I remove it. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:24, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Facebook

2011-06-17T23:11:55Z

MHarris:

Has anyone ever thought to create a Conservapedia Facebook account? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 20:57, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

== Concerns ==

Wouldn't it be appropriate to mention that the privacy controls on Facebook are much better than on other networking sites? The article as it stands makes it sound like anyone's personal information will be available for everyone on the internet to see (as with MySpace), but in truth under the default privacy settings it would only be viewable by people in the same university or network, and privacy levels for every item can be customized. The Bob Jones article about employers using Facebook to research applicants does not seem to take this into consideration either, which makes me question its reliability as a source. The article is completely devoid of details (which employers are doing it), and seems not to notice that it would be mostly impossible for an employer to do this on Facebook. 
I'm giving this one 48 hours for debate, and will trim the "concerns" section accordingly if no one objects. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:49, 17 May 2009 (EDT)
::Done. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:50, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Okay, but that's like saying using a condom while being promiscuous is less risky than not using one. It's still risky (among other things).

:::If there's a social networking website with less risk (and higher morals), let's identify and promote it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

See Main Page news item I just placed. The Marine Corps has identified all major social networking sites as too vulnerable to malware and other malicious problems, and blocked them from its entire network..... --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:25, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

===Privacy===
The Privacy Issues section only has ''one'' source, and that AllExperts page looks out of date... For example, it says only people with a valid school-email address (or from certain other organizations) may sign up, not true anymore... Also un-sourced: "Facebook refuses to admit that its privacy settings that apparently allow only "friends" to see certain information are completely bogus and can easily be cracked by people with little to no hacking experience. Instead, Facebook actually encourages young users to only allow "friends" to see certain information, rather than just warning them that what they post can be seen by the world and to not post what they wouldn't want people to see."

== Liberal? ==

This website seems to be vehemently opposed to facebook, claiming it is liberal. Is allowing people to have their relationship status with another of the same sex really enough to make the website "liberal"? Also the page mentions that the site leads to divorce. What does that have to do with liberalism? If the site really does lead to divorce it is only because people can see what their spouses are doing when they think no one is looking, something that has nothing to do with facebook's policies but rather infidelity in and of itself. This is probably the most bizzare article on conservapedia.--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 19:18, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:By almost any measure, Facebook is a [[liberal]] company/project. Take your pick: whom Facebook hires (former Clinton Press Secretary Joe Lockhart), to whom Facebook caters (Obama), the impact of Facebook on relationships, to which candidates Facebook employees contribute, how Facebook is run, the effect of Facebook on productivity, etc.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
:: I was with you, Asch, until you got into things that can't be backed with fact. I see a lot of potential in Facebook. It can be used to bring people of similar thinking together, though not in the strictly political idea as with FreedomConnecter. I am part of a LOT of conservative groups in Facebook and my productivity is not suffering in the least by me being part of it. If someone suffers from the inability to pull themselves away from the program, that is the fault of the individual, not the whole.

:: blaming the whole for the fault of an individual is a very liberal way of thinking, Andy. Just an FYI. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

:::I don't doubt that some people can use facebook productively and not waste time on it, just as there are conservative people and groups. But on the whole, FB is exactly as it's described in the article. I realize this comparison is out of proportion, but it's analogous to drug use - some may be able to use drugs without ruining their lives, but that doesn't change the fact that drugs in general are very destructive. I suggest adding some information to the article about the more reasonable uses of FB, and perhaps examples of conservative political groups; then the article would show that, as you say, there's a minority on FB who aren't unproductive liberals, without denying the general nature of the site. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:21, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
:::: My point still remains, don't blame the group for the fault of the individual. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]
:::::A.Sch, regardless of the views of their employees, facebook not a partisan group. Obama may take advantage of the site, but so do Sarah Palin and many other conservative groups. And what does facebook's "impact on relationships" or "effect on productivity" have to do with liberalism?--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 19:18, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::The structure of a forum can have inherent political biases. That's already been seen on Wikipedia, for example. Facebook is another example. When something is inherently gossipy, self-centered and unproductive, it's going to be more [[liberal]] than [[conservative]] in result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Don't blame the whole for the faults of the individual. If people gossip, are self-centered or unproductive then it is their faults, not the fault of the tool that can be used to do so. All forms of communication can be used to exhibit those traits.
::::::::A.Sch, ignoring the fact that ''you'' run a website with an inherent political bias, your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy. "Begging the question" to be more specific. You are arguing on the ''assumption'' that A) Facebook is unproductive; and B) that unproductiveness leads to liberalism, neither of which do you provide proof. --[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 23:03, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: (edit conflict) "All men are created equal," but not all systems of government, not all constitutions, not all schools, not all websites and not all encyclopedias. Different rules have different biases. The National Enquirer is not equal to the Christian Science Monitor. Facebook is more like the National Enquirer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:12, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::"''The National Enquirer is not equal to the Christian Science Monitor. Facebook is more like the National Enquirer''" And why is that? (and what does that have to do with anything?) You have yet to provide any proof or evidence to any of your assertions, further suggesting that your argument is based on the logical fallacy "begging the question"--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 23:18, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

I too want to register a complaint about the nature of this article which lambasts a company for what it perceives as "liberal" and dangerous tendencies but fails to acknowledges that Facebook is a private company that generates revenue through legitimate and legal means like all other businesses which operate in the United States. An affront on Facebook is an affront on all websites who make their money through advertising which is just about all of them. Secondly, there are valid issues about privacy but this article never considers fact that users are not compelled by anyone to use Facebook and all information entered is voluntarily given up. What happened to "let the buyer beware"? Is that not a tenet of conservative thought? 
Facebook represents an online presence for individuals and I hardly believe that makes the company liberal by definition. It seems that the issues raised by the authors of this article are on the amount and types of expression that are capable on the site which can be defined as liberal. Don't forget that Facebook allows people to do what they have been doing for decades (sharing photographs, sending messages, inviting people to events and allowing for RSVPS, etc). My suggestion, rewrite the article to make the claim that Facebook is a privately owned company that allows for social networking purposes. In subsequent sections go crazy on the the liberal threats Facebook poses to society. --[[User:Churchofthetrail|Church of the Trail]] 23:36, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:Hear Hear!

::Is the article protected for admins only? If not, happy trails! Go ahead and point out how the private company allows users to voluntarily post their information.

::On the other hand, Facebook does have problems. If we've overemphasized them, then deemphasize them or better yet provide some balance. Less complaining, more writing!

::Here, I'll even help. My own church has trouble finding people who are adept at making websites. So they prefer to use Facebook to publicize church events. Assuming (as I do) that my church has good goals, this is a good aspect of Facebook! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:44, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:: (edit conflict) [[Facebook]] encourages people to waste time with [[gossip]] and other self-centered, mindless activity. It destroys marriages, and displaces healthy social gatherings. Facebook lowers academic achievement. No one is doubting Facebook's "right" to waste people's time and disrupt marriages, but surely there is full [[free speech]] to criticize it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:58, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::: This is gonna be the first time I say this to anyone besides an Evolutionist or a Liberal but Aschlafly.. PROVE IT! [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

:::: (edit conflict) Which do you doubt, and have you looked for studies on the issue yet?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
::::: Heh, conservative beat me to it. v If those stats are true, then TV is more of a Liberal tool than Facebook for pulling away from productivity than Facebook. And you have yet to supply your statements with facts so I question if you sir are just trying to stir up a baseless issue. Is that a red herring or a strawman? [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]
:::::: And you undo my attempt to make the page more like an encyclopedia and STILL don't back up anything you say with fact! This is becoming the Conservative version of Wikipedia and that isn't a good thing. We are supposed to be better than this. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]
:::::::"''No one is doubting Facebook's "right" to waste people's time and disrupt marriages, but surely there is full [[free speech]] to criticize it''"....Again. Begging the question. Whether or not Facebook is a waste of time is an opinion matter. What i want to know is why you use these qualities as evidence of some kind of liberal agenda. And the thing about disrupting marriages, like i said before, the only effect facebook can have is ''exposing'' infidelity. The problem lies with cheating itself, and not with facebook. And seriously, even if facebook was out to break up every marriage, what does that have to do with liberalism? This sub-topic is about facebook's supposed liberal agenda. You have posted some (unfounded) reasons for disliking the site, but you have not shown any correlation to liberalism--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 13:40, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I think there's plenty there to link FB to liberalism - the founder is a liberal, his staff is overwhelmingly liberal, the site exemplifies liberal values and the population of the site is heavily (although not entirely) liberally biased. All of that is well documented; is that not enough to say that FB is liberal? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:05, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: So you have the staff roster, Jcw? You have it were they checked off 'Liberal' in their application? You have their business plan that says 'Lets do things that are more Liberal!' in big bold letters? Do you have any proof to back up what you are saying? If you do, I would love to see it.

== Facebook's harmful effects ==

Facebook problems seem to be a small societal issue. I cite: "Back in June 2009, Nielsen estimated that the average U.S. user spent four hours and 39 minutes on Facebook per month. That’s about 9.3 minutes per day in a 30-day month. In August, that number rose to five hours and 46 minutes, or 11.5 minutes per day."[http://mashable.com/2010/02/16/facebook-nielsen-stats/]

Here is the June 2011 stats for TV watching and it seems people watch far more TV:

"Nielsen polled about 2,600 people who said they watched videos online in the first three months of the year, and divided them into fifths based on how much they watch. The fifth that watched the most video online consumed nearly 19 minutes a day, and also watched the least amount of television, at about four hours and 32 minutes a day. The fifth that watched the least online video _ at less than a tenth of a minute a day _ watched the most TV at 4 hours and 50 minutes.

Nielsen said such a finding doesn't indicate that people are about to drop their pay TV packages to watch video only online, a notion known as "cord cutting." About 91 percent of TV households still paid for a TV subscription in the first quarter, and most of the changes had to do with people switching between cable, telephone and satellite companies.

Overall, TV viewing crept up by 0.2 percent from a year ago to 158 hours and 47 minutes a month, while video watching on the Internet jumped 35 percent to 4 hours and 33 minutes per month. Watching on mobile devices such as smartphones rose 20 percent to 4 hours and 20 minutes a month."[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/jun/15/us-nielsen-online-viewing/] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:23, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:Interesting data, but they omit demographic differences and fail to address effects like destroying marriages and lowering academic performance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:00, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
::::It would make sense that the data above referring to the heavier users of Facebook would probably apply to the younger demographic. Those heavier users of Facebook still watched a lot more television as a whole. Next, this Brazilian study indicates that television watching has a significant effect on divorce rates.[http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=1856109] Television also affects sexual behavior and levels of violence in a negative way. [http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/facts/mediafacts.asp] Since most people, which probably includes the younger demographic, watch far more television, it would make sense that television causes more harm to society than any negative effects caused by Facebook. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:19, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::In addition, television tends to lower academic success.[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7626-watching-tv-harms-kids-academic-success.html] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:22, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I have decided to retire permanently from the discussion about Facebook. I hope the information I provided was useful. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:30, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

We don't delete factual information here, or downplay it by placing it later in an entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
: If you have facts, then put it on the page. I just see unfounded statements. Citation please, specifically for these:
* Other studies done have shown that the use of Facebook is associated with poorer performance in school. Facebook use is also associated with a substantial percentage of marital problems. The site is heavily promoted by liberals, presumably because it is so unproductive or even counterproductive.
* Anybody with an account can create an unlimited amount of unproductive pages, which can then be "liked" by other users. (The 'Unproductive' part)
:And how is this statement 'fact'? "Users can waste their time on it in a variety of ways: by uploading pictures (typically of themselves), by gossiping about others, by interfering with marriages and personal relationships, and by acting like a busybody."
: Looks to me like an option. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

::What do you seriously dispute about those statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::: Everything. How do you know that Facebook is the single cause of any negative or positive effect? How do you know that Facebook can only be unproductive? What definition of 'productive' are you using? How do you know people are wasting time on it? How is uploading pictures unproductive? How do you know that everyone is gossiping? How do you know everyone is interfering with marriages and personal relationships and being a busybody?

::: I use Facebook, and I don't do any of those things. No one I know does those things. You have not, nay cannot find anything to back your claims that is solid because there are none. You are using this page to attack Facebook because YOU don't like it. I thought Conservapedia was above such actions. Am I wrong, sir?

:::: It took me less than 60 seconds to find a study documenting the correlation between Facebook and lower academic performance ... as well students' unpersuasive denials of such an effect. [http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/facebookusers.htm] --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: Maybe you should have taken another 60 to read it. I quote; "We can’t say that use of Facebook leads to lower grades and less studying – but we did find a relationship there,” said Aryn Karpinski, co-author of the study and a doctoral student in education at Ohio State University." You have not found a study that links Facebook as the single force in reducing academic performance. I continue.

::::: "While this was a relatively small, exploratory study, it is one of the first to find a relationship between college students’ use of Facebook and their academic achievement." That tells me one of two things. Ether this is the first study done on this meaning that the information has not been proven repeatedly. Or this is the first of many studies that supports the claim, giving the impression that the case might be isolated.

::::: "Typically, Facebook users in the study had GPAs between 3.0 and 3.5, while non-users had GPAs between 3.5 and 4.0. In addition, users said they averaged one to five hours a week studying, while non-users studied 11 to 15 hours per week." One point? That's it? Big whoop. Its the difference between an A and a B, just be glad they got in college. And does 11 to 15 hours of studding really grant 1 point of GPA to every student? It would make me burn out and I might flunk out.

::::: "Students who spent more time working at paid jobs were less likely to use Facebook, while students who were more involved in extracurricular activities at school were more likely to use Facebook." Giving the impression that Facebook is something that is used to fill in free time confirming what Conservative said above

::::: "Science, technology, engineering, math (STEM) and business majors were more likely to use Facebook than were students majoring in the humanities and social sciences." Giving the impression that the more likely majors are ones that promote personal connections and the exchange of ideas while the less likely ones are not doing so or already have more physical connections though school clubs. Also; “Other research had indicated that STEM majors spend more time on the Internet than do other students, so that may be one reason why they are more likely to use Facebook,” Karpinski said.

::::: "Karpinski emphasized that the results don’t necessarily mean that Facebook use leads to lower grades. “There may be other factors involved, such as personality traits, that link Facebook use and lower grades,” she said. Don't blame the tool for the failures of the individual! People who use Facebook and have lower grades might already have a personality trait that makes them more keen to spend time on things that are fun than on things that aren't fun to them. We can do this study on ANYTHING and find almost similar results. (I say almost because people who do activities that are educational and that they enjoy might not be effected) And my statement is backed up by this; “It may be that if it wasn’t for Facebook, some students would still find other ways to avoid studying, and would still get lower grades. But perhaps the lower GPAs could actually be because students are spending too much time socializing online.” that was Karpinski, the one who did the study.

::::: Once again, you have not proven anything you have put on the page to be solid truth. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

:::: Not to weigh in on either side of this discussion, but it is important to remember when reading any type of study or research article that a '''correlation does not imply causality''' - this is a basic statistical principle that helps us to avoid erroneous conclusions based on coincidence. MHarris is correct to ask whether or not a factor being correlated to a negative or positive effect is actually responsible for this effect. To answer this question, the study must perform some kind of experimentation, set up their own system that can be perturbed to determine if the effect being measured is actually impacted by the factor of interest.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:58, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::But not in the way MHarris has asked - or rather, ''demanded'' - for proof. It's one thing to ask, and then sit back and merely wait for a response, but another to badger to the point of antagonism. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:02, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Sorry, I tend to get a bit.. heated about things like this. But my point, I believe, is still valid.
::::::::Yes, you do have a valid point, but it's best to ask, and ask just once. If possible, it could take you a few clicks of the mouse to find a valid reference either proving or disproving the Facebook/liberal theory. But here's a fact that ASchlafly did prove: you spend time away from your homework to do other things, your grades will go down, and it doesn't matter if the other thing is Facebook. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:12, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: Aschlafly wasn't trying to prove that, sir. He was trying to prove that Facebook specifically was lowering grades. I am trying to refute that people who let themselves be pulled away from homework is at fault, not anything that the people do. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

== Facebook use is also associated with a substantial percentage of marital problems ==

I talked about this at [[Talk:Social_media#Citations]]... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:59, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:Should I point out here or there that the first pool was about what the lawyers did, not what the people in the relationship said or did nor does it raise up if the lawyers actually found anything substantial when they researched the person's Facebook? Or what about the second link that didn't actually talk about any research, but just what a few divorce firms have found on not only Facebook, but Second Life and another social networking site? [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

::[[User:Jpatt]]'s source relies on the discredited articles mentioned at [[Talk:Social_media#Citations]] and anecdotes. Therefore I remove it. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:24, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Facebook

2011-06-17T14:10:10Z

MHarris:

Has anyone ever thought to create a Conservapedia Facebook account? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 20:57, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

== Concerns ==

Wouldn't it be appropriate to mention that the privacy controls on Facebook are much better than on other networking sites? The article as it stands makes it sound like anyone's personal information will be available for everyone on the internet to see (as with MySpace), but in truth under the default privacy settings it would only be viewable by people in the same university or network, and privacy levels for every item can be customized. The Bob Jones article about employers using Facebook to research applicants does not seem to take this into consideration either, which makes me question its reliability as a source. The article is completely devoid of details (which employers are doing it), and seems not to notice that it would be mostly impossible for an employer to do this on Facebook. 
I'm giving this one 48 hours for debate, and will trim the "concerns" section accordingly if no one objects. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:49, 17 May 2009 (EDT)
::Done. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:50, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Okay, but that's like saying using a condom while being promiscuous is less risky than not using one. It's still risky (among other things).

:::If there's a social networking website with less risk (and higher morals), let's identify and promote it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

See Main Page news item I just placed. The Marine Corps has identified all major social networking sites as too vulnerable to malware and other malicious problems, and blocked them from its entire network..... --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:25, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

===Privacy===
The Privacy Issues section only has ''one'' source, and that AllExperts page looks out of date... For example, it says only people with a valid school-email address (or from certain other organizations) may sign up, not true anymore... Also un-sourced: "Facebook refuses to admit that its privacy settings that apparently allow only "friends" to see certain information are completely bogus and can easily be cracked by people with little to no hacking experience. Instead, Facebook actually encourages young users to only allow "friends" to see certain information, rather than just warning them that what they post can be seen by the world and to not post what they wouldn't want people to see."

== Liberal? ==

This website seems to be vehemently opposed to facebook, claiming it is liberal. Is allowing people to have their relationship status with another of the same sex really enough to make the website "liberal"? Also the page mentions that the site leads to divorce. What does that have to do with liberalism? If the site really does lead to divorce it is only because people can see what their spouses are doing when they think no one is looking, something that has nothing to do with facebook's policies but rather infidelity in and of itself. This is probably the most bizzare article on conservapedia.--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 19:18, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:By almost any measure, Facebook is a [[liberal]] company/project. Take your pick: whom Facebook hires (former Clinton Press Secretary Joe Lockhart), to whom Facebook caters (Obama), the impact of Facebook on relationships, to which candidates Facebook employees contribute, how Facebook is run, the effect of Facebook on productivity, etc.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
:: I was with you, Asch, until you got into things that can't be backed with fact. I see a lot of potential in Facebook. It can be used to bring people of similar thinking together, though not in the strictly political idea as with FreedomConnecter. I am part of a LOT of conservative groups in Facebook and my productivity is not suffering in the least by me being part of it. If someone suffers from the inability to pull themselves away from the program, that is the fault of the individual, not the whole.

:: blaming the whole for the fault of an individual is a very liberal way of thinking, Andy. Just an FYI. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

:::I don't doubt that some people can use facebook productively and not waste time on it, just as there are conservative people and groups. But on the whole, FB is exactly as it's described in the article. I realize this comparison is out of proportion, but it's analogous to drug use - some may be able to use drugs without ruining their lives, but that doesn't change the fact that drugs in general are very destructive. I suggest adding some information to the article about the more reasonable uses of FB, and perhaps examples of conservative political groups; then the article would show that, as you say, there's a minority on FB who aren't unproductive liberals, without denying the general nature of the site. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:21, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
:::: My point still remains, don't blame the group for the fault of the individual. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]
:::::A.Sch, regardless of the views of their employees, facebook not a partisan group. Obama may take advantage of the site, but so do Sarah Palin and many other conservative groups. And what does facebook's "impact on relationships" or "effect on productivity" have to do with liberalism?--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 19:18, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::The structure of a forum can have inherent political biases. That's already been seen on Wikipedia, for example. Facebook is another example. When something is inherently gossipy, self-centered and unproductive, it's going to be more [[liberal]] than [[conservative]] in result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Don't blame the whole for the faults of the individual. If people gossip, are self-centered or unproductive then it is their faults, not the fault of the tool that can be used to do so. All forms of communication can be used to exhibit those traits.
::::::::A.Sch, ignoring the fact that ''you'' run a website with an inherent political bias, your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy. "Begging the question" to be more specific. You are arguing on the ''assumption'' that A) Facebook is unproductive; and B) that unproductiveness leads to liberalism, neither of which do you provide proof. --[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 23:03, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: (edit conflict) "All men are created equal," but not all systems of government, not all constitutions, not all schools, not all websites and not all encyclopedias. Different rules have different biases. The National Enquirer is not equal to the Christian Science Monitor. Facebook is more like the National Enquirer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:12, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::"''The National Enquirer is not equal to the Christian Science Monitor. Facebook is more like the National Enquirer''" And why is that? (and what does that have to do with anything?) You have yet to provide any proof or evidence to any of your assertions, further suggesting that your argument is based on the logical fallacy "begging the question"--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 23:18, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

I too want to register a complaint about the nature of this article which lambasts a company for what it perceives as "liberal" and dangerous tendencies but fails to acknowledges that Facebook is a private company that generates revenue through legitimate and legal means like all other businesses which operate in the United States. An affront on Facebook is an affront on all websites who make their money through advertising which is just about all of them. Secondly, there are valid issues about privacy but this article never considers fact that users are not compelled by anyone to use Facebook and all information entered is voluntarily given up. What happened to "let the buyer beware"? Is that not a tenet of conservative thought? 
Facebook represents an online presence for individuals and I hardly believe that makes the company liberal by definition. It seems that the issues raised by the authors of this article are on the amount and types of expression that are capable on the site which can be defined as liberal. Don't forget that Facebook allows people to do what they have been doing for decades (sharing photographs, sending messages, inviting people to events and allowing for RSVPS, etc). My suggestion, rewrite the article to make the claim that Facebook is a privately owned company that allows for social networking purposes. In subsequent sections go crazy on the the liberal threats Facebook poses to society. --[[User:Churchofthetrail|Church of the Trail]] 23:36, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:Hear Hear!

::Is the article protected for admins only? If not, happy trails! Go ahead and point out how the private company allows users to voluntarily post their information.

::On the other hand, Facebook does have problems. If we've overemphasized them, then deemphasize them or better yet provide some balance. Less complaining, more writing!

::Here, I'll even help. My own church has trouble finding people who are adept at making websites. So they prefer to use Facebook to publicize church events. Assuming (as I do) that my church has good goals, this is a good aspect of Facebook! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:44, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:: (edit conflict) [[Facebook]] encourages people to waste time with [[gossip]] and other self-centered, mindless activity. It destroys marriages, and displaces healthy social gatherings. Facebook lowers academic achievement. No one is doubting Facebook's "right" to waste people's time and disrupt marriages, but surely there is full [[free speech]] to criticize it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:58, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::: This is gonna be the first time I say this to anyone besides an Evolutionist or a Liberal but Aschlafly.. PROVE IT! [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

:::: (edit conflict) Which do you doubt, and have you looked for studies on the issue yet?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
::::: Heh, conservative beat me to it. v If those stats are true, then TV is more of a Liberal tool than Facebook for pulling away from productivity than Facebook. And you have yet to supply your statements with facts so I question if you sir are just trying to stir up a baseless issue. Is that a red herring or a strawman? [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]
:::::: And you undo my attempt to make the page more like an encyclopedia and STILL don't back up anything you say with fact! This is becoming the Conservative version of Wikipedia and that isn't a good thing. We are supposed to be better than this. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

== Facebook's harmful effects ==

Facebook problems seem to be a small societal issue. I cite: "Back in June 2009, Nielsen estimated that the average U.S. user spent four hours and 39 minutes on Facebook per month. That’s about 9.3 minutes per day in a 30-day month. In August, that number rose to five hours and 46 minutes, or 11.5 minutes per day."[http://mashable.com/2010/02/16/facebook-nielsen-stats/]

Here is the June 2011 stats for TV watching and it seems people watch far more TV:

"Nielsen polled about 2,600 people who said they watched videos online in the first three months of the year, and divided them into fifths based on how much they watch. The fifth that watched the most video online consumed nearly 19 minutes a day, and also watched the least amount of television, at about four hours and 32 minutes a day. The fifth that watched the least online video _ at less than a tenth of a minute a day _ watched the most TV at 4 hours and 50 minutes.

Nielsen said such a finding doesn't indicate that people are about to drop their pay TV packages to watch video only online, a notion known as "cord cutting." About 91 percent of TV households still paid for a TV subscription in the first quarter, and most of the changes had to do with people switching between cable, telephone and satellite companies.

Overall, TV viewing crept up by 0.2 percent from a year ago to 158 hours and 47 minutes a month, while video watching on the Internet jumped 35 percent to 4 hours and 33 minutes per month. Watching on mobile devices such as smartphones rose 20 percent to 4 hours and 20 minutes a month."[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/jun/15/us-nielsen-online-viewing/] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:23, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:Interesting data, but they omit demographic differences and fail to address effects like destroying marriages and lowering academic performance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:00, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
::::It would make sense that the data above referring to the heavier users of Facebook would probably apply to the younger demographic. Those heavier users of Facebook still watched a lot more television as a whole. Next, this Brazilian study indicates that television watching has a significant effect on divorce rates.[http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=1856109] Television also affects sexual behavior and levels of violence in a negative way. [http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/facts/mediafacts.asp] Since most people, which probably includes the younger demographic, watch far more television, it would make sense that television causes more harm to society than any negative effects caused by Facebook. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:19, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::In addition, television tends to lower academic success.[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7626-watching-tv-harms-kids-academic-success.html] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:22, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I have decided to retire permanently from the discussion about Facebook. I hope the information I provided was useful. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:30, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

We don't delete factual information here, or downplay it by placing it later in an entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
: If you have facts, then put it on the page. I just see unfounded statements. Citation please, specifically for these:
* Other studies done have shown that the use of Facebook is associated with poorer performance in school. Facebook use is also associated with a substantial percentage of marital problems. The site is heavily promoted by liberals, presumably because it is so unproductive or even counterproductive.
* Anybody with an account can create an unlimited amount of unproductive pages, which can then be "liked" by other users. (The 'Unproductive' part)
:And how is this statement 'fact'? "Users can waste their time on it in a variety of ways: by uploading pictures (typically of themselves), by gossiping about others, by interfering with marriages and personal relationships, and by acting like a busybody."
: Looks to me like an option. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

::What do you seriously dispute about those statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::: Everything. How do you know that Facebook is the single cause of any negative or positive effect? How do you know that Facebook can only be unproductive? What definition of 'productive' are you using? How do you know people are wasting time on it? How is uploading pictures unproductive? How do you know that everyone is gossiping? How do you know everyone is interfering with marriages and personal relationships and being a busybody?

::: I use Facebook, and I don't do any of those things. No one I know does those things. You have not, nay cannot find anything to back your claims that is solid because there are none. You are using this page to attack Facebook because YOU don't like it. I thought Conservapedia was above such actions. Am I wrong, sir?

:::: It took me less than 60 seconds to find a study documenting the correlation between Facebook and lower academic performance ... as well students' unpersuasive denials of such an effect. [http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/facebookusers.htm] --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: Maybe you should have taken another 60 to read it. I quote; "We can’t say that use of Facebook leads to lower grades and less studying – but we did find a relationship there,” said Aryn Karpinski, co-author of the study and a doctoral student in education at Ohio State University." You have not found a study that links Facebook as the single force in reducing academic performance. I continue.

::::: "While this was a relatively small, exploratory study, it is one of the first to find a relationship between college students’ use of Facebook and their academic achievement." That tells me one of two things. Ether this is the first study done on this meaning that the information has not been proven repeatedly. Or this is the first of many studies that supports the claim, giving the impression that the case might be isolated.

::::: "Typically, Facebook users in the study had GPAs between 3.0 and 3.5, while non-users had GPAs between 3.5 and 4.0. In addition, users said they averaged one to five hours a week studying, while non-users studied 11 to 15 hours per week." One point? That's it? Big whoop. Its the difference between an A and a B, just be glad they got in college. And does 11 to 15 hours of studding really grant 1 point of GPA to every student? It would make me burn out and I might flunk out.

::::: "Students who spent more time working at paid jobs were less likely to use Facebook, while students who were more involved in extracurricular activities at school were more likely to use Facebook." Giving the impression that Facebook is something that is used to fill in free time confirming what Conservative said above

::::: "Science, technology, engineering, math (STEM) and business majors were more likely to use Facebook than were students majoring in the humanities and social sciences." Giving the impression that the more likely majors are ones that promote personal connections and the exchange of ideas while the less likely ones are not doing so or already have more physical connections though school clubs. Also; “Other research had indicated that STEM majors spend more time on the Internet than do other students, so that may be one reason why they are more likely to use Facebook,” Karpinski said.

::::: "Karpinski emphasized that the results don’t necessarily mean that Facebook use leads to lower grades. “There may be other factors involved, such as personality traits, that link Facebook use and lower grades,” she said. Don't blame the tool for the failures of the individual! People who use Facebook and have lower grades might already have a personality trait that makes them more keen to spend time on things that are fun than on things that aren't fun to them. We can do this study on ANYTHING and find almost similar results. (I say almost because people who do activities that are educational and that they enjoy might not be effected) And my statement is backed up by this; “It may be that if it wasn’t for Facebook, some students would still find other ways to avoid studying, and would still get lower grades. But perhaps the lower GPAs could actually be because students are spending too much time socializing online.” that was Karpinski, the one who did the study.

::::: Once again, you have not proven anything you have put on the page to be solid truth. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

:::: Not to weigh in on either side of this discussion, but it is important to remember when reading any type of study or research article that a '''correlation does not imply causality''' - this is a basic statistical principle that helps us to avoid erroneous conclusions based on coincidence. MHarris is correct to ask whether or not a factor being correlated to a negative or positive effect is actually responsible for this effect. To answer this question, the study must perform some kind of experimentation, set up their own system that can be perturbed to determine if the effect being measured is actually impacted by the factor of interest.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:58, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::But not in the way MHarris has asked - or rather, ''demanded'' - for proof. It's one thing to ask, and then sit back and merely wait for a response, but another to badger to the point of antagonism. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:02, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Sorry, I tend to get a bit.. heated about things like this. But my point, I believe, is still valid.
::::::::Yes, you do have a valid point, but it's best to ask, and ask just once. If possible, it could take you a few clicks of the mouse to find a valid reference either proving or disproving the Facebook/liberal theory. But here's a fact that ASchlafly did prove: you spend time away from your homework to do other things, your grades will go down, and it doesn't matter if the other thing is Facebook. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:12, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: Aschlafly wasn't trying to prove that, sir. He was trying to prove that Facebook specifically was lowering grades. I am trying to refute that people who let themselves be pulled away from homework is at fault, not anything that the people do. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

== Facebook use is also associated with a substantial percentage of marital problems ==

I talked about this at [[Talk:Social_media#Citations]]... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:59, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:Should I point out here or there that the first pool was about what the lawyers did, not what the people in the relationship said or did
nor does it raise up if the lawyers actually found anything substantial when they researched the person's Facebook? Or what about the second link that didn't actually talk about any research, but just what a few divorce firms have found on not only Facebook, but Second Life and another social networking site? [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

Essay: Video Games: a form of Media or a Liberal Tool?

2011-06-17T05:12:30Z

MHarris: I hope I did this Essay right...

Video Games: A form of Media, or a Liberal Tool?

An Essay by Mark Andrew Harris [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

:::From it's invention, Video Games have been a means in which to entertain people like the Radio and Television before it. From the moment when the first 'beep' and 'boop' came from the televisions of homes everywhere, people have challenged themselves and others in matches of skill and wit. As time passed and the computers powering the games grew more powerful, stories started to get woven into the entertainment as players took up the roles of soldiers, knights, merchants, bards, other people, animals and even gods to fill their time and find entertainment. Though the longer people have played video games (gamed) the more questions raised about the effect on the Gamers in question. Specifically, if the games aren't trying to infuse Liberal ideas into the players. I will be addressing and with any luck, putting those doubts in their place.

::: What I want to do before I began is lay out two facts so I won't have to repeat them for each issue.
*They are just games.
*They are works of Fiction.
==Anti-God?==

::: The first thing I want to address the attacks that because God (specifically the Christian/Jewish God) Is not included in the games, the games are trying to promote Atheism or at least demote Christianity or more so attempting to promote paganism. A lot of games don't include God as a major figure, only have God as a minor figure, or have different gods. This is mainly because God is ether hard to include effectively in the games or because the inclusion of God is not such a need as to warrant it. Looking at the Call of Duty games for one, to have a Chaplin fighting along soldiers is not going to help the player, nor is it true in history that they would be everywhere a soldier is.

::: In the case of supposedly promoting paganism, the critics point to fantasy games such as Pokemon which have beings that are classified as 'gods'. (There is the evolution issue, but that shall be handled later on) What should be noted is that these 'gods' are capture-able like other Pokemon and also are defeat-able, their godlike status is just because of how powerful they are. Several other games use multilevel gods because of how they can be used to grant different abilities. It is a function of the game, not an attempt to promote paganism.

::: Another game that raised a lot of questions about Gaming's ideas for or against Christianity and monotheism in general is the game Black & White and others like it were you play as a god. This writer wonders how such a game can do so. The player is a new born god brought to life by a prayer. From then on, they can choose to do good acts or evil ones as guided by their advisers, an old man on a cloud representative of Good, and a nude devil representing Evil. From an outsiders perspective, this might seem like a very anti-God game. A man putting themselves on the same level as God? Preposterous! But players instead find little of putting themselves on the same line as God. They haven't made the people they are guiding, they aren't able to do things just by thinking it, they have to rely on the beings they are guiding to give them power to do anything worthwhile.

::: I conclude by pointing to many other works of fiction outside of Video Games that don't include God in anyway and a lack of any solid proof that they games directly made people turn away from their beliefs. Video Games are a form of media like computers, television or radio that is used to entertain people and if the developers and producers can see a profit or a good reason to promote Christianity, then they will.

(This is a work in progress as I attempt to do research into these issues. It is proving difficult as no one of major influence has touched or thought of this as an issue. The next thing I will address is that Video Games are promoting Liberal ideas.)

Talk:Facebook

2011-06-17T04:25:02Z

MHarris:

Has anyone ever thought to create a Conservapedia Facebook account? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 20:57, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

== Concerns ==

Wouldn't it be appropriate to mention that the privacy controls on Facebook are much better than on other networking sites? The article as it stands makes it sound like anyone's personal information will be available for everyone on the internet to see (as with MySpace), but in truth under the default privacy settings it would only be viewable by people in the same university or network, and privacy levels for every item can be customized. The Bob Jones article about employers using Facebook to research applicants does not seem to take this into consideration either, which makes me question its reliability as a source. The article is completely devoid of details (which employers are doing it), and seems not to notice that it would be mostly impossible for an employer to do this on Facebook. 
I'm giving this one 48 hours for debate, and will trim the "concerns" section accordingly if no one objects. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:49, 17 May 2009 (EDT)
::Done. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:50, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Okay, but that's like saying using a condom while being promiscuous is less risky than not using one. It's still risky (among other things).

:::If there's a social networking website with less risk (and higher morals), let's identify and promote it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

See Main Page news item I just placed. The Marine Corps has identified all major social networking sites as too vulnerable to malware and other malicious problems, and blocked them from its entire network..... --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:25, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

===Privacy===
The Privacy Issues section only has ''one'' source, and that AllExperts page looks out of date... For example, it says only people with a valid school-email address (or from certain other organizations) may sign up, not true anymore... Also un-sourced: "Facebook refuses to admit that its privacy settings that apparently allow only "friends" to see certain information are completely bogus and can easily be cracked by people with little to no hacking experience. Instead, Facebook actually encourages young users to only allow "friends" to see certain information, rather than just warning them that what they post can be seen by the world and to not post what they wouldn't want people to see."

== Liberal? ==

This website seems to be vehemently opposed to facebook, claiming it is liberal. Is allowing people to have their relationship status with another of the same sex really enough to make the website "liberal"? Also the page mentions that the site leads to divorce. What does that have to do with liberalism? If the site really does lead to divorce it is only because people can see what their spouses are doing when they think no one is looking, something that has nothing to do with facebook's policies but rather infidelity in and of itself. This is probably the most bizzare article on conservapedia.--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 19:18, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:By almost any measure, Facebook is a [[liberal]] company/project. Take your pick: whom Facebook hires (former Clinton Press Secretary Joe Lockhart), to whom Facebook caters (Obama), the impact of Facebook on relationships, to which candidates Facebook employees contribute, how Facebook is run, the effect of Facebook on productivity, etc.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
:: I was with you, Asch, until you got into things that can't be backed with fact. I see a lot of potential in Facebook. It can be used to bring people of similar thinking together, though not in the strictly political idea as with FreedomConnecter. I am part of a LOT of conservative groups in Facebook and my productivity is not suffering in the least by me being part of it. If someone suffers from the inability to pull themselves away from the program, that is the fault of the individual, not the whole.

:: blaming the whole for the fault of an individual is a very liberal way of thinking, Andy. Just an FYI. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

:::I don't doubt that some people can use facebook productively and not waste time on it, just as there are conservative people and groups. But on the whole, FB is exactly as it's described in the article. I realize this comparison is out of proportion, but it's analogous to drug use - some may be able to use drugs without ruining their lives, but that doesn't change the fact that drugs in general are very destructive. I suggest adding some information to the article about the more reasonable uses of FB, and perhaps examples of conservative political groups; then the article would show that, as you say, there's a minority on FB who aren't unproductive liberals, without denying the general nature of the site. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:21, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
:::: My point still remains, don't blame the group for the fault of the individual. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]
:::::A.Sch, regardless of the views of their employees, facebook not a partisan group. Obama may take advantage of the site, but so do Sarah Palin and many other conservative groups. And what does facebook's "impact on relationships" or "effect on productivity" have to do with liberalism?--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 19:18, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::The structure of a forum can have inherent political biases. That's already been seen on Wikipedia, for example. Facebook is another example. When something is inherently gossipy, self-centered and unproductive, it's going to be more [[liberal]] than [[conservative]] in result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Don't blame the whole for the faults of the individual. If people gossip, are self-centered or unproductive then it is their faults, not the fault of the tool that can be used to do so. All forms of communication can be used to exhibit those traits.
::::::::A.Sch, ignoring the fact that ''you'' run a website with an inherent political bias, your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy. "Begging the question" to be more specific. You are arguing on the ''assumption'' that A) Facebook is unproductive; and B) that unproductiveness leads to liberalism, neither of which do you provide proof. --[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 23:03, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: (edit conflict) "All men are created equal," but not all systems of government, not all constitutions, not all schools, not all websites and not all encyclopedias. Different rules have different biases. The National Enquirer is not equal to the Christian Science Monitor. Facebook is more like the National Enquirer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:12, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::"''The National Enquirer is not equal to the Christian Science Monitor. Facebook is more like the National Enquirer''" And why is that? (and what does that have to do with anything?) You have yet to provide any proof or evidence to any of your assertions, further suggesting that your argument is based on the logical fallacy "begging the question"--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 23:18, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

I too want to register a complaint about the nature of this article which lambasts a company for what it perceives as "liberal" and dangerous tendencies but fails to acknowledges that Facebook is a private company that generates revenue through legitimate and legal means like all other businesses which operate in the United States. An affront on Facebook is an affront on all websites who make their money through advertising which is just about all of them. Secondly, there are valid issues about privacy but this article never considers fact that users are not compelled by anyone to use Facebook and all information entered is voluntarily given up. What happened to "let the buyer beware"? Is that not a tenet of conservative thought? 
Facebook represents an online presence for individuals and I hardly believe that makes the company liberal by definition. It seems that the issues raised by the authors of this article are on the amount and types of expression that are capable on the site which can be defined as liberal. Don't forget that Facebook allows people to do what they have been doing for decades (sharing photographs, sending messages, inviting people to events and allowing for RSVPS, etc). My suggestion, rewrite the article to make the claim that Facebook is a privately owned company that allows for social networking purposes. In subsequent sections go crazy on the the liberal threats Facebook poses to society. --[[User:Churchofthetrail|Church of the Trail]] 23:36, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:Hear Hear!

::Is the article protected for admins only? If not, happy trails! Go ahead and point out how the private company allows users to voluntarily post their information.

::On the other hand, Facebook does have problems. If we've overemphasized them, then deemphasize them or better yet provide some balance. Less complaining, more writing!

::Here, I'll even help. My own church has trouble finding people who are adept at making websites. So they prefer to use Facebook to publicize church events. Assuming (as I do) that my church has good goals, this is a good aspect of Facebook! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:44, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:: (edit conflict) [[Facebook]] encourages people to waste time with [[gossip]] and other self-centered, mindless activity. It destroys marriages, and displaces healthy social gatherings. Facebook lowers academic achievement. No one is doubting Facebook's "right" to waste people's time and disrupt marriages, but surely there is full [[free speech]] to criticize it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:58, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::: This is gonna be the first time I say this to anyone besides an Evolutionist or a Liberal but Aschlafly.. PROVE IT! [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

:::: (edit conflict) Which do you doubt, and have you looked for studies on the issue yet?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
::::: Heh, conservative beat me to it. v If those stats are true, then TV is more of a Liberal tool than Facebook for pulling away from productivity than Facebook. And you have yet to supply your statements with facts so I question if you sir are just trying to stir up a baseless issue. Is that a red herring or a strawman? [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]
:::::: And you undo my attempt to make the page more like an encyclopedia and STILL don't back up anything you say with fact! This is becoming the Conservative version of Wikipedia and that isn't a good thing. We are supposed to be better than this. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

== Facebook's harmful effects ==

Facebook problems seem to be a small societal issue. I cite: "Back in June 2009, Nielsen estimated that the average U.S. user spent four hours and 39 minutes on Facebook per month. That’s about 9.3 minutes per day in a 30-day month. In August, that number rose to five hours and 46 minutes, or 11.5 minutes per day."[http://mashable.com/2010/02/16/facebook-nielsen-stats/]

Here is the June 2011 stats for TV watching and it seems people watch far more TV:

"Nielsen polled about 2,600 people who said they watched videos online in the first three months of the year, and divided them into fifths based on how much they watch. The fifth that watched the most video online consumed nearly 19 minutes a day, and also watched the least amount of television, at about four hours and 32 minutes a day. The fifth that watched the least online video _ at less than a tenth of a minute a day _ watched the most TV at 4 hours and 50 minutes.

Nielsen said such a finding doesn't indicate that people are about to drop their pay TV packages to watch video only online, a notion known as "cord cutting." About 91 percent of TV households still paid for a TV subscription in the first quarter, and most of the changes had to do with people switching between cable, telephone and satellite companies.

Overall, TV viewing crept up by 0.2 percent from a year ago to 158 hours and 47 minutes a month, while video watching on the Internet jumped 35 percent to 4 hours and 33 minutes per month. Watching on mobile devices such as smartphones rose 20 percent to 4 hours and 20 minutes a month."[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/jun/15/us-nielsen-online-viewing/] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:23, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:Interesting data, but they omit demographic differences and fail to address effects like destroying marriages and lowering academic performance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:00, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
::::It would make sense that the data above referring to the heavier users of Facebook would probably apply to the younger demographic. Those heavier users of Facebook still watched a lot more television as a whole. Next, this Brazilian study indicates that television watching has a significant effect on divorce rates.[http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=1856109] Television also affects sexual behavior and levels of violence in a negative way. [http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/facts/mediafacts.asp] Since most people, which probably includes the younger demographic, watch far more television, it would make sense that television causes more harm to society than any negative effects caused by Facebook. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:19, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::In addition, television tends to lower academic success.[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7626-watching-tv-harms-kids-academic-success.html] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:22, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

We don't delete factual information here, or downplay it by placing it later in an entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
: If you have facts, then put it on the page. I just see unfounded statements. Citation please, specifically for these:
* Other studies done have shown that the use of Facebook is associated with poorer performance in school. Facebook use is also associated with a substantial percentage of marital problems. The site is heavily promoted by liberals, presumably because it is so unproductive or even counterproductive.
* Anybody with an account can create an unlimited amount of unproductive pages, which can then be "liked" by other users. (The 'Unproductive' part)
:And how is this statement 'fact'? "Users can waste their time on it in a variety of ways: by uploading pictures (typically of themselves), by gossiping about others, by interfering with marriages and personal relationships, and by acting like a busybody."
: Looks to me like an option. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

::What do you seriously dispute about those statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::: Everything. How do you know that Facebook is the single cause of any negative or positive effect? How do you know that Facebook can only be unproductive? What definition of 'productive' are you using? How do you know people are wasting time on it? How is uploading pictures unproductive? How do you know that everyone is gossiping? How do you know everyone is interfering with marriages and personal relationships and being a busybody?

::: I use Facebook, and I don't do any of those things. No one I know does those things. You have not, nay cannot find anything to back your claims that is solid because there are none. You are using this page to attack Facebook because YOU don't like it. I thought Conservapedia was above such actions. Am I wrong, sir?

:::: It took me less than 60 seconds to find a study documenting the correlation between Facebook and lower academic performance ... as well students' unpersuasive denials of such an effect. [http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/facebookusers.htm] --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: Maybe you should have taken another 60 to read it. I quote; "We can’t say that use of Facebook leads to lower grades and less studying – but we did find a relationship there,” said Aryn Karpinski, co-author of the study and a doctoral student in education at Ohio State University." You have not found a study that links Facebook as the single force in reducing academic performance. I continue.

::::: "While this was a relatively small, exploratory study, it is one of the first to find a relationship between college students’ use of Facebook and their academic achievement." That tells me one of two things. Ether this is the first study done on this meaning that the information has not been proven repeatedly. Or this is the first of many studies that supports the claim, giving the impression that the case might be isolated.

::::: "Typically, Facebook users in the study had GPAs between 3.0 and 3.5, while non-users had GPAs between 3.5 and 4.0. In addition, users said they averaged one to five hours a week studying, while non-users studied 11 to 15 hours per week." One point? That's it? Big whoop. Its the difference between an A and a B, just be glad they got in college. And does 11 to 15 hours of studding really grant 1 point of GPA to every student? It would make me burn out and I might flunk out.

::::: "Students who spent more time working at paid jobs were less likely to use Facebook, while students who were more involved in extracurricular activities at school were more likely to use Facebook." Giving the impression that Facebook is something that is used to fill in free time confirming what Conservative said above

::::: "Science, technology, engineering, math (STEM) and business majors were more likely to use Facebook than were students majoring in the humanities and social sciences." Giving the impression that the more likely majors are ones that promote personal connections and the exchange of ideas while the less likely ones are not doing so or already have more physical connections though school clubs. Also; “Other research had indicated that STEM majors spend more time on the Internet than do other students, so that may be one reason why they are more likely to use Facebook,” Karpinski said.

::::: "Karpinski emphasized that the results don’t necessarily mean that Facebook use leads to lower grades. “There may be other factors involved, such as personality traits, that link Facebook use and lower grades,” she said. Don't blame the tool for the failures of the individual! People who use Facebook and have lower grades might already have a personality trait that makes them more keen to spend time on things that are fun than on things that aren't fun to them. We can do this study on ANYTHING and find almost similar results. (I say almost because people who do activities that are educational and that they enjoy might not be effected) And my statement is backed up by this; “It may be that if it wasn’t for Facebook, some students would still find other ways to avoid studying, and would still get lower grades. But perhaps the lower GPAs could actually be because students are spending too much time socializing online.” that was Karpinski, the one who did the study.

::::: Once again, you have not proven anything you have put on the page to be solid truth. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

:::: Not to weigh in on either side of this discussion, but it is important to remember when reading any type of study or research article that a '''correlation does not imply causality''' - this is a basic statistical principle that helps us to avoid erroneous conclusions based on coincidence. MHarris is correct to ask whether or not a factor being correlated to a negative or positive effect is actually responsible for this effect. To answer this question, the study must perform some kind of experimentation, set up their own system that can be perturbed to determine if the effect being measured is actually impacted by the factor of interest.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:58, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::But not in the way MHarris has asked - or rather, ''demanded'' - for proof. It's one thing to ask, and then sit back and merely wait for a response, but another to badger to the point of antagonism. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:02, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Sorry, I tend to get a bit.. heated about things like this. But my point, I believe, is still valid.
::::::::Yes, you do have a valid point, but it's best to ask, and ask just once. If possible, it could take you a few clicks of the mouse to find a valid reference either proving or disproving the Facebook/liberal theory. But here's a fact that ASchlafly did prove: you spend time away from your homework to do other things, your grades will go down, and it doesn't matter if the other thing is Facebook. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:12, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: Aschlafly wasn't trying to prove that, sir. He was trying to prove that Facebook specifically was lowering grades. I am trying to refute that people who let themselves be pulled away from homework is at fault, not anything that the people do. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

Talk:Facebook

2011-06-17T04:06:07Z

MHarris:

Has anyone ever thought to create a Conservapedia Facebook account? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 20:57, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

== Concerns ==

Wouldn't it be appropriate to mention that the privacy controls on Facebook are much better than on other networking sites? The article as it stands makes it sound like anyone's personal information will be available for everyone on the internet to see (as with MySpace), but in truth under the default privacy settings it would only be viewable by people in the same university or network, and privacy levels for every item can be customized. The Bob Jones article about employers using Facebook to research applicants does not seem to take this into consideration either, which makes me question its reliability as a source. The article is completely devoid of details (which employers are doing it), and seems not to notice that it would be mostly impossible for an employer to do this on Facebook. 
I'm giving this one 48 hours for debate, and will trim the "concerns" section accordingly if no one objects. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:49, 17 May 2009 (EDT)
::Done. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:50, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Okay, but that's like saying using a condom while being promiscuous is less risky than not using one. It's still risky (among other things).

:::If there's a social networking website with less risk (and higher morals), let's identify and promote it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

See Main Page news item I just placed. The Marine Corps has identified all major social networking sites as too vulnerable to malware and other malicious problems, and blocked them from its entire network..... --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:25, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

===Privacy===
The Privacy Issues section only has ''one'' source, and that AllExperts page looks out of date... For example, it says only people with a valid school-email address (or from certain other organizations) may sign up, not true anymore... Also un-sourced: "Facebook refuses to admit that its privacy settings that apparently allow only "friends" to see certain information are completely bogus and can easily be cracked by people with little to no hacking experience. Instead, Facebook actually encourages young users to only allow "friends" to see certain information, rather than just warning them that what they post can be seen by the world and to not post what they wouldn't want people to see."

== Liberal? ==

This website seems to be vehemently opposed to facebook, claiming it is liberal. Is allowing people to have their relationship status with another of the same sex really enough to make the website "liberal"? Also the page mentions that the site leads to divorce. What does that have to do with liberalism? If the site really does lead to divorce it is only because people can see what their spouses are doing when they think no one is looking, something that has nothing to do with facebook's policies but rather infidelity in and of itself. This is probably the most bizzare article on conservapedia.--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 19:18, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:By almost any measure, Facebook is a [[liberal]] company/project. Take your pick: whom Facebook hires (former Clinton Press Secretary Joe Lockhart), to whom Facebook caters (Obama), the impact of Facebook on relationships, to which candidates Facebook employees contribute, how Facebook is run, the effect of Facebook on productivity, etc.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
:: I was with you, Asch, until you got into things that can't be backed with fact. I see a lot of potential in Facebook. It can be used to bring people of similar thinking together, though not in the strictly political idea as with FreedomConnecter. I am part of a LOT of conservative groups in Facebook and my productivity is not suffering in the least by me being part of it. If someone suffers from the inability to pull themselves away from the program, that is the fault of the individual, not the whole.

:: blaming the whole for the fault of an individual is a very liberal way of thinking, Andy. Just an FYI. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

:::I don't doubt that some people can use facebook productively and not waste time on it, just as there are conservative people and groups. But on the whole, FB is exactly as it's described in the article. I realize this comparison is out of proportion, but it's analogous to drug use - some may be able to use drugs without ruining their lives, but that doesn't change the fact that drugs in general are very destructive. I suggest adding some information to the article about the more reasonable uses of FB, and perhaps examples of conservative political groups; then the article would show that, as you say, there's a minority on FB who aren't unproductive liberals, without denying the general nature of the site. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:21, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
:::: My point still remains, don't blame the group for the fault of the individual. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]
:::::A.Sch, regardless of the views of their employees, facebook not a partisan group. Obama may take advantage of the site, but so do Sarah Palin and many other conservative groups. And what does facebook's "impact on relationships" or "effect on productivity" have to do with liberalism?--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 19:18, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::The structure of a forum can have inherent political biases. That's already been seen on Wikipedia, for example. Facebook is another example. When something is inherently gossipy, self-centered and unproductive, it's going to be more [[liberal]] than [[conservative]] in result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Don't blame the whole for the faults of the individual. If people gossip, are self-centered or unproductive then it is their faults, not the fault of the tool that can be used to do so. All forms of communication can be used to exhibit those traits.
::::::::A.Sch, ignoring the fact that ''you'' run a website with an inherent political bias, your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy. "Begging the question" to be more specific. You are arguing on the ''assumption'' that A) Facebook is unproductive; and B) that unproductiveness leads to liberalism, neither of which do you provide proof. --[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 23:03, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: (edit conflict) "All men are created equal," but not all systems of government, not all constitutions, not all schools, not all websites and not all encyclopedias. Different rules have different biases. The National Enquirer is not equal to the Christian Science Monitor. Facebook is more like the National Enquirer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:12, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::"''The National Enquirer is not equal to the Christian Science Monitor. Facebook is more like the National Enquirer''" And why is that? (and what does that have to do with anything?) You have yet to provide any proof or evidence to any of your assertions, further suggesting that your argument is based on the logical fallacy "begging the question"--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 23:18, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

I too want to register a complaint about the nature of this article which lambasts a company for what it perceives as "liberal" and dangerous tendencies but fails to acknowledges that Facebook is a private company that generates revenue through legitimate and legal means like all other businesses which operate in the United States. An affront on Facebook is an affront on all websites who make their money through advertising which is just about all of them. Secondly, there are valid issues about privacy but this article never considers fact that users are not compelled by anyone to use Facebook and all information entered is voluntarily given up. What happened to "let the buyer beware"? Is that not a tenet of conservative thought? 
Facebook represents an online presence for individuals and I hardly believe that makes the company liberal by definition. It seems that the issues raised by the authors of this article are on the amount and types of expression that are capable on the site which can be defined as liberal. Don't forget that Facebook allows people to do what they have been doing for decades (sharing photographs, sending messages, inviting people to events and allowing for RSVPS, etc). My suggestion, rewrite the article to make the claim that Facebook is a privately owned company that allows for social networking purposes. In subsequent sections go crazy on the the liberal threats Facebook poses to society. --[[User:Churchofthetrail|Church of the Trail]] 23:36, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:Hear Hear!

::Is the article protected for admins only? If not, happy trails! Go ahead and point out how the private company allows users to voluntarily post their information.

::On the other hand, Facebook does have problems. If we've overemphasized them, then deemphasize them or better yet provide some balance. Less complaining, more writing!

::Here, I'll even help. My own church has trouble finding people who are adept at making websites. So they prefer to use Facebook to publicize church events. Assuming (as I do) that my church has good goals, this is a good aspect of Facebook! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:44, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:: (edit conflict) [[Facebook]] encourages people to waste time with [[gossip]] and other self-centered, mindless activity. It destroys marriages, and displaces healthy social gatherings. Facebook lowers academic achievement. No one is doubting Facebook's "right" to waste people's time and disrupt marriages, but surely there is full [[free speech]] to criticize it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:58, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::: This is gonna be the first time I say this to anyone besides an Evolutionist or a Liberal but Aschlafly.. PROVE IT! [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

:::: (edit conflict) Which do you doubt, and have you looked for studies on the issue yet?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
::::: Heh, conservative beat me to it. v If those stats are true, then TV is more of a Liberal tool than Facebook for pulling away from productivity than Facebook. And you have yet to supply your statements with facts so I question if you sir are just trying to stir up a baseless issue. Is that a red herring or a strawman? [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]
:::::: And you undo my attempt to make the page more like an encyclopedia and STILL don't back up anything you say with fact! This is becoming the Conservative version of Wikipedia and that isn't a good thing. We are supposed to be better than this. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

== Facebook's harmful effects ==

Facebook problems seem to be a small societal issue. I cite: "Back in June 2009, Nielsen estimated that the average U.S. user spent four hours and 39 minutes on Facebook per month. That’s about 9.3 minutes per day in a 30-day month. In August, that number rose to five hours and 46 minutes, or 11.5 minutes per day."[http://mashable.com/2010/02/16/facebook-nielsen-stats/]

Here is the June 2011 stats for TV watching and it seems people watch far more TV:

"Nielsen polled about 2,600 people who said they watched videos online in the first three months of the year, and divided them into fifths based on how much they watch. The fifth that watched the most video online consumed nearly 19 minutes a day, and also watched the least amount of television, at about four hours and 32 minutes a day. The fifth that watched the least online video _ at less than a tenth of a minute a day _ watched the most TV at 4 hours and 50 minutes.

Nielsen said such a finding doesn't indicate that people are about to drop their pay TV packages to watch video only online, a notion known as "cord cutting." About 91 percent of TV households still paid for a TV subscription in the first quarter, and most of the changes had to do with people switching between cable, telephone and satellite companies.

Overall, TV viewing crept up by 0.2 percent from a year ago to 158 hours and 47 minutes a month, while video watching on the Internet jumped 35 percent to 4 hours and 33 minutes per month. Watching on mobile devices such as smartphones rose 20 percent to 4 hours and 20 minutes a month."[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/jun/15/us-nielsen-online-viewing/] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:23, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:Interesting data, but they omit demographic differences and fail to address effects like destroying marriages and lowering academic performance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:00, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

We don't delete factual information here, or downplay it by placing it later in an entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
: If you have facts, then put it on the page. I just see unfounded statements. Citation please, specifically for these:
* Other studies done have shown that the use of Facebook is associated with poorer performance in school. Facebook use is also associated with a substantial percentage of marital problems. The site is heavily promoted by liberals, presumably because it is so unproductive or even counterproductive.
* Anybody with an account can create an unlimited amount of unproductive pages, which can then be "liked" by other users. (The 'Unproductive' part)
:And how is this statement 'fact'? "Users can waste their time on it in a variety of ways: by uploading pictures (typically of themselves), by gossiping about others, by interfering with marriages and personal relationships, and by acting like a busybody."
: Looks to me like an option. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

::What do you seriously dispute about those statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::: Everything. How do you know that Facebook is the single cause of any negative or positive effect? How do you know that Facebook can only be unproductive? What definition of 'productive' are you using? How do you know people are wasting time on it? How is uploading pictures unproductive? How do you know that everyone is gossiping? How do you know everyone is interfering with marriages and personal relationships and being a busybody?

::: I use Facebook, and I don't do any of those things. No one I know does those things. You have not, nay cannot find anything to back your claims that is solid because there are none. You are using this page to attack Facebook because YOU don't like it. I thought Conservapedia was above such actions. Am I wrong, sir?

:::: It took me less than 60 seconds to find a study documenting the correlation between Facebook and lower academic performance ... as well students' unpersuasive denials of such an effect. [http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/facebookusers.htm] --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: Maybe you should have taken another 60 to read it. I quote; "We can’t say that use of Facebook leads to lower grades and less studying – but we did find a relationship there,” said Aryn Karpinski, co-author of the study and a doctoral student in education at Ohio State University." You have not found a study that links Facebook as the single force in reducing academic performance. I continue.

::::: "While this was a relatively small, exploratory study, it is one of the first to find a relationship between college students’ use of Facebook and their academic achievement." That tells me one of two things. Ether this is the first study done on this meaning that the information has not been proven repeatedly. Or this is the first of many studies that supports the claim, giving the impression that the case might be isolated.

::::: "Typically, Facebook users in the study had GPAs between 3.0 and 3.5, while non-users had GPAs between 3.5 and 4.0. In addition, users said they averaged one to five hours a week studying, while non-users studied 11 to 15 hours per week." One point? That's it? Big whoop. Its the difference between an A and a B, just be glad they got in college. And does 11 to 15 hours of studding really grant 1 point of GPA to every student? It would make me burn out and I might flunk out.

::::: "Students who spent more time working at paid jobs were less likely to use Facebook, while students who were more involved in extracurricular activities at school were more likely to use Facebook." Giving the impression that Facebook is something that is used to fill in free time confirming what Conservative said above

::::: "Science, technology, engineering, math (STEM) and business majors were more likely to use Facebook than were students majoring in the humanities and social sciences." Giving the impression that the more likely majors are ones that promote personal connections and the exchange of ideas while the less likely ones are not doing so or already have more physical connections though school clubs. Also; “Other research had indicated that STEM majors spend more time on the Internet than do other students, so that may be one reason why they are more likely to use Facebook,” Karpinski said.

::::: "Karpinski emphasized that the results don’t necessarily mean that Facebook use leads to lower grades. “There may be other factors involved, such as personality traits, that link Facebook use and lower grades,” she said. Don't blame the tool for the failures of the individual! People who use Facebook and have lower grades might already have a personality trait that makes them more keen to spend time on things that are fun than on things that aren't fun to them. We can do this study on ANYTHING and find almost similar results. (I say almost because people who do activities that are educational and that they enjoy might not be effected) And my statement is backed up by this; “It may be that if it wasn’t for Facebook, some students would still find other ways to avoid studying, and would still get lower grades. But perhaps the lower GPAs could actually be because students are spending too much time socializing online.” that was Karpinski, the one who did the study.

::::: Once again, you have not proven anything you have put on the page to be solid truth. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

:::: Not to weigh in on either side of this discussion, but it is important to remember when reading any type of study or research article that a '''correlation does not imply causality''' - this is a basic statistical principle that helps us to avoid erroneous conclusions based on coincidence. MHarris is correct to ask whether or not a factor being correlated to a negative or positive effect is actually responsible for this effect. To answer this question, the study must perform some kind of experimentation, set up their own system that can be perturbed to determine if the effect being measured is actually impacted by the factor of interest.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:58, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::But not in the way MHarris has asked - or rather, ''demanded'' - for proof. It's one thing to ask, and then sit back and merely wait for a response, but another to badger to the point of antagonism. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:02, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Sorry, I tend to get a bit.. heated about things like this. But my point, I believe, is still valid.

User talk:MHarris

2011-06-17T03:58:42Z

MHarris:

{{welcome|sig=--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:33, 3 June 2011 (EDT)}}

== Response to email ==

Hi MHarris,

The first paragraph that I read was the first in the 'second generation' section. Your content:

Prior to the mid 1970's, most video games were hard coded into the consoles using discrete logic, meaning that no new games could be added afterwards. With the Second Generation, came the invention of cartridges, starting in 1976 with the release of the Fairchild 'Video Entertainment System (VES). In these cartridges, were rom chips surrounded by plastic. This allowed developers to take out the hard coded chips that had the games and easily replace them with new games. Although consumers could now amass libraries of game cartridges, video game production was still a niche skill.

WP's:

In the earliest consoles, the computer code for one or more games was hardcoded into microchips using discrete logic, and no additional games could ever be added. By the mid-1970s video games were found on cartridges, starting in 1976 with the release of the Fairchild 'Video Entertainment System (VES). Programs were burned onto ROM chips that were mounted inside plastic cartridge casings that could be plugged into slots on the console. When the cartridges were plugged in, the general-purpose microprocessors in the consoles read the cartridge memory and executed whatever program was stored there. Rather than being confined to a small selection of games included in the game system, consumers could now amass libraries of game cartridges. However video game production was still a niche skill. Warren Robinett, the famous programmer of the game Adventure, spoke on developing games "in those old far-off days, each game for the 2600 was done entirely by one person, the programmer, who conceived the game concept, wrote the program, did the graphics—drawn first on graph paper and converted by hand to hexadecimal—and did the sounds."[21]

Note particularly:

* the error you copied over: "Fairchild 'Video Entertainment System (VES).", with no closing quote after "(VES)"
* 'video game production was still a niche skill'
* 'consumers could amass libraries of game cartridges'.

I've found that in a few minutes of looking in just one paragraph, so you must excuse my swift action - copied material on CP hurts the credibility of the site and risks introducing bias from poor sources, so when a prima facie case can be made it's best to remove the possibly-copied material at once.

[[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:31, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

:Stating that video game production was a niche skill at the time isn't necessarily wrong. As the demand for it was more or less low and no one could really teach it. Most of the people who became developers or could adapt a business into producing the game were self taught. and I actually never heard of the VES or Fairchild, i was just looking for history so that people can actually learn something from the page.
And the invention of the cartridge did unlock the ability to gather a library of games. You are no longer limited to two or three games that were hard wired into your console. You could now take the games out and put them in. I have seen literal libraries of cartridge games so that statement is true. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]
::True or not, you're not allowed to copy from WP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:48, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

== Two important points ==

First, ''Conservapedia'' has a [[90/10 rule]]. Second, rude or personal comments in edit summaries are disfavored here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
: Still haven't backed up anything you have said. And when I find something to post and edit that isn't already good in my option, I will do. Otherwise, I will do what I can to point out things that fail in my option. Like your facebook options on the page.

Talk:Facebook

2011-06-17T03:46:44Z

MHarris: Read your own citation before posting it, please.

Has anyone ever thought to create a Conservapedia Facebook account? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 20:57, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

== Concerns ==

Wouldn't it be appropriate to mention that the privacy controls on Facebook are much better than on other networking sites? The article as it stands makes it sound like anyone's personal information will be available for everyone on the internet to see (as with MySpace), but in truth under the default privacy settings it would only be viewable by people in the same university or network, and privacy levels for every item can be customized. The Bob Jones article about employers using Facebook to research applicants does not seem to take this into consideration either, which makes me question its reliability as a source. The article is completely devoid of details (which employers are doing it), and seems not to notice that it would be mostly impossible for an employer to do this on Facebook. 
I'm giving this one 48 hours for debate, and will trim the "concerns" section accordingly if no one objects. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:49, 17 May 2009 (EDT)
::Done. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:50, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Okay, but that's like saying using a condom while being promiscuous is less risky than not using one. It's still risky (among other things).

:::If there's a social networking website with less risk (and higher morals), let's identify and promote it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

See Main Page news item I just placed. The Marine Corps has identified all major social networking sites as too vulnerable to malware and other malicious problems, and blocked them from its entire network..... --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:25, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

===Privacy===
The Privacy Issues section only has ''one'' source, and that AllExperts page looks out of date... For example, it says only people with a valid school-email address (or from certain other organizations) may sign up, not true anymore... Also un-sourced: "Facebook refuses to admit that its privacy settings that apparently allow only "friends" to see certain information are completely bogus and can easily be cracked by people with little to no hacking experience. Instead, Facebook actually encourages young users to only allow "friends" to see certain information, rather than just warning them that what they post can be seen by the world and to not post what they wouldn't want people to see."

== Liberal? ==

This website seems to be vehemently opposed to facebook, claiming it is liberal. Is allowing people to have their relationship status with another of the same sex really enough to make the website "liberal"? Also the page mentions that the site leads to divorce. What does that have to do with liberalism? If the site really does lead to divorce it is only because people can see what their spouses are doing when they think no one is looking, something that has nothing to do with facebook's policies but rather infidelity in and of itself. This is probably the most bizzare article on conservapedia.--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 19:18, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:By almost any measure, Facebook is a [[liberal]] company/project. Take your pick: whom Facebook hires (former Clinton Press Secretary Joe Lockhart), to whom Facebook caters (Obama), the impact of Facebook on relationships, to which candidates Facebook employees contribute, how Facebook is run, the effect of Facebook on productivity, etc.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
:: I was with you, Asch, until you got into things that can't be backed with fact. I see a lot of potential in Facebook. It can be used to bring people of similar thinking together, though not in the strictly political idea as with FreedomConnecter. I am part of a LOT of conservative groups in Facebook and my productivity is not suffering in the least by me being part of it. If someone suffers from the inability to pull themselves away from the program, that is the fault of the individual, not the whole.

:: blaming the whole for the fault of an individual is a very liberal way of thinking, Andy. Just an FYI. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

:::I don't doubt that some people can use facebook productively and not waste time on it, just as there are conservative people and groups. But on the whole, FB is exactly as it's described in the article. I realize this comparison is out of proportion, but it's analogous to drug use - some may be able to use drugs without ruining their lives, but that doesn't change the fact that drugs in general are very destructive. I suggest adding some information to the article about the more reasonable uses of FB, and perhaps examples of conservative political groups; then the article would show that, as you say, there's a minority on FB who aren't unproductive liberals, without denying the general nature of the site. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:21, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
:::: My point still remains, don't blame the group for the fault of the individual. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]
:::::A.Sch, regardless of the views of their employees, facebook not a partisan group. Obama may take advantage of the site, but so do Sarah Palin and many other conservative groups. And what does facebook's "impact on relationships" or "effect on productivity" have to do with liberalism?--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 19:18, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::The structure of a forum can have inherent political biases. That's already been seen on Wikipedia, for example. Facebook is another example. When something is inherently gossipy, self-centered and unproductive, it's going to be more [[liberal]] than [[conservative]] in result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Don't blame the whole for the faults of the individual. If people gossip, are self-centered or unproductive then it is their faults, not the fault of the tool that can be used to do so. All forms of communication can be used to exhibit those traits.
::::::::A.Sch, ignoring the fact that ''you'' run a website with an inherent political bias, your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy. "Begging the question" to be more specific. You are arguing on the ''assumption'' that A) Facebook is unproductive; and B) that unproductiveness leads to liberalism, neither of which do you provide proof. --[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 23:03, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: (edit conflict) "All men are created equal," but not all systems of government, not all constitutions, not all schools, not all websites and not all encyclopedias. Different rules have different biases. The National Enquirer is not equal to the Christian Science Monitor. Facebook is more like the National Enquirer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:12, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::"''The National Enquirer is not equal to the Christian Science Monitor. Facebook is more like the National Enquirer''" And why is that? (and what does that have to do with anything?) You have yet to provide any proof or evidence to any of your assertions, further suggesting that your argument is based on the logical fallacy "begging the question"--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 23:18, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

I too want to register a complaint about the nature of this article which lambasts a company for what it perceives as "liberal" and dangerous tendencies but fails to acknowledges that Facebook is a private company that generates revenue through legitimate and legal means like all other businesses which operate in the United States. An affront on Facebook is an affront on all websites who make their money through advertising which is just about all of them. Secondly, there are valid issues about privacy but this article never considers fact that users are not compelled by anyone to use Facebook and all information entered is voluntarily given up. What happened to "let the buyer beware"? Is that not a tenet of conservative thought? 
Facebook represents an online presence for individuals and I hardly believe that makes the company liberal by definition. It seems that the issues raised by the authors of this article are on the amount and types of expression that are capable on the site which can be defined as liberal. Don't forget that Facebook allows people to do what they have been doing for decades (sharing photographs, sending messages, inviting people to events and allowing for RSVPS, etc). My suggestion, rewrite the article to make the claim that Facebook is a privately owned company that allows for social networking purposes. In subsequent sections go crazy on the the liberal threats Facebook poses to society. --[[User:Churchofthetrail|Church of the Trail]] 23:36, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

:Hear Hear!

::Is the article protected for admins only? If not, happy trails! Go ahead and point out how the private company allows users to voluntarily post their information.

::On the other hand, Facebook does have problems. If we've overemphasized them, then deemphasize them or better yet provide some balance. Less complaining, more writing!

::Here, I'll even help. My own church has trouble finding people who are adept at making websites. So they prefer to use Facebook to publicize church events. Assuming (as I do) that my church has good goals, this is a good aspect of Facebook! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:44, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:: (edit conflict) [[Facebook]] encourages people to waste time with [[gossip]] and other self-centered, mindless activity. It destroys marriages, and displaces healthy social gatherings. Facebook lowers academic achievement. No one is doubting Facebook's "right" to waste people's time and disrupt marriages, but surely there is full [[free speech]] to criticize it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:58, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::: This is gonna be the first time I say this to anyone besides an Evolutionist or a Liberal but Aschlafly.. PROVE IT! [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

:::: (edit conflict) Which do you doubt, and have you looked for studies on the issue yet?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
::::: Heh, conservative beat me to it. v If those stats are true, then TV is more of a Liberal tool than Facebook for pulling away from productivity than Facebook. And you have yet to supply your statements with facts so I question if you sir are just trying to stir up a baseless issue. Is that a red herring or a strawman? [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]
:::::: And you undo my attempt to make the page more like an encyclopedia and STILL don't back up anything you say with fact! This is becoming the Conservative version of Wikipedia and that isn't a good thing. We are supposed to be better than this. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

== Facebook's harmful effects ==

Facebook problems seem to be a small societal issue. I cite: "Back in June 2009, Nielsen estimated that the average U.S. user spent four hours and 39 minutes on Facebook per month. That’s about 9.3 minutes per day in a 30-day month. In August, that number rose to five hours and 46 minutes, or 11.5 minutes per day."[http://mashable.com/2010/02/16/facebook-nielsen-stats/]

Here is the June 2011 stats for TV watching and it seems people watch far more TV:

"Nielsen polled about 2,600 people who said they watched videos online in the first three months of the year, and divided them into fifths based on how much they watch. The fifth that watched the most video online consumed nearly 19 minutes a day, and also watched the least amount of television, at about four hours and 32 minutes a day. The fifth that watched the least online video _ at less than a tenth of a minute a day _ watched the most TV at 4 hours and 50 minutes.

Nielsen said such a finding doesn't indicate that people are about to drop their pay TV packages to watch video only online, a notion known as "cord cutting." About 91 percent of TV households still paid for a TV subscription in the first quarter, and most of the changes had to do with people switching between cable, telephone and satellite companies.

Overall, TV viewing crept up by 0.2 percent from a year ago to 158 hours and 47 minutes a month, while video watching on the Internet jumped 35 percent to 4 hours and 33 minutes per month. Watching on mobile devices such as smartphones rose 20 percent to 4 hours and 20 minutes a month."[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/jun/15/us-nielsen-online-viewing/] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:23, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

:Interesting data, but they omit demographic differences and fail to address effects like destroying marriages and lowering academic performance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:00, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

We don't delete factual information here, or downplay it by placing it later in an entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
: If you have facts, then put it on the page. I just see unfounded statements. Citation please, specifically for these:
* Other studies done have shown that the use of Facebook is associated with poorer performance in school. Facebook use is also associated with a substantial percentage of marital problems. The site is heavily promoted by liberals, presumably because it is so unproductive or even counterproductive.
* Anybody with an account can create an unlimited amount of unproductive pages, which can then be "liked" by other users. (The 'Unproductive' part)
:And how is this statement 'fact'? "Users can waste their time on it in a variety of ways: by uploading pictures (typically of themselves), by gossiping about others, by interfering with marriages and personal relationships, and by acting like a busybody."
: Looks to me like an option. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

::What do you seriously dispute about those statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::: Everything. How do you know that Facebook is the single cause of any negative or positive effect? How do you know that Facebook can only be unproductive? What definition of 'productive' are you using? How do you know people are wasting time on it? How is uploading pictures unproductive? How do you know that everyone is gossiping? How do you know everyone is interfering with marriages and personal relationships and being a busybody?

::: I use Facebook, and I don't do any of those things. No one I know does those things. You have not, nay cannot find anything to back your claims that is solid because there are none. You are using this page to attack Facebook because YOU don't like it. I thought Conservapedia was above such actions. Am I wrong, sir?

:::: It took me less than 60 seconds to find a study documenting the correlation between Facebook and lower academic performance ... as well students' unpersuasive denials of such an effect. [http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/facebookusers.htm] --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: Maybe you should have taken another 60 to read it. I quote; "We can’t say that use of Facebook leads to lower grades and less studying – but we did find a relationship there,” said Aryn Karpinski, co-author of the study and a doctoral student in education at Ohio State University." You have not found a study that links Facebook as the single force in reducing academic performance. I continue.

::::: "While this was a relatively small, exploratory study, it is one of the first to find a relationship between college students’ use of Facebook and their academic achievement." That tells me one of two things. Ether this is the first study done on this meaning that the information has not been proven repeatedly. Or this is the first of many studies that supports the claim, giving the impression that the case might be isolated.

::::: "Typically, Facebook users in the study had GPAs between 3.0 and 3.5, while non-users had GPAs between 3.5 and 4.0. In addition, users said they averaged one to five hours a week studying, while non-users studied 11 to 15 hours per week." One point? That's it? Big whoop. Its the difference between an A and a B, just be glad they got in college. And does 11 to 15 hours of studding really grant 1 point of GPA to every student? It would make me burn out and I might flunk out.

::::: "Students who spent more time working at paid jobs were less likely to use Facebook, while students who were more involved in extracurricular activities at school were more likely to use Facebook." Giving the impression that Facebook is something that is used to fill in free time confirming what Conservative said above

::::: "Science, technology, engineering, math (STEM) and business majors were more likely to use Facebook than were students majoring in the humanities and social sciences." Giving the impression that the more likely majors are ones that promote personal connections and the exchange of ideas while the less likely ones are not doing so or already have more physical connections though school clubs. Also; “Other research had indicated that STEM majors spend more time on the Internet than do other students, so that may be one reason why they are more likely to use Facebook,” Karpinski said.

::::: "Karpinski emphasized that the results don’t necessarily mean that Facebook use leads to lower grades. “There may be other factors involved, such as personality traits, that link Facebook use and lower grades,” she said. Don't blame the tool for the failures of the individual! People who use Facebook and have lower grades might already have a personality trait that makes them more keen to spend time on things that are fun than on things that aren't fun to them. We can do this study on ANYTHING and find almost similar results. (I say almost because people who do activities that are educational and that they enjoy might not be effected) And my statement is backed up by this; “It may be that if it wasn’t for Facebook, some students would still find other ways to avoid studying, and would still get lower grades. But perhaps the lower GPAs could actually be because students are spending too much time socializing online.” that was Karpinski, the one who did the study.

::::: Once again, you have not proven anything you have put on the page to be solid truth. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

Talk:Facebook

2011-06-17T03:08:08Z

MHarris:

Talk:Facebook

2011-06-17T02:59:47Z

MHarris: reversion challenge

Talk:Facebook

2011-06-17T02:56:46Z

MHarris: Back up your facts, Aschlafly or let me fix the page.

Facebook

2011-06-17T02:39:04Z

MHarris: Made it more Encyclopedic and put things were they belong. Also removed blatant attack lines that had no backing in fact and added Citation Needed tag. (See Talk Page)

[[Image:Newfacebooklogo3.jpg|right]]
'''Facebook''' (stylized '''facebook''') is a social networking website originally available only to college students, but was soon opened up to the public at large with advertising and promotions. The main function of the program is to connect people with similar interests and bring them together and allowing them to communicate easily though as time passed and people who are computer savvy and creative people became part of it, groups, organizations and applications soon became part of the experience.

They way people use Facebook is dependent on the person. Gamers use the program to play (mostly) free games. Organizers can make groups and find a possibly unlimited pool of of people to join them. Friends and family can use it to keep in touch with people easily.

Facebook is based in Palo Alto, [[California]]. The name of the site is based on the paper facebooks that many colleges give to incoming students, faculty, and staff depicting members of the campus community.<ref> [http://www.associatepublisher.com/e/f/fa/facebook.htm Facebook] </ref>

==Origins==
Facebook was founded in February 2004 by [[Harvard]] sophomores [[Mark Zuckerberg]] and Eduardo Saverin, with help from Andrew McCollum. By December of 2004, after expanding the site to other universities, the number of registered users exceeded one million. In August 2005 Facebook obtained the domain name facebook.com and dropped the "the" from the site's name.

==Monetary Value==
It is rumored that Facebook generates around $1 million per week in revenue. <ref>[http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/04/26/facebook-goes-beyond-college-high-school-markets/ "Facebook goes beyond college and high school markets"]</ref>
In September 2006, [[Yahoo]] began talks to acquire Facebook for as high as $1 billion. In October, Google allegedly offered $2.3 billion.<ref>[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2006/10/10/first-youtube-now-facebook-rumors-circulate "First Youtube, Now Facebook: Rumors Circulate"]</ref> All outside offers have been rejected. 2009 estimates put a net value of $6.5 billion. <ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10285409-36.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0 Facebook stock trading open; valuation $6.5 billion] CNET News, July 13, 2009</ref> 2010 estimates of the privately held company put the value at $14 billion dollars. <ref>[http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/20/facebook-valued-at-14-billion-on-secondmarket/ Facebook Valued At $14 Billion On SecondMarket, TechCrunch.com, January 20, 2010]</ref>

In 2011, [[Goldman Sachs]] invested $500 million in Facebook. It is speculated that Goldman Sachs may be put in charge of an initial public offering of Facebook stock in 2012. Valuations are speculated at between $10 and $50 billion. <ref>[http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/01/03/goldman-digital-sky-technologies-invest-facebook-report/?test=latestnews Is Facebook Worth $50B?, Fox Business, January 3, 2011]</ref>

==2010==
A movie was made about the origins of Facebook, called ''The Social Network''. The film was number one in America for several weeks. Mark Zuckerberg was not involved in the creation of film and said that it was more Hollywood storyteling than reality.

It has been known among Silicon Valley technology companies that Facebook has been luring away [[Google]] employees to the extent that Google is now offering bonuses for staying with the company. On October 15, 2010, Facebook announced the release of a new email client. Internally referred to as Titan, the media has dubbed it a "Gmail Killer". Zuckerberg insists it is not a head-to-head competitor of Google's Gmail service; rather, it will be more of a instant messaging service. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/11/15/gmail-beware-facebook-unveils-e-mail-service/ E-MAIL WAR: Facebook Launches 'Gmail Killer' -- AOL Jumps In, Too, FOX News, November 15, 2010]</ref>

==Liberal Policies==
The world's largest online social network added civil unions and domestic partnerships to the list of relationships that its users can pick from to best describe their romantic status. The [[Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation]] had lobbied for the policy adoption and is only available to Facebook users in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., France and Australia. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/02/18/facebook-adds-support-sex-civil-unions Facebook Adds Support for Same-Sex Civil Unions, Fox News, February 18, 2011</ref>

98% of political donations from Facebook employees went to [[Barack Obama]] in the 2008 presidential election. <ref>[http://beforeitsnews.com/story/684/994/Facebook_self_appointed_arbiter_of_free_speech_tells_Tea_Party_no_more_organizing.html Facebook – self appointed arbiter of “free speech” – tells Tea Party no more organizing, Before It's News, June 2, 2011]</ref>

==Privacy Issues==
Facebook Privacy Policy is constantly changing. This is not for the benefit of the users but to the monetary value they represent to advertisers. Due to the size of Facebook, all kinds of data on your habits are monitored. Not just by Facebook either, the government can peek at your life and monitor you behind the scenes. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/17/13-year-old-boy-questioned-secret-service-facebook-posting/?test=latestnews 13-Year-Old Boy Questioned by Secret Service Over Facebook Posting, Fox News, May 17, 2011]</ref> <ref>[http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/article_bbd23382-6ecf-11e0-aeef-001a4bcf6878.html Feds mine Facebook for info, STLToday.com, April 25, 2011]</ref> Facebook claims your personal information is not for sale. They make the case that it is anonymously collected data, thereby protecting your privacy. Third parties develop applications to run on top of Facebook. Your privacy is effectively in the hands of unknown organizations. The below examples include what information is on display by every user.

* Many users post their full address, e-mail address, birthday, and telephone number, and these can be available to their entire network (and, in reality, anyone). This information in the wrong hands can be used for purposes of phishing, stalking, or even identity theft.
* Some universities have begun to use students' pages to investigate underage drinking and other violations of university policy. This is very possible, since university faculty and staff can sign up for the same network as their students through their campus e-mail account.<ref> [http://en.allexperts.com/e/f/fa/facebook.htm Facebook on allexperts.com]</ref>
*The so-called "news feed" has aroused some discomfort among Facebook users, as it displays all changes and status updates from their friends by default.
*The "wall" feature allows a user to post a message to another user which remains on their profile page. This posting is viewable to everyone who can view the page, and shows up on the news feed for all friends of both the sender and the recipient by default.
*As with Google ads, Facebook collects profile information, and places ads on the page that reflect the user's personal information. This resulted in one man logging into his facebook account, and seeing his wife's photograph appear in an advertisement for a dating website.<ref> [http://www.kvoa.com/news/husband-finds-wife-in-facebook-singles-ad/] Husband finds wife in facebook singles ad</ref>
*The privacy settings on Facebook give users a false sense of security and encourage people to post things they shouldn't. As with other social networks, Facebook refuses to admit that its privacy settings that apparently allow only "friends" to see certain information are completely bogus and can easily be cracked by people with little to no [[hacking]] experience. Instead, Facebook actually ''encourages'' young users to only allow "friends" to see certain information, rather than just warning them that what they post can be seen by the world and to not post what they wouldn't want people to see.

==Studies done on Facebook==

One survey conducted showed that Facebook feeds narcissistic tendencies.<ref>http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-30/tech/facebook.narcissism.mashable_1_facebook-social-networking-status-updates?_s=PM:TECH</ref>

Other studies done have shown that the use of Facebook is associated with poorer performance in school. Facebook use is also associated with a substantial percentage of marital problems. {{Citation Needed}}

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Online social networking]]
[[Category:Websites]]

Talk:Facebook

2011-06-16T23:29:45Z

MHarris:

Talk:Facebook

2011-06-16T23:18:23Z

MHarris:

Talk:Facebook

2011-06-16T06:04:36Z

MHarris: Good post, Church of the Trial

Talk:Facebook

2011-06-16T02:31:53Z

MHarris:

Talk:Facebook

2011-06-15T22:26:42Z

MHarris:

Talk:Facebook

2011-06-15T21:50:37Z

MHarris:

Talk:Video game industry

2011-06-13T19:37:08Z

MHarris: forgot to sign it

The article refers to the spring, the season of the year, not a video game; there is no video game of such a title. In the source, it's capitalized because it's the first word of the sentence, not because it's a proper noun. The source says that Grand Theft Auto IV ''went on'' to gross $500 million and became the biggest blockbuster of the spring season, not that the non-existent video game "Spring" grossed that much. This error should not be added back into the article. In Christ, [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 14:45, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

:Good catch. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:37, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

== My Project ==

As someone who has a brother who plays video games (excessively) and someone who has researched the topic, I understand the threats and dangers of the video game industry. I just thought I would let you all know that I am going to be working on showing how bad this industry really is and how it throws morals out the window, and that I'll be editing these pages when I find the time. If only this industry had a bit more faith. [[User:Sol1221|Sol1221]] 19:19, 15 November 2010 (EST)

== Concerns ==

While I've never played Starcraft II, I somehow doubt that a game set hundreds of years in the future in a distant galaxy contains "Subtle overtones of pro-Islamic messages." If you're going to have a section like this, you really owe it to your readers to be more in-depth. You also might want to check out JonS, who added most of those "examples." --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 16:00, 30 November 2010 (EST)

==They are just GAMES==

Are you going to be mad at your kid if he choices to be the 'robber' over the 'cop'? If you are, then I think you need to rethink yourself because you cannot see that these are just GAMES, works of FICTION. Commonsense should be evident that what is done in Grand Thief Auto can't be done in real life. In fact, I'm going make a list of my own right here to wake you guys up.

First off, if your kid is playing the game then it is YOUR FAULT! You are the parent, take responciblity and watch your child. If he or she gets a new game and you don't have time to watch it. Take it away, do your homework when you can and only then if it passes your inspection do you return it.

Second, profanity in T rated games is happening just like it is in movies and TV. The word 'Crap' is appearing in kids shows on Cartoon Network. They will get hit with it sooner or later. Don't you think your 13 yo is mature enough to hear the words and understand that they shouldn't use it? If not, then maybe you should put them back in the crib.

"Meticulous designs of blood and gore (Virtually every game rated for 17+ players, but commonly sold to children younger than 13.)"
:It is called 'detail'. People put in a lot of work to make their games realisic. Just like movie makers do with their productions. The problem stated in the brackets is a problem with the sellers of the games, not the makers. I don't know of any business that I trust that sells mature rated games to kids without a photo ID or a parent with a photo ID.

(Skipping GTA because I never played it.)
"Presenting sanitized versions of other religions, but open hostility to Christianity (God of War)"
You are kidding me, right? Christianity isn't even mentioned in the game! Plus.. ITS A WORK OF FICTION! There is no Kratos in the Greek Mythos. It is all just a story and a game... wait.. are you talking about the Three Wise Men reference? WHO CARES?! Its a work of Fiction.

"Letting players get to be terrorists and perform terrorism (Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2)"
If you are talking about the multiplayer, I point back to the Cops and Robbers reference. If you are talking about the airport scene, how do you know that DOESN'T happen in real life? Besides, they included the option to skip the scene so the issue is moot.

"Depicting graphic sexual acts in hidden modes that can be unlocked by downloadable mods (Hot Coffee Mod: Grand Theft Auto San Andreas)"
I'm not talking about the game here, I'm talking about Mods in general. Um, ya. Welcome to the real world. People are going to look for ways to get games to be more graphic and perverted. That is not the developers or producers fault, that is the fault of people.

"Fornication (The Sims 3)"
Sex.. happens in the real world. We all had it, we all thought about it. I'm going to count this one liberal idea with some Conservative ones. Kids can learn the effort it takes to live int eh real world. What it takes to make enough money to get the fancy home and stuff in it while at the same time, keep the food on the table. If you don't make a budget or a plan early on, your sim is gonna die of starvation while watching his flatscreen. This is a game I would recommend.

"Typical Liberal use of deceit (God of War)"
I'm not even gonna bother with that one, just take this stare.. @.@

"Over reliance on violence than story (Gears of War)"
Ya, war is pretty violent. Mhmm. This isn't a game for just the story lovers, it is a combat game. If you want a story, play a RPG.

"Godless protagonists, religious antagonists. (Sins of a Solar Empire)"
Work... Of.. Fiction

"Promotes idolatry (Black and White)"
It.. is.. a GAME. In fact, you destroy an idol for one mission. You are taking these games too seriously. I played all of the ones that I talked about and I"m a good Christian Conservative. Do you know why? Because I know the difference between reality and fantasy.

I'm cleaning up this page. It is about the Video Game Industry. Not [[Liberalism in Video Games]]. If you happen to make a page like that, then please make a [[Conservatism in Video Games]] page to counter it. It is only fair. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

(not the same user) I agree fully with this post. The point should also be made that these games are 100% fictional, and most players of video games are fully aware of this. The whole POINT is to do things you wouldn't do in real life. Any actual "liberal values" promoted in these games, and even "conservative values", are meant solely to make a better fictional plot or better gameplay, with no intent for gamers to apply these values to real life. In the cases where people do, that's more of a problem with the gamer than the game. Video games aren't meant to be political and thus shouldn't be classified as liberal or conservative. --[[User:SpenserL|SpenserL]] 15:16, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

== WP copying ==

MHarris, I don't know if you in fact wrote the parts in question; if so, my apologies. One can't be too careful of this sort of thing. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:07, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
:I wrote most of it. I might have copied from a few sources as I was researching them but that was because they would have appeared more encyclopedic than anything I could have written. If I was given more than 4 mins, I could have put the sources down there and shown my work. While I wait for the response, I will be working on my second major post.
::I'm glad to hear that, MHarris. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:38, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

User talk:MHarris

2011-06-13T19:36:11Z

MHarris:

Talk:Video game industry

2011-06-13T18:14:44Z

MHarris: responce to Jcw

The article refers to the spring, the season of the year, not a video game; there is no video game of such a title. In the source, it's capitalized because it's the first word of the sentence, not because it's a proper noun. The source says that Grand Theft Auto IV ''went on'' to gross $500 million and became the biggest blockbuster of the spring season, not that the non-existent video game "Spring" grossed that much. This error should not be added back into the article. In Christ, [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 14:45, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

:Good catch. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:37, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

== My Project ==

As someone who has a brother who plays video games (excessively) and someone who has researched the topic, I understand the threats and dangers of the video game industry. I just thought I would let you all know that I am going to be working on showing how bad this industry really is and how it throws morals out the window, and that I'll be editing these pages when I find the time. If only this industry had a bit more faith. [[User:Sol1221|Sol1221]] 19:19, 15 November 2010 (EST)

== Concerns ==

While I've never played Starcraft II, I somehow doubt that a game set hundreds of years in the future in a distant galaxy contains "Subtle overtones of pro-Islamic messages." If you're going to have a section like this, you really owe it to your readers to be more in-depth. You also might want to check out JonS, who added most of those "examples." --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 16:00, 30 November 2010 (EST)

==They are just GAMES==

Are you going to be mad at your kid if he choices to be the 'robber' over the 'cop'? If you are, then I think you need to rethink yourself because you cannot see that these are just GAMES, works of FICTION. Commonsense should be evident that what is done in Grand Thief Auto can't be done in real life. In fact, I'm going make a list of my own right here to wake you guys up.

First off, if your kid is playing the game then it is YOUR FAULT! You are the parent, take responciblity and watch your child. If he or she gets a new game and you don't have time to watch it. Take it away, do your homework when you can and only then if it passes your inspection do you return it.

Second, profanity in T rated games is happening just like it is in movies and TV. The word 'Crap' is appearing in kids shows on Cartoon Network. They will get hit with it sooner or later. Don't you think your 13 yo is mature enough to hear the words and understand that they shouldn't use it? If not, then maybe you should put them back in the crib.

"Meticulous designs of blood and gore (Virtually every game rated for 17+ players, but commonly sold to children younger than 13.)"
:It is called 'detail'. People put in a lot of work to make their games realisic. Just like movie makers do with their productions. The problem stated in the brackets is a problem with the sellers of the games, not the makers. I don't know of any business that I trust that sells mature rated games to kids without a photo ID or a parent with a photo ID.

(Skipping GTA because I never played it.)
"Presenting sanitized versions of other religions, but open hostility to Christianity (God of War)"
You are kidding me, right? Christianity isn't even mentioned in the game! Plus.. ITS A WORK OF FICTION! There is no Kratos in the Greek Mythos. It is all just a story and a game... wait.. are you talking about the Three Wise Men reference? WHO CARES?! Its a work of Fiction.

"Letting players get to be terrorists and perform terrorism (Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2)"
If you are talking about the multiplayer, I point back to the Cops and Robbers reference. If you are talking about the airport scene, how do you know that DOESN'T happen in real life? Besides, they included the option to skip the scene so the issue is moot.

"Depicting graphic sexual acts in hidden modes that can be unlocked by downloadable mods (Hot Coffee Mod: Grand Theft Auto San Andreas)"
I'm not talking about the game here, I'm talking about Mods in general. Um, ya. Welcome to the real world. People are going to look for ways to get games to be more graphic and perverted. That is not the developers or producers fault, that is the fault of people.

"Fornication (The Sims 3)"
Sex.. happens in the real world. We all had it, we all thought about it. I'm going to count this one liberal idea with some Conservative ones. Kids can learn the effort it takes to live int eh real world. What it takes to make enough money to get the fancy home and stuff in it while at the same time, keep the food on the table. If you don't make a budget or a plan early on, your sim is gonna die of starvation while watching his flatscreen. This is a game I would recommend.

"Typical Liberal use of deceit (God of War)"
I'm not even gonna bother with that one, just take this stare.. @.@

"Over reliance on violence than story (Gears of War)"
Ya, war is pretty violent. Mhmm. This isn't a game for just the story lovers, it is a combat game. If you want a story, play a RPG.

"Godless protagonists, religious antagonists. (Sins of a Solar Empire)"
Work... Of.. Fiction

"Promotes idolatry (Black and White)"
It.. is.. a GAME. In fact, you destroy an idol for one mission. You are taking these games too seriously. I played all of the ones that I talked about and I"m a good Christian Conservative. Do you know why? Because I know the difference between reality and fantasy.

I'm cleaning up this page. It is about the Video Game Industry. Not [[Liberalism in Video Games]]. If you happen to make a page like that, then please make a [[Conservatism in Video Games]] page to counter it. It is only fair.

== WP copying ==

MHarris, I don't know if you in fact wrote the parts in question; if so, my apologies. One can't be too careful of this sort of thing. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:07, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
:I wrote most of it. I might have copied from a few sources as I was researching them but that was because they would have appeared more encyclopedic than anything I could have written. If I was given more than 4 mins, I could have put the sources down there and shown my work. While I wait for the response, I will be working on my second major post.

Video game industry

2011-06-13T18:01:48Z

MHarris: Added some history and divided the page a bit. Will be back to cover the controversy and the development of the ESRB in due time.

The '''video game industry''' is a major entertainment industry that has over $20 billion in annual sales.<ref>http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_100114.html</ref> Video game sales surpassed [[Hollywood]] revenue in the year 2007.<ref name="Video">http://seekingalpha.com/article/89124-the-video-game-industry-an-18-billion-entertainment-juggernaut</ref>

==History==

The first 'Video Game' that most people can think of is the game [[Pong]] made in 1972. A simple game were a player verses a computer or a second player, move two large blocks up and down on the screen. The goal of the game is to keep a small block from getting past the large block or 'paddle' and send it past the opposite's screen. But like most history, it is clouded and foggy with others pointing to a game called 'NIM' supposedly created by Raymond Redheffer of M.I.T. He had an article published in 1948 about how to play a NIM device he allegedly created through 1941 to 1942. But some doubt this. Nether the less, this is not the best age for Video Games, for in 1977 the first [[Video Game Crash]] occurred.

===The first Revival===

After the crash of 1977, most video game console makers had sold their products and stocks for a loss and attempted to get out of what they believed to be a falling fad. Only [[Atari]] and [[Magnavox]] remained in the home console market, despite suffering losses in 1977 and 1978. The main cause for the crash was a lack of originality. With so many pong clones, or copies, the market was lacking in titles that would bring in sales and interest fell.

What brought back the video game and lead it into the new age was an original idea by the [[Taito Corperation]] known as [[Space Invaders]]. The original idea and, at the time, advanced graphics sparked new ideas in developers. bringing forth the [[golden age of video arcade games]]. Soon after, Space Invaders was licensed for the Atari VCS (later known as Atari 2600), becoming the first "killer app" and quadrupling the console's sales. This helped Atari recover from their earlier losses. The success of the Atari 2600 in turn revived the home video game market, up until the North American video game crash of 1983.

===The Second Generation (1977–1983)===

Prior to the mid 1970's, most video games were hard coded into the consoles using discrete logic, meaning that no new games could be added afterwards. With the Second Generation, came the invention of cartridges, starting in 1976 with the release of the Fairchild 'Video Entertainment System (VES). In these cartridges, were rom chips surrounded by plastic. This allowed developers to take out the hard coded chips that had the games and easily replace them with new games. Although consumers could now amass libraries of game cartridges, video game production was still a niche skill.

During this tame, [[Arcade Games]] and the first [[Online Games]] were taking root though none of them were ready for second, and what is known as the greatest, video game crash.

===THE Video Game Crash of 1983===

In 1983, the major video game producing companies were hit hard with a sudden loss of sales and drove most of them into bankruptcy. The cause of the crash is often pointed to by production of what are considered to be the worst video games in history. Custer's Revenge, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, and Pac-Man for the Atari 2600. These games suffered due to tight deadlines and producers who put more hope on the games than they could ever achieve. It was discovered that more Pac-Man cartridges were manufactured than there were systems sold. In addition, so many E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial cartridges were left unsold that Atari allegedly buried thousands of cartridges in a landfill in New Mexico.

===The Great Revival and the Third Generation===

Gaming was becoming a passing fad once again. With no one even giving a passing glance at the game companies that survived, almost all hope was lost. Until a young Japanese company named [[Nintendo]] with developer [[Shigeru Miyamoto]] changed everything. Their 8-bit system called the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) and their bundled game [[Super Mario Brothers]] changed the industry. For the entire generation, Nintendo ruled the industry with additional and original games like [[Legend of Zelda]], [[Metroid]] (The first game to have a female lead), and [[Dragon Quest]]. It was during this generation that controllers made the old joysticks, paddles and keypads a thing of the past.

It was also during this generation that the Japanese company [[Square]] was struggling and [[Hironobu Sakaguchi]] decided to make his final game—a [[role-playing game]] (RPG) modeled after [[Dragon Quest]] and titled [[Final Fantasy]]. Bringing forth one of the most profitable series in Video Game history.

===The Current Age and the Future===

Gaming is now in it's seventh generation with Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft fighting to be the most innovative, most appealing and most successful console of their age. Taken as a fad in it's youth, Gaming, as it is called now, is growing to be an industry to rivial Television and Movies. With the games growing larger and some looking more like Feature Productions than games, that future may not be so far off.

==Success==

The biggest one-day movie opening was ''New Moon'', which grossed $72 million on its first day<ref>http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/days/?page=open&p=.htm</ref>, while the biggest video game opening was ''Call of Duty: Black Ops'', which grossed over $360 million its first day<ref>http://www.gamershell.com/companies/activision/792760.html</ref>, more than most total revenue of most movies. However, it should be taken into consideration that the average video game can cost more than 7 times the average movie ticket (games can exceed $50, often reaching $60).

==Video Games and suspected Spreading of Liberal Values==
The video game industry has a long history of unintentionally spreading liberal values to children.

====Examples====
*Overusing profanity (Many games rated "T" for "teen")
*Meticulous designs of blood and gore (Virtually every game rated for 17+ players, but commonly sold to children younger than 13.)
*Regurgitating disproved liberal myths to the player (''Grand Theft Auto IV'')
*Presenting sanitized versions of other religions, but open hostility to Christianity (''God of War'')
*Letting players get to be terrorists and perform terrorism (''Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2'')
*Allowing players to have fornication with prostitutes (All ''Grand Theft Auto'' video games)
*Depicting graphic sexual acts in hidden modes that can be unlocked by downloadable mods (Hot Coffee Mod: ''Grand Theft Auto San Andreas'')
*Welcoming to more violence, such as providing bonus points for extra murders (''Grand Theft Auto IV'')
*Fornication (''The Sims 3'')
*Typical Liberal use of [[deceit]] (''God of War'')
*Over reliance on violence than story (''Gears of War'')
*Unending waves of incompetent police forces (''Grand Theft Auto IV'')
*Overtones of [[Hollywood Values]] (''Grand Theft Auto: The Ballad of Gay Tony'')
*Godless protagonists, religious antagonists. (''Sins of a Solar Empire'')
*Overtones of [[Professor Values]] (''Bully'')
*Encourages radical terrorism (''Red Faction: Guerrilla'')
*Promotes idolatry (''Black and White'')
*Communist themes (''Red Alert'')

{{Liberalism}}

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:video Games]]

Talk:Video game industry

2011-06-13T17:16:21Z

MHarris: Rant.

Talk:Worst College Majors

2011-06-12T17:52:20Z

MHarris:

In deference to JDWPianist, I'll defer to his change of "Music" to "Music Therapy," but "Music" as a college major is pretty useless. Maybe it's OK as a hobby, but not something that someone would profitably pay $100,000 for in terms of a degree except in the most unusual situations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 16 May 2010 (EDT)

Just like to note that Women Studies is not on any of the lists in the sources given for this page. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 13:28, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:You're right, and it's not hard to understand why. The [[liberal denial]] is too obvious for words.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:38, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:Information in our articles should match up with sources used and not have information inserted with no backing. If there is a source that states Women Studies to be the worst college degree then it should of course be outlined in this article. Cause right now it seems to be more of opinion that it is number 1 because the lack of a source. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 13:47, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::Well perhaps you should start your own project, Irene. However the pendulum for tolerating liberal clap-trap is rapidly swinging against them, and it might not be worth your investment. My suggestion is that you open your mind; the truth will indeed set you free! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:34, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::I am unsure as to where you are going with this TK. I am merely pointing out a fault with the article and getting fed back alot of liberal nonsense and wordism. Am i wrong to say the article is not backing up what the sources say? --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 17:18, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

: Hmmm, I would have to agree that Women's Studies didn't seem to have any practical applications in the workforce. So looked at the UC Davis college catalog to see what it had to say ([http://registrar.ucdavis.edu/UCDWebCatalog/PDF/14GenCatProg.pdf pg 385] - Warning, its a huge file!). I guess there are some realistic applications like counseling, medicine, or law. While there are obviously far better majors to prepare a student for these fields, I suppose that its not completely useless (like Star Trek or Surfing Studies!). Anyway, I hope this helps! [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 17:23, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Irene certainly has a point, the material is not sourced. Pointing that out is certainly not liberalism in and of itself. Are we intending to argue that the uselessness of that particular major is self-evident? (I certainly know of no use for it, but then again I really have no idea what they teach you)

Personally I'm not sure how credible a source on the usefulness of any particular college degree could possibly be. Have they actually backed up their analysis with solid research? I doubt it. I'm not sure this entire page is exactly encyclopedic. Perhaps it would be better to move it to the Essay namespace where it may prove a useful resource for students but won't be making the value-judgment (i.e. subjective, un-encyclopedic) about what is or isn't useful. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 17:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

: It only took me a minute or two to find many websites describing how bad a major "women's studies" is. I added one. More generally, what's wrong with a little "[[caveat emptor]]" for college majors? People are paying a ton of money plus [[opportunity cost]] on college, and it seems worth spending at least a little effort separating the wheat from the chaff.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::Well you can say that is a source, but Insider? is just a gossip site on celebrities primarily. How are we determining credibility of sources here on CP? --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 22:48, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::Irene, there are dozens of sites stating the obvious. [[Liberal denial]] of obvious truths has no place here. Look in earnest yourself if you sincerely doubt the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:11, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::I do not doubt Women Studies being useless. But i thought i raised a valid question, on determining credibility. For even when Conservapedia is right, which it often is, it should still need backing of credible sources to persuade doubters. Gives a much better foundation on Conservapedia's part; rather then excepting any yahoos opinion that is swayed by liberal bias. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 23:22, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::Putting aside the question of whether or not women's studies should be on the list of worst college majors, I agree with [[User:IreneK|IreneK]] that the source cited is not a credible source. Not only is ''The Insider'' hardly a reliable source, (it appears to be a liberal celebrity gossip site - I hope CP isn't going to start relying on that sort of thing!), the article is not even written by someone on ''The Insider'''s editorial staff. The article would be stronger and more persuasive if a more reliable source was cited. 
:::::For what it's worth, my impression has been that women's studies is often a minor, rather than a major, course of study, as a complement to another field. (In the same way that many people take philosophy courses in college, because they can be quite interesting, but few people major in philosophy, as there is not much of a market for it.) I don't know how accurate this impression is.
:::::Whether a particular course of study is worthwhile or not is somewhat in the eye of the beholder (or rather the person willing to pay for such classes), so any list such as this one is to some extent opinion rather than fact. Nonetheless, the article should at least have a source for whether the number of students pursuing such a major is increasing or decreasing (as mentioned in the current source), or what the job prospects really are, or what a typical starting salary for graduates might be. A quick Google search produced [http://www-afa.adm.ohio-state.edu/u-majors/pdf/womst.pdf this interesting document] from Ohio State, which might be worth looking at with an eye towards putting some of the info in the CP article. ''"After graduation, about half of women’s studies majors attend graduate or professional school, while others find employment in government and nonprofit agencies and organizations, as well as private businesses."'' Alas, it it quite late, so I don't have time to look for additional sources. 
:::::[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:16, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

Dare I say there's a worse major than Women's Studies? "Queer Studies," which grows ever more common, is an entire degree in justifying the homosexual agenda. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 23:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
::::Does any American college offer a Men's Studies program or a White Anglo Saxon Protestant Program? :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:09, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::A quick Google says [http://www.akamaiuniversity.us/MensStudies.html#2 yes]. I believe many more offer Gender Studies courses, which presumably include both mens' and women's perspectives. Protestant universities would be a good place to look for courses on the experiences of Protestants in the US; similarly Catholic universities offer various courses from a Catholic perspective, and so on. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:28, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

I tried to edit this article but they got reverted almost right away. I am new here but have been looking at many articles in the past and editing this article based on the talk page and also the provided sources. In the provided links they do not make mention of atheism and only mention religion. Most people I know that went into religious studies went into it because they had a passion for it and were not looking for money. Should this be changed or even removed? Also the sourced articles read more like opinion pieces including the insider one and the learnfinancialplanning.com article that actually got its information from holytaco.com (which looks to be comedy site). Anyone disagree or should I go ahead and make these changes? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 15:15, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

: I do disagree. If students are enrolling in religion with good intentions, then all the more reason to alert them to what that field of study has really become.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

::I agree with john here. And students could just as easily find other ''opinionated'' articles in support for all of these majors.

::I agree with the idea that this isn't an encylopedic entry and should be moved to a debate page. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 19:38, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

::: But the article is about how much the major makes monetarily which would include religion and many other studies , but to many people they enjoy what they do and wouldn't trade it in. Teaching for example does not pay the best of wages , but that does not stop people for pursuing a degree and having a passion for it and there are many good teachers out there. The same goes for writing, Dance, Philosophy, and even music. There are a lot of different majors in the world and going into someone just to earn money is more of a [[Social Darwinism]] type belief and not a good one at that. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 21:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::: The criticisms of these majors goes far beyond their lack of economic value. You protest too much, rather than adding information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::

I am more than happy to add or change information to this article but last time I did this I was banned (I did however move star trek to courses since Georgetown does not offer a degree for star trek) and I do agree that some of the degrees and courses have little value in today's world (I do disagree with some of them as well) but the articles sourced and the link for women studies are all based on how much a degree earns and opinionated which is very un-encyclopedic. Now I did find another article related to courses that I think we can add based on the non usefulness of courses like star trek, harry potter, soap opera. Any thought of if the following link should be used?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701401_2.html?sid=ST2007100701675

How about also a rewrite of the first part and state the following and remove the information about debt since as you stated this is not about economic value.

The worst college majors are fields of study that leave the student with relatively few job opportunities in the field of study and often a distorted and liberal view of the world.

Then source each field of study and why it gives the person a distorted view of the world and leave them few job opportunities.

For example for Parapsychology link to the either of the following articles.

http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/repeatable.htm

http://www.rsd.edu/schools/rhs/mst/reading/005_Why_Parapsychology_is_a_Pseudoscience.pdf

[[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:34, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

any reason why the change to star trek was reverted. This is not a degree but instead a course offered by Georgetown. Should this be changed back to put it under courses? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 12:05, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:If Star Trek is merely a course, please do move it back to the course section. But you continue to protest too much about the inclusion of women's studies. If you think that major has significant value worth the $200,000 that many spend on college, then please simply say what you think that value is. Would you pay $200,000 for the courses taught in women's studies? If so, why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:12, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:: I moved it back to sourced and sourced the link to Georgetown. I actually am not protesting inclusion of woman's studies as you might believe and actually fixed the sourcing of it to two articles that I hope you find as useful. What I am protesting is sourcing. The links provided are opinionated and in some of them un-sourced. For example how is Golf Management not useful? This degree is not based on playing golf but managing a golf course, working at a country club, etc. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:17, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

== Proposal: move to "Essay: Worst College Majors" ==

I think it would be more appropriate as it really fits in with [[Essay|this list]]. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 22:17, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

I would agree with that and think it would work well as as an essay or even under debate [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:19, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

== English? ==

I understand that most English professors are liberal, as are most professors in general. Hence [[professor values]]. However, I am a conservative English major, and I know several others who are as well. Although liberal writers are studied, so are powerful conservative and Christian writers like Dostoevsky, Rand, Shakespeare, and Milton. I developed most of my conservative principles through studying literature, and I am not the only one. Liberals do use English as an avenue for indoctrination, but they do the same with Biology, Anthropology, Philosophy, and other subjects. In fact, I find all three of those subjects to be much less open-minded than English. Biology and Anthropology, for example, teach that Evolution is fact, and not-so-subtly promote atheism. I have never had an English class that does this, but any English professor who did so could be reported to the Dean and condemned for such actions. Plus, English focuses mostly on composition, comprehension, and critical thinking, which is why it is a very important major for the Journalism and Publishing industries, and is a common undergraduate degree prior to Law and Business graduate schools. I am not saying English is the best major, but rating it worse than subjects like Comic Book Art and Surfing Studies makes no sense. [[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 19:14, 20 June 2010 (EDT)
:Majoring in English leaves virtually no job opportunities to those who take it. [[User:KenJ|KenJ]] 19:24, 20 June 2010 (EDT)
:That's both untrue and irrelevant to my comment. If one wants to go into publishing, for instance, an English degree is generally expected. It is also a good major for professional school opportunities. It is also well-regarded in journalism. I said this, and you seem to have willfully ignored it. Does this mean you think Comic Book Art and Surfing Studies have more job opportunities than English? And, in any case, my removal of English seems to have been reverted on the grounds that the English major is a deceitful liberal institution, which as a conservative English major I am trying to refute. It has many liberals, and some of the professors are biased, but that is true of every single major on many college campuses. I find the English major's inclusion on this list to be a blatant generalization, and I suspect it comes from ignorance as to what an English major at a good university actually entails. [[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 7:42, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

== Point ==
The entire premise of this essay is that education is merely all about getting a job. That's a particularly small-minded approach to education - for some, education and expansion of knowledge is an end in and of itself. If women's studies or religion is something you're simply interested in, and have no intention of ever earning a living doing it, it's absurd to call it a "worst college major".

Even if this is the case, the suggestion that 'Film Studies' is a unlikely to get you a job is entirely bogus, given the number of film school grads who go on to work in the industry. Interior Decorating? Countless jobs in the field exist - the entire construction industry needs interior decorators to do the very last part of the project. Comic Book Art - with the total conversion of the blockbuster movie business to simply producing versions of graphic novels, the comic business is booming, and good artists are very well paid indeed. Others you list do indeed have unlikely employability, but in that case, revert to my first point - one may not be studying these with any intention of getting a job. I have taken a collegel-level study in Etruscan pottery, and neither work in the field of archeology nor ever intend to - I just found their beauty entrancing. Perhaps you ought to take a course on 'Balance'? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 07:23, 21 June 2010 (EDT)
:The entire premise of this article was based on news reports and opinions on the subject that have been around for a couple years. Perhaps you should open your own mind a bit more instead of complain about our lack of "balance". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:22, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

==English Literature==
Why is English Literature on this list? It has a long and venerable history as a degree subject, and studying [[Shakespeare]], [[Milton]], [[John Donne]] and the like gives deep and valuable insights into all kinds of subjects. Indeed, many of the words on the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Terms]] list derive from the great works of English literature. It would be barbarous to drive the study of English literature out of our universities, and categorising it alongside surfing studies is an insult to [[Geoffrey Chaucer]], [[William Caxton]], [[John Bunyan]] and everyone else who helped to pioneer the establishment of English as a cultured tongue admired by people in every country of today's world.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:18, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

:I don't think the classics you cite are the focus of study in "English lit/Literary Criticism" majors anymore, but I have an open mind about this.

:Wasn't the [[Virginia Tech]] mass murderer taking courses in this major?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:37, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

:We do study these authors very extensively. I have taken semester-long classes on both Milton and Shakespeare, two quite conservative, Christian writers. The Milton class is very popular, and the Shakespeare class is specifically required for the major. Also, I see no reason to believe the Virginia Tech shooter’s actions were due to his major. Shouldn’t we be inclined to expect familial and social problems long before we demonize his area of academic study?--[[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 14:03, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

::It probably depends on the university or college in question. I'm not saying every literature course is worthwhile, but we shouldn't tar them all with the same brush.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:38, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

:::To Andy: I just wanted to ask, are you, by your statement, implying that there is a correlation between the fact that the Virginia Tech murderer was taking courses in English Literature and the fact that he became a mass murderer? Or was it merely a request for information, not meant to infer anything?
:::If you were actually implying that there might be a correlation between majoring in English AND becoming a murdering psychopath (or, the other way round: that potential murdering psychopaths are more likely to choose English as a major), could you please elaborate and explain your point of view? Thank you! --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 15:06, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Garbage in, garbage out. The "murdering psychopath" (your phrase) was indeed an English Lit. major. The failure to see the problem in the killer's work and the reaction of his English Lit. professors afterward struck me as very bizarre.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: But exactly, how could one have "seen the problem in the killer's work" beforehand? Were there dissertations and projects in which he displayed strange ideas and behavior? And what exactly was the reaction of his English Literature professors afterward? Sorry if I keep asking but I am not very familiar with the details. Anyway, had he been studying Engineering or Information Technology I don't think it would have changed much :) --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 18:38, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Marco, the better approach is to gather the facts first, with an open mind, and only afterward draw the conclusion. Otherwise it's a pointless exercise.

:::::: As discussed here in detail at the time, the killer's work did display "strange ideas and behavior," but English Lit. professors continued to pass him and accept his work. Other details are readily available here. But if you're going to insist that ideas and majors cannot have any effect on behavior, then it won't matter to you what the facts are. Please reconsider with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:10, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: A person's major clearly affects them and the choices they will make later in life. The Virginia tech shooter chose English lit. and used it to write down his perverse fantasies. Even if someone majoring in English lit. doesn't become a murderer they are wasting money by studying something that won't give them skills valuable in the [[Free market]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:25, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm sorry, I guess I'm a bit "partisan" in the debate because I have a Master's Degree in English and French literature, and I consider myself completely normal, and everyone else I met (and I met many people) also seemed to be a perfectly normal and healthy human being! But I guess that to an already troubled mind, studies of literature or philosophy may provide a "spark" of madness more easily than other studies. After all, literature often touches on the dark side of the human soul. I guess it could count as a factor... but I think that a mind would already need to be troubled beforehand :) Just my two cents! --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 19:46, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Andy Schlafly, I joined this site with the hope of improving the (frankly dismal) articles related to English literature, from a conservative, Christian point-of-view. Considering the lack of such material here, I thought this would be appreciated. However, if such awful generalizations will be made about my major after the actions of a VT student with serious problems in his mind, faith, and family, my only conclusion can be that I was wrong, and you have very negative pre-conceived tendencies against English literature. My edits would therefore have gone unappreciated, and I am disappointed. Enjoy the few embarrassingly incomplete literature articles you do have, and enjoy, of course, your open-mindedness. --[[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 19:56, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: Ckirk, your [[Parthian shot]] illustrates my point well. You criticize me personally while also trying to insult this site, and then announce your grand exit after a mere handful of edits. Of course, I did not criticize "English literature"; rather, the criticism is of the major of English Lit. as it is taught today. May I suggest you consider ranting elsewhere now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: "At best, last wordism is childish. At worst, it reflects a lack of restraint or bullying, a characteristic of wrongdoing or sin." - from the Conservapedia article on [[last wordism]]. If you think I left, why direct a comment at me other than to obtain the "last word" here? I only say this because I think you could learn a lot if you adopted conservative principles. You seem to have more in common with radical liberals than with true conservatives. Somehow I think you know that to be true. Now please block me. I've wasted enough of my time here. And don't forget to add the last word. --[[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 23:28, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::::: I think you have no one to blame but yourself if you choose to rant rather than produce. Please find a different scapegoat. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

== i think evolutionary biology is a major not just a course ==

Additionally a search on www.gradschools.com reveals 148 graduate programs in it. [[User:RebekahH|RebekahH]] 16:12, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

== Do these majors even exist? ==

First, I’d like to concur with others’ opinion that claims that these majors “leave the student with relatively few job opportunities” should be properly documented, or withdrawn. But some of these alleged “worst college majors” don’t seem to even exist. There are several easily located websites with comprehensive lists of available college majors, and none of them contains Comic Book Art, Parapsychology, Surfing Studies or Gambling/Gaming. As for the list of courses, yes, most of them seem silly, but they don’t fit the stated category of “fields of study.” [[User:GregF|GregF]] 23:41, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

:Women's studies is a major having many tens of thousands of students nationwide. Gambling/gaming is a big major in Nevada, and perhaps some other states that now also have expansive gambling. I don't doubt that your other three examples exist too, at least at some schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

::I said nothing about Women's Studies, which I am aware is a common course of study at American universities. You "don't doubt" that the others exist but fail to provide any reason for this lack of doubt. [[User:GregF|GregF]] 00:35, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

:::One reason I don't doubt it is because they are too absurd and useless for someone to make up with a straight face!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:06, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

:: GregF, did you even bothered looking before posting this complain? A quick google search show that the four degrees you mentioned in the message actually exist:
::Comic Book Art: Called "Sequencial Art", offered by [http://www.scad.edu/sequential-art/index.cfm Savannah College of Art and Design].
::Parapsychology: Offered by [http://wwwm.coventry.ac.uk/ptshortcpd/pgpt/Pages/pgpt.aspx?itemID=151 Coventry University].
::Surfing Studies: Called "Surf Science and Technilogy", offered by [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/courses/course.asp?id=1645 The University of Plymouth]
::Gambling/Gaming, offered by the [http://www.umac.mo/iscg/courses/gmdiphome.html University Of Macau]. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 23:35, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

:::Yes, I did look. I didn't find them; you did. Thanks. My point was that they should be documented. Now perhaps they should be listed by their correct names. Sequential Art is much broader than "Comic Book Art" and appears to be a type of Fine Arts degree and no less valid than one in Sculpture or Photography. And the "Gambling" degree is actually in Casino Management, which, given the importance of that industry in Macao, could be quite practical there. [[User:GregF|GregF]] 00:24, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

==Film==

I noticed that 'Film' has been reinstated, with the comment that the business is shrinking and jobs are scarce. I am one of those not-as-rare-as-you'd-think people - a Christian in the film business in 'Hollywood' (there are a surprising amount of us), and I'd love to see where you're getting your facts from. The Bureau of Labor Statistics expects between 10-30% growth in movie business employment between 2008-2018, for example[http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs038.htm]. The production companies I work for as a freelancer are ''all'' staffed almost entirely by film school grads (dating from 2011 students back to grads from the 60s), are growing and hiring like crazy, and they are desperately searching for more film school grads. There are graduates from all over the world working in this business, and I personally know film school grads from ''at least'' ten different film schools in the US who are busily at work here in Los Angeles - schools like Tisch, SCAD, Arts Centre, UCLA, USC, Vasser, Colorado Film School, etc - there's countless programs nowadays. In a business where experience is everything, film school grads are eminently hirable, and I think the suggestion that it is one of the "Worst College Majors" is utterly incorrect. If you can back up your claim with some figures, I'd be interested, but for now it seems you may be pre-judging these kids, based on the fact that they want to work in what is often a not particularly Christian business. But rest assured, there are plenty of art department, post-production, gaffers, DP's, runner and producers who are people of Faith, and we welcome more into our fold every day. Try not to pre-judge what is a highly employable field. [[User:JanW|JanW]] 13:33, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

:The California government gives special benefits to the film industry there to prop it up and keep it going. The industry is generally declining. In other places I don't think most students who major in film have a realistic chance of getting a good job, and the benefits to the industry are likely to be cut. See, e.g., "Michigan spent $137.5 million in incentives to generate $80.6 million in film industry revenue" [http://www.mlive.com/jobs/index.ssf/2011/02/michigans_film_industry_to_fade_away_alo.html]. If a student knows someone in the industry who can get him or her a job, then that may work for a while. But if not, it looks pretty hopeless. I knew one college film major who struggled to find a summer job opportunity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:12, 5 June 2011 (EDT)

== One list for Worst (liberal) Majors and one for Worst Majors for job prospects? ==

The current list is a mixture of two negative qualities: liberalism (e.g. women's studies) and poor job-outlook (video game design). A major like video game design or architecture don't intrinsically embody liberal philosophies, but the job outlook for graduates with these majors is poor these days, while a major like evolutionary biology has liberal connotations but the job-outlook for these graduates is not bod (though not great, but certainly better than a film major, etc.). Some majors, like women's studies, fall into both camps. '''So should there be two lists: one for extremely liberal majors and one for majors that offer poor job prospects?'''

==Video game design should be removed==

I find video game design to be a somewhat confusing entry. The video games industry is now larger than the film industry and a typical graduate with some experience can expect to enter a well paid job with good security. I'm involved in computer science research and I interact regularly with video games companies and the students themselves. Generally companies are interested in recruiting our graduates.

It's by no means a wasted degree, it's a good practical skill for a booming industry.

Furthermore, the source given for this leads nowhere, it's just an arbitrary statement. It means nothing. The claim that it's a bad major is unfounded and irrelevant.
:Hi, I'm someone who has a degree in Video Game design and can't find a job because I don't live in California or Montrial. The places that hire video game designers are very limited and otherwise, someone will have to start their own business with no promise of a paycheck. That is why it is a poor choice of a diploma unless you are REALLY good at it or live in a prime location for the job. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

Talk:Bible Translation Issues

2011-06-12T05:06:04Z

MHarris:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19

== Taking command ==

Attention everyone:

Under the authority of Mr. [[User:Aschlafly]] and the administration, I, [[User:TerryH]], am taking command of this Project.

My qualifications are these: I can read ancient Greek almost as fast as I can read modern English, I've begun a study of Biblical Hebrew, and I own certain "off-line" (actually, hardcover) resources that allow me to function as a translator.

I am forming my Committee on Translation right now, as I sound people out as to their qualifications. In the meantime, I have certain positions on the translation issues mentioned on this page:

I believe that we should capitalize any and all references to God and Jesus, on account of Who They Are, not on account of what any given speaker might think They are.

I believe that we should refer to the [[Pharisees]], the [[Sadducees]], and the scribes by those specific names. The Pharisees and the Sadducees were two opposing factions among the Jewish intellectual elite, and were united only in their opposition to Jesus, though for diametrically opposite reasons. But the two articles describing those factions are of stub quality and badly in need of expansion. I'll put it simply: the Pharisees' problem was one of adding to the Bible as they understood it; the Sadducees had a problem with taking away from it.

Concerning [[Herod Antipas]]' stepdaughter, call her "girl" when she is so described according to the ancient manuscripts, but make clear in our commentaries that she was indeed playing the part of a temptress. (In fact, she was playing the part of every over-passionate stepdaughter playing up to her step-dad in order to trade, shall we say, favor for favor. And Herodias knew it and used her. That dysfunctional family dynamic deserves an entire article by itself, but one that we should tread carefully while writing, in order to keep things family-friendly.)

Concerning '''πνευμα αγιος''' (literally, "Holy Breath"): I've seen the discussion about Divine Guides and Forces. In fact, the Holy Spirit played both roles. "Force" is too impersonal for my taste, and also reminds me just a bit too much of a certain [[motion picture]] franchise that I now know was a thinly-disguised anti-American screed in six parts. I do know this: let's get away from "Holy Ghost." A ''ghost'' is an apparition; hence my translation of the cry of the men in the storm-tossed boat as "It's a ghost!"

I believe that "Son of man" is accurate. We don't want to capitalize "man."

The Greek word '''μαθετης''' or ''mathetes'' means, literally, a student. That's what I prefer to call the disciples: students. The Twelve Apostles were His best students. "Apostle" is a literal Greek word, and it means "one sent out."

Concerning "first shall be last, and last shall be first": for now, I prefer to translate that literally. But a lot of Greek idioms deserve translation into English idiom. I believe in using idiomatic English wherever possible. Thus, "What is that to us? See thou to it" becomes "So what? That's your problem, not ours." Or: "The last error will be worse than the first" becomes "If that happens, we'll have a worse problem."

The eighth issue I covered earlier: "Pharisees" are "Pharisees." In point of fact, the Pharisees and the Sadducees were both incumbents. They were like the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress today. Worse yet, I have seen Pharisaical and Sadducee-like tendencies in many fellow churchmen whom I have known in my fifty-one years. (Pharisees like to add their own traditions and regulations to the Bible, while Sadducees like to take scissors and snip out parts of the Bible that they do not like. God warns against both attitudes; cf. {{Bible ref|book=Revelations|chap=22|verses=18-19}}.

Comments, anyone? Reply here or on my Talk page for now.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:07, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:Terry, your comments and leadership are superb, but we are a meritocracy. One is "king of the hill" only as long as he is the best. Let's expect and welcome talented contributions by many others, and perhaps even a run at your position at the top of the hill! This will get even more interesting.

:Qualifications? I've studied ancient Greek, modern English, political bias and, perhaps most importantly, the effective communication of ideas to students. All four are important components of this project. But I concede and welcome your expertise in the ancient languages, which is invaluable.

:I agree completely with your view towards capitalization, and add an additional reason for it: often there are multiple pronoun references (to Jesus and someone else) and use of capitalization is an efficient way to avoid repetition of the names for clarity.

:I think your other points are open to more discussion and debate. Taking one, I feel the term "Pharisees" means nothing to people today, and their biblical views seem irrelevant. I'm intrigued by calling them "incumbents" because that gets at the real issue and conflict, doesn't it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:57, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Further thoughts: it appears that the original meaning of an "incumbent" was an ecclesiastical position!

:: The more important translation is the "first shall be last, and the last shall be first." People don't understand that English phrase, and think greater clarity in the English would be helpful. I made a suggestion in one of its appearances after some thought, along the lines of the "highest position among men shall be last, and the last the shall be first." But suggestions are welcome, as the essence of this project is to bring out the best from many to obtain an optimal translation as of 2009.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:51, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

== Proposed man -> businessman ==

In Mark's parable of the vineyard (12:1...), I've translated man as businessman, highlighting clarity which was absent in the greek. Does this seem reasonable? [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 20:01, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

:Looks brilliant to me. Thanks for the insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:32, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

== Kyrios vs. Theos/Lord vs. God ==

I have seen several places on the CBP where "Lord" is used as a synonym for "God." (See Luke 9, for one example.) I think it would be good to be more precise with those terms. Whereas we all probably use "Lord" and "God" more or less interchangeably in our personal prayer lives, theologically the two terms are quite distinct. I think it would be a good idea to be a bit more consistent, and always check the original Greek. I'm pretty sure, when the King James uses "Lord," it accurately translates the Greek κυριος (lord), and when it uses "God," it's translating θεος (God). --[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 16:29, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

: Your point is well-taken, except note that this is not a strict word-for-word translation. Rather, this seeks the original intent. It seems possible that one could use θεος intending the concept of "Lord". Perhaps more discussion and analysis of this would be helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:03, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

::I can see your point as well, Mr. Sclafly. However, I think it would be good to approach each case with a good amount of sensitivity. It can be exceptionally difficult to discern "original intent," when it comes to the inspired Scripture. I am open to the idea that "God" could somehow convey the deeper sense of "Lord" in the right context, but at the same time, when you come to a statement like Thomas's "My Lord and my God!" it would be completely misleading to simply translate it either "My Lord!" or "My God!" "Kyrios" has more of the sense of a supreme Master, to whom allegiance is owed, whereas "Theos" is a very specific noun for God, the creator of the universe. I'm not familiar off the top of my head with any place in the New Testament where "Lord" would actually convey the full sense of Godhood. But there may be such a usage somewhere!--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 12:24, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

:::It is important for the Word of God to be understandable today, however if the Bible is God's word, and has been faithfully preserved, to alter or abolish words, even if done for the best intentions, is to set a horrible precedent for future readers and translators, which indeed, the "Message" bible has done so and wrecked great abuse on the Bible. its word of choice was "master" in place of "Lord" .[[User:americana83|Michael Wolfe]] 23:27, 7 December 2009 (EDT)

== Gospel or Good News? Translation of ευαγγελιον ==
There has been a bit of confusion on the Talk page for Luke 1-9 about how to translate the Greek word ευαγγελιον. There were several verses where it had been rendered as Truth, which doesn't seem to be very accurate to me. TerryH indicated that "good news" would be better, and that seems to be how it stands right now in Mark. But I saw several places in Matthew where it is still "gospel." Have we come to any consensus on this? My own feeling is that "good news" is a more descriptive phrase to translate the Greek, but "gospel" is certainly a term with some rich heritage. Has any official decision been made on this one?--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 12:06, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

== Preservation of "grape juice" ==

One commentator has questioned whether grape juice could be preserved by the ancients as wine could be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:07, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

== General question about this article ==

Do we raise issues on the main article page but discuss them here, or also include concise responses on the main page as well. I'll move my recent comment regarding "master" here if it was put in the wrong place. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 19:00, 20 February 2010 (EST)

:We're flexible, but perhaps it would work best if the extended talk occurred here? Of course, feel free to include concise counterpoint in the entry also. I'll try to do that now for your and Alex's comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:04, 20 February 2010 (EST)

== Issue of "master" or "teacher" or ... "lord" ==

Because this is supposed to be a modern conservative translation, and the term "lord" doesn't really have any valence beyond the divine in modern times. House of Lords? Please, outdated nonsense. "Master" reeks of something with no relevance to the contemporary reader and evokes slavery and other relationships that are decidedly non-conservative in nature--today, we might use the term "boss," but if that's too colloquial, and if "supervisor" is too clumsy, "patron" perhaps? (Alex)

:Agreed that "Lord" can be confusing when not referring to God, as in the passage "a man cannot serve two masters". The word "master" actually works better than almost any synonym in most contexts; "patron" means something different, and "superior" is clumsy. (Chris)
::I prefer master, except where you can clearly use "employer." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 23:25, 20 February 2010 (EST)

:::I don't know the best answer, but "master" seems archaic today to me. I rarely hear anyone use it in speech now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 20 February 2010 (EST)
::::I'd think there are two litmus tests for these types of questions: 
::::*First, is the replacement word clear and intuitive to the modern-day reader?
::::*Second, does the word properly capture the original meaning ''in the context of the Biblical setting(s) it's being used in''?
::::The use of 'master' is definitely archaic today, but that's because the social structures between people have changed as well. If we were describing the lord/serf relationship of feudal times, it would be hard to convey that using only contemporary terms, because we're describing a system that doesn't exist today. 
::::In working with the four Gospels of the New Testament, we're looking at descriptions of what happened in the places Jesus passed through at that point in history. Preserving the original intent and messages means that we may need to rely on the frequent use of terms that seem archaic, but really aren't if they are the best way to describe things that don't exist today. My two cents, anyway. -[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:31, 21 February 2010 (EST)

:::::I agree in principle, but wonder if "master" was ''ever'' used in the manner proposed by many Bible translations. I think it works with the expression "a man cannot serve two masters," but it does not seem to best convey the original intent in today's language in many other contexts. Use of the term "lord" is also imperfect, but has had widespread usage in English throughout history and conveys an image of both employer and master. Do you agree that the same Greek term can and should be translated differently for different contexts?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:37, 21 February 2010 (EST)

::::::I agree with you - having a richer vocabulary at our command today allows a new version of the Bible to be improved by using various different words to convey the original meaning of a single ancient word that was repeated many times. They key is that the meaning is preserved, and in just about every instance in this project that's what's being done, leaving very few ambiguous cases. I'm not qualified to answer your question about translating Greek, so I'll have to defer to someone like TerryH, who is. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 14:04, 21 February 2010 (EST)

== ἰδού ==

Still no scholarly source for a translation of ἰδού as "at this moment" is presented. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:26, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
:There is no need for one, it is easily translated. The word means Look/behold. Ιδου is the Koine Greek interjection meaning: look / behold. Koine is Greek for 'Common' as in the commonly spoken dialect of Greek. It would make sense that Koine Greek is used as the Gospel was written most likely by Matthew's student who would not be educated in the more uncommon Greek dialect. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

::Words -- and particularly a word indicative of emphasis like "ἰδού" -- should not be translated in isolation from their context. In English it is impossible to explain what the word "get" means unless its context is also analyzed. Sometimes it means "understand"; in other contexts it means "fetch" or "retrieve".

::If words could be translated without reference to context, then computer translations would be perfect. Instead, they are typically terrible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:46, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

:::First off, 'Get' is a poor choice of a word. It has only two meanings as a verb. Come to have or hold (something); receive or Experience, suffer, or be afflicted with (something bad). Ether way, 'Get' means to acquire something in some manner. Secondly, we have the context and the word only has TWO possibles meanings. Look or Behold. Both of which in this part of the scripture has the same meaning. "This is important! Take Notice!" What problem is there?

Talk:Bible Translation Issues

2011-06-12T03:50:19Z

MHarris:

Talk:Matthew 20-28 (Translated)

2011-06-12T03:42:25Z

MHarris: I think I just had the Divine Guide come though me, Amen.

== 21:12 ==

Reversion explained: the edit significantly weakened the translation and introduced terms like "cashier" that are out of place. Please discuss first before making a sweeping edit in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:02, 19 November 2009 (EST)

== 28:19 - "Divine Guide" ==
I am curious about the translation of "Holy Ghost" to "Divine Guide". I would have expected "Holy Spirit", but this alternate term is very intriguing and I would like to learn more about it. Can anyone comment on how this term was developed? --[[User:FatherJoseph|FatherJoseph]] 14:57, 12 December 2009 (EST)
:A quick google on both gave me the impression that both are commonly used interchangingly. But personally, I find that 'Divine Guide' flows that fits a lot better with what or who the 'Holy Ghost' is meant to be. It is meant to be an urging or pull on someone's heart or spirit to do good things. Or if I might say so, a Guide. It fits in my mind. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]
== ἰδού ==
I don't endorse MandersB's tactic to replace every occurrence of ἰδού with ''at the moment''. But he raises some interesting points:
*Andy, if you think that ''behold'' is archaic, why should it occur in the translation at all?
*Shouldn't it be possible to use ''at the moment'' as a translation for ἰδού more than once?
*I checked a couple of dictonaries and failed to find ''at the moment'' as a translation of ἰδού. Could you hint me to your source?
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:50, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

I searched for a week for a source which states that ''at the moment'' is a nuance of ἰδού. I wasn't able to find one. That's why I put a source - tag to the translation. I hope that Aschlafly will show me where this translation comes from.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:36, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

: I did a Google search on:
:*ἰδού "at that moment"
: and nearly 20,000 items were found. I've added a cite to the content entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:14, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

::A google search! Well, for a moment a will join your light-hearted approach:
::*''ἰδού'' and '''''yesterday''''' results in '''77,000''' hits
::*''ἰδού'' and '''''wow''''': '''100,000''' hits
::*''ἰδού'' and '''''later''''': '''200,000''' hits
::As ''wow'' is a demonstrative particle, often stressing what follows, it wouldn't be quite a bad translation! But we both know that such searches are meaningless.

::And please keep in mind that this translation is meant to be a serious project: not everybody will appreciate your attempt of humor. So, back to the real problem: it goes without saying that I expected you to present something like article on the nuances of ''ἰδού'', published in one of the many journals like ''[http://www.sil.org/siljot/index.asp?series=932 Journal of Translation]''. Or a excerpt of a textbook, or a renowned Biblical commentary. Please, could you do so?

::As for the cite you added to the verse: I'm afraid it doesn't show what you expect it to demonstrate. Indeed, ἰδού appears in the original verse and ''at that moment'' appears in the translations of the e.g., [[New International Version]] and the [[New Living Translation]]. But this doesn't imply that ''at that moment'' is the translation of ''ἰδού''! I have stated earlier ([[User_talk:Aschlafly#Matthew_and_John]] - btw, it's in one of the four questions I'd like you to answer):
:::The ''New International Version'' starts the verse with ''At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn..'', but this ''at that moment'' seems to be a translation of the leading καὶ (in fact of the string of καὶ-καὶ-καὶ), while ἰδού is dropped from the sentence altogether - as you observed rightly in [[Bible Translation Issues]].
::The new international version seems to follow the same principles as the NET Bible project, which states:
:::Introductory particles like ἰδού (“behold”) have been translated to fit the context (sometimes “listen,” “pay attention,” “look,” or occasionally left untranslated).
::It seems to me that you are one of the first to translate ἰδού as ''at that/this moment''. And such a novel translation obviously needs an elaborate justification, especially when it is used further on with far-reaching consequences (see [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]).

::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:28, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

I've shown here and at [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|Talk:John 1-7]] that besides the repeated claims that there is a nuance ἰδού meaning "suddenly" or "at that time" no serious evidence for the existence of such a nuance is given. So - as the very minimum - I reintroduced the source-tag. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:35, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

== For the time being... ==

According to [[Bible Translation Issues]] No. 17, I omitted the translation of ἰδού in Matthew 27:51. I think this is a reasonable compromise until ''any '' scholarly source for a translation of ἰδού as ''at this moment'' can be found (see [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|here]] for the ongoing discussion ).

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:22, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

: As a general matter of interpretation or translation, ignoring or deleting words is disfavored. The word was not included simply to be ignored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:15, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

::Isn't inventing a new meaning for a word disfavored, too? Until now, you haven't shown any scholarly source which validates your idea that "at this moment" is a "nuance " of ἰδού.

::The source you gave is a list of various translations, which shows that modern liberal translations have a liberal concept of translating. Surely, this can't be model for the CBP, especially as you frown upon these techniques, e.g., [[NIV|here]]?

::ἰδού is an interjection. It doesn't contain information on its own, it just stresses the following text (think of ''wow'' in contempory English) .

::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Let's discuss this issue further. For starters, will you agree that simply ignoring and essentially erasing the Greek term is not an option for an optimal translation?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

==Ending the ιδού talk ==

Guess what I did? I translated the dang word! It means 'lo' as in "Lo and behold". 'Look' shortened to 'Lo'. Not 'wow' not anything else that has been said. the Greek word ιδού means 'lo'. Translate it yourself and you will see. Just google "Translate Greek ιδού" and oh my goodness, its the first link! Can we find something else to talk about now? I see the translation isn't included, I don't care if it is or not. It is one word from a gosple made up of many other letters and whatnot. The meaning still remains whether or not you use it. I would edit it to correct the commentary placed next to the scripture in question, but I don't want to mess with anything I don't have a right messing with. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

:Your spirited comments are welcome, but "lo" (like "wow") seems beneath the level of the Gospels. I wouldn't expect to find those words in the Constitution, or in a good Bible translation.

:: ιδού does not mean 'wow' it means "Lo, Look/behold". Beneath the level of the Gospels? You think they were written by some elite nobility? It was written by a former tax collector. The scripture in question was most likely a dictated writing of what he experienced or what one of his students found out during his research into his Master's past life while writing a biography. Interjections like 'wow' or 'behold' are perfectly acceptable in these accounts as it is the authors way of expressing the emotions they felt during the event or when they found out about the event.

:Good translations respect the source that is being translated, and preserve as much meaning as possible. If the meaning is "lo" (or "wow"), the point is to explain what is so amazing about what happened. In this context, the amazing attribute is temporal: the veil was torn "at that moment." Hence that is the best translation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

::I'm pretty sure you are using the word 'temporal' wrong in that statement. But I restate. The meaning is not 'wow' nor should 'lo' be put on the same level as 'wow' though they are both interjections. In the usage of the word, the author was pointing to the veil as evidence as in "LOOK! There is the proof that he is the Lord our Savor! The Great Veil that took two strong men to lift just enough to let a small man though was ripped from the inside out, top down as the LORD cut away the boundary between us and HIM!" the Veil was a large, thick cloth that separated people from the Ark. To give sacrifice, a lamb was killed and it's blood put in a cup, then two men lifted the veil and another man crawled under it. If the sacrifice was accepted, bells would ring. When Jesus died, the veil was cut from the inside out or from were the Ark was to the outside and from top down, or from Heaven to Earth, meaning God cut away the boundary between us and Him though the sacrifice of Jesus Christ our Lord. That is why the word is so important and must be properly translated and added into the scripture. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

Talk:Matthew 20-28 (Translated)

2011-06-12T03:10:45Z

MHarris: Expanded on why the ιδού talk needs to stop and we get over it.

Talk:Matthew 20-28 (Translated)

2011-06-12T03:01:10Z

MHarris:

== 21:12 ==

Reversion explained: the edit significantly weakened the translation and introduced terms like "cashier" that are out of place. Please discuss first before making a sweeping edit in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:02, 19 November 2009 (EST)

== 28:19 - "Divine Guide" ==
I am curious about the translation of "Holy Ghost" to "Divine Guide". I would have expected "Holy Spirit", but this alternate term is very intriguing and I would like to learn more about it. Can anyone comment on how this term was developed? --[[User:FatherJoseph|FatherJoseph]] 14:57, 12 December 2009 (EST)
:A quick google on both gave me the impression that both are commonly used interchangingly. But personally, I find that 'Divine Guide' flows that fits a lot better with what or who the 'Holy Ghost' is meant to be. It is meant to be an urging or pull on someone's heart or spirit to do good things. Or if I might say so, a Guide. It fits in my mind. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]
== ἰδού ==
I don't endorse MandersB's tactic to replace every occurrence of ἰδού with ''at the moment''. But he raises some interesting points:
*Andy, if you think that ''behold'' is archaic, why should it occur in the translation at all?
*Shouldn't it be possible to use ''at the moment'' as a translation for ἰδού more than once?
*I checked a couple of dictonaries and failed to find ''at the moment'' as a translation of ἰδού. Could you hint me to your source?
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:50, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

I searched for a week for a source which states that ''at the moment'' is a nuance of ἰδού. I wasn't able to find one. That's why I put a source - tag to the translation. I hope that Aschlafly will show me where this translation comes from.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:36, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

: I did a Google search on:
:*ἰδού "at that moment"
: and nearly 20,000 items were found. I've added a cite to the content entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:14, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

::A google search! Well, for a moment a will join your light-hearted approach:
::*''ἰδού'' and '''''yesterday''''' results in '''77,000''' hits
::*''ἰδού'' and '''''wow''''': '''100,000''' hits
::*''ἰδού'' and '''''later''''': '''200,000''' hits
::As ''wow'' is a demonstrative particle, often stressing what follows, it wouldn't be quite a bad translation! But we both know that such searches are meaningless.

::And please keep in mind that this translation is meant to be a serious project: not everybody will appreciate your attempt of humor. So, back to the real problem: it goes without saying that I expected you to present something like article on the nuances of ''ἰδού'', published in one of the many journals like ''[http://www.sil.org/siljot/index.asp?series=932 Journal of Translation]''. Or a excerpt of a textbook, or a renowned Biblical commentary. Please, could you do so?

::As for the cite you added to the verse: I'm afraid it doesn't show what you expect it to demonstrate. Indeed, ἰδού appears in the original verse and ''at that moment'' appears in the translations of the e.g., [[New International Version]] and the [[New Living Translation]]. But this doesn't imply that ''at that moment'' is the translation of ''ἰδού''! I have stated earlier ([[User_talk:Aschlafly#Matthew_and_John]] - btw, it's in one of the four questions I'd like you to answer):
:::The ''New International Version'' starts the verse with ''At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn..'', but this ''at that moment'' seems to be a translation of the leading καὶ (in fact of the string of καὶ-καὶ-καὶ), while ἰδού is dropped from the sentence altogether - as you observed rightly in [[Bible Translation Issues]].
::The new international version seems to follow the same principles as the NET Bible project, which states:
:::Introductory particles like ἰδού (“behold”) have been translated to fit the context (sometimes “listen,” “pay attention,” “look,” or occasionally left untranslated).
::It seems to me that you are one of the first to translate ἰδού as ''at that/this moment''. And such a novel translation obviously needs an elaborate justification, especially when it is used further on with far-reaching consequences (see [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]).

::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:28, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

I've shown here and at [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|Talk:John 1-7]] that besides the repeated claims that there is a nuance ἰδού meaning "suddenly" or "at that time" no serious evidence for the existence of such a nuance is given. So - as the very minimum - I reintroduced the source-tag. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:35, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

== For the time being... ==

According to [[Bible Translation Issues]] No. 17, I omitted the translation of ἰδού in Matthew 27:51. I think this is a reasonable compromise until ''any '' scholarly source for a translation of ἰδού as ''at this moment'' can be found (see [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|here]] for the ongoing discussion ).

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:22, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

: As a general matter of interpretation or translation, ignoring or deleting words is disfavored. The word was not included simply to be ignored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:15, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

::Isn't inventing a new meaning for a word disfavored, too? Until now, you haven't shown any scholarly source which validates your idea that "at this moment" is a "nuance " of ἰδού.

::The source you gave is a list of various translations, which shows that modern liberal translations have a liberal concept of translating. Surely, this can't be model for the CBP, especially as you frown upon these techniques, e.g., [[NIV|here]]?

::ἰδού is an interjection. It doesn't contain information on its own, it just stresses the following text (think of ''wow'' in contempory English) .

::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Let's discuss this issue further. For starters, will you agree that simply ignoring and essentially erasing the Greek term is not an option for an optimal translation?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

==Ending the ιδού talk ==

Guess what I did? I translated the dang word! It means 'lo' as in "Lo and behold". 'Look' shortened to 'Lo'. Not 'wow' not anything else that has been said. the Greek word ιδού means 'lo'. Translate it yourself and you will see. Can we find something else to talk about now? [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

User talk:Justicebringer15

2011-06-12T00:36:00Z

MHarris:

What were you thinking by putting that in his user page? You are making your exit out of this website that much faster. (You have to use your first and last name in your username) [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Many apologies, I wasn't aware that the username has to be done that way. I will also refrain from editing others' user pages. Is there a way I can change my own username, or must I redo my account?
:There might be a way for a sysop to do so, but chances are your account is gonna be blocked in a few hours by an admin. Might aswell get ahead and make a new account. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

User talk:Justicebringer15

2011-06-12T00:03:14Z

MHarris: Created page with "What were you thinking by putting that in his user page? You are making your exit out of this website that much faster. (You have to use your first and last name in your username..."

Pokémon

2011-06-11T23:08:01Z

MHarris: Pokemon promoting violence, occultism and satanism? Don't make me laugh.

[[image:Pokemon.jpg|right|200px]]
'''Pokémon''' is a highly successful Japanese franchise that was introduced in the 1990s. Owned by [[Nintendo]], it has risen to become the second most successful video game franchise, behind Nintendo's own Mario. It spread to several other countries in a short time.

The series focuses on capturing, training, battling, collecting and trading various monster species, known as Pokémon. While the mechanics vary from incarnation to incarnation, the player generally takes on the role of a Pokémon trainer, seeking to capture wild monsters, raise them, and defeat other trainers in duels using the captured monsters in order to become a champion.

==Video Games==

Pokémon was originally released in [[Japan]] in 1996 as a pair of cartridges, ''Pokémon Red'' and ''Pokémon Green'', for the original [[Game Boy]] system. Three years later, the games were released as ''Pokémon Red'' and ''Pokémon Blue'' in the United States and worldwide. The games feature similar gameplay, differing primarily in what monsters are available in each version. New versions of the game are released periodically, normally in pairs, to introduce new monsters and to take advantage of improving hardware technology. As of the release of ''Pokémon Black'' and ''Pokémon White'' in 2011 (2010 in Japan), there are 649 species of Pokémon available.

Players take the role of a Pokémon trainer, seeking to capture wild Pokémon with "Pokéballs", small spheres in which captured creatures live. The player travels across the region challenging other trainers while raising their own Pokémon and capturing new ones. The games normally feature a sub-plot where the player, with the help of their Pokémon, foil the schemes of a criminal organization or terrorist group trying to use a "legendary" Pokemon to take over the world. The player must challenge eight advanced trainers known as "gym leaders" before they can challenge the "Elite Four" and the "League Champion", five of the strongest trainers in the region. The games also challenge the player to see and capture as many species as possible. However, this is made difficult due to different game versions having exclusive Pokémon, requiring the player to trade with other people who have the opposite game version. Certain Pokemon deemed "legendary" have power far superior to other Pokemon, and only appear once in each game. Some Pokemon are only given in [[Nintendo]]-held events, and while most of these events give away legendary Pokemon that cannot be obtained otherwise, there are many exceptions.

In a battle with a wild Pokémon or a match against a trainer, the player's Pokémon and the foe alternate using up to four learned moves, with the ultimate goal being to knock out the opponent. If the player encounters a wild Pokémon, they can choose to attempt to capture it, rather than knocking it out. A captured Pokémon joins the player, and this is the entire premise behind the series and the only way a trainer can have Pokemon on his team besides his starter.

Many Pokémon, with sufficient training, will spontaneously change form, developing into a larger, stronger species. This process is called "evolution", though it more closely resembles growing up and maturing, or the metamorphism of insects, and has little to nothing to do with the [[Theory of Evolution]]. Many Pokémon species can evolve multiple times, and many species can only be obtained by evolving more basic ones. In addition, some Pokemon can evolve in more than one different path instead of the linear evolutionary path most Pokemon take, and a good number of Pokemon have gained the ability to evolve in a game after their introduction. Players may also breed their Pokémon with each other by leaving them with the Day Care man, who will inform the player when the Pokémon lay an egg. Eggs eventually hatch into Pokémon, giving the player another option for acquiring new Pokémon.

Additionally, other video games featuring the Pokémon characters have been released, including ''Pokémon Pinball'' and the ''Pokémon Ranger'' series.<ref name="offwev">{{cite web|url=http://www.pokemon.com/#videogames_1|title=Pokemon.com|work=The Official Pokémon Website|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref>

==Other Media==

The Pokémon video game franchise has been adapted into various other media. In 1997, it was adapted into a cartoon show for children which follows the adventures of Ash Ketchum and his friends, as well as their Pokémon. The program is notable for an episode aired only in Japan in which flashing lights caused by one monster's attack induced seizures in hundreds of viewers. Several films based on the series have been produced and released worldwide.<ref>Pokemon.com, The Official Pokémon Website [http://www.pokemon.com/#tvmovies]</ref> <ref> [http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/18/world/tv-cartoon-s-flashes-send-700-japanese-into-seizures.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2 The New York Times; TV Cartoon's Flashes Send 700 Japanese Into Seizures]</ref>

The franchise also spawned a collectible "trading card game", where players duel using special decks consisting of cards representing different Pokémon species, as well as energy cards, which allow Pokémon to use their battle techniques, and trainer cards, which have special effects that influence the flow of battle. The game uses mechanics adapted from the video game, and features characters from the video game and from the cartoon.<ref name="cardgame">{{cite web|url=http://www.go-pokemon.com/|title=Go-Pokemon.com|work=The Official Pokémon TCG and OP Website|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref>

==Criticism==
Pokémon has been criticized for promoting [[violence]], [[occultism]], and [[satanism]].<ref>http://www.capalert.com/capreports/pokemonthemovie.htm</ref>
Many critics have noted that God's role in making the monster creatures was never recognized throughout the video games or the TV series. But as the series is a work of fiction and can easily been seen as such by a large majority of people, these statements are mostly unfounded and maybe nothing more than fear-mongering.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
#[http://www.pokemon.com/ Official Website]
#[http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Main_Page Bulbapedia, wiki with extensive franchise information]

[[Category: Games]]
[[Category: Nintendo Franchises]]

Talk:Matthew 20-28 (Translated)

2011-06-11T03:16:21Z

MHarris:

User talk:PatternOfPersona

2011-06-10T02:32:59Z

MHarris:

{{welcome|sig=--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:41, 6 June 2011 (EDT)}}
:Thank you! :) :) :)[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:39, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

==Minor Edits==

When you are changing a little thing in a page, please check the 'Minor Edit' box and if possible, do all your edits in one post. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

User talk:PatternOfPersona

2011-06-10T02:32:45Z

MHarris:

Talk:Bible codes

2011-06-10T00:58:59Z

MHarris:

==Over-powered language==

The use of the word 'zealot' in this sentence, 'On the side of some ‘Bible Code’ zealots...' seems a bit too strong of a word. I'm going to change it to 'believers' as it is a softer word that still gets the point across. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

Excellent point! Thanks! :) :) :) [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 20:46, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

:Zealot comes across as sounding like they are fanatical and makes them look almost like a cult. That is the only problem I have, the rest of it is till good though.

Pedophilia

2011-06-09T23:00:29Z

MHarris: Added some history and divided the page a bit.

A '''pedophile''' (From the greek paidos, meaning child, and philia, meaning love) or '''paedophile''' (non-US spelling) is a person who is sexually attracted to young [[children]]. The word was first coined by the German [[sexologist]] and [[physician]] [[Richard Krafft-Ebing]]. In his monograph Psychopatia Sexualis, published in 1886, he defined pedophilia as a psychosexual perversion, open to cure. Currently, it is believed to be based on divergence of personality, caused by psychological damage in early childhood.

==Pedophilia in History==

In ancient history and even into more modern history, the idea of pedophilia being a sin or immoral was up to the cultures that people lived in. More so, the act being a crime is mostly a modern event, as we see influentual figures such as Saint Augustine (354–430), Muhammad (570–632), and Gandhi (1869–1948) publicly enjoying the company of children. Though some speculate if they actively molested or sought sexual pleasure from them. As for cultures, none are more known about their child-adult relations than the Greeks.

During the age of Classical Greece, relations between a man and a young boy was seen as part of their education. It wasn't until the poet Ovid and the philosopher Plutarch argued that such a relationship was not fulfilling for the adult, since the boy, due to his inferior social status, was not allowed to express his own desire. They stated that this devaluated the joy of his adult partner and so men were better served by having sexual relations with women.

In [[Rome]], it was seen as perfectly normal for a man to seek company with young men. However, it was illegal for young boys to be penetrated by the adults unless they were slaves or freed slaves to their former masters. For slaves, there was no laws to protect them, even from rape. Slowly, it became less of educating the young boys and more about seeking sexual pleasure and it's view in the public eye varied in the centuries. Conservative thinkers condemned it but it was never banned completely.

in pre-modern [[Islam]], pedophilia was believed to be widely practiced. Muhammad is believed to have been a practicing pedophile and in the Quran, though it doesn't clearly sanction to pedophilia there are some verses which clearly allow the practice. "Wallaee Lam Yahidhna" or translated loosely as "Women who have not menstruation" or preteen girls is used when talking about divorcing women. Though Muslims attempt to change the meaning of the phrase, reviewing of the text shows their statements hold little in fact.

In [[Japan]], the practice of shudō (衆道), "the Way of the Young", is very close to the practices spoken of earlier. Though it was widespread, it feel out of practice in the 19th century.

The list goes on but is vacant in areas and cultures were [[Judaism]] and [[Christianity]] is strong. Although the Holy Books do not directly speak on pedophilia, Scriptures such as "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:10, King James Version) are pointed to by religious leaders as showing God's disapproval of the act. And in ancient Israel and the Hebrews outside of their land, the act is almost nonexistent. Even in Europe, the act doesn't gain any ground until power is taken away from the Church and the [[Age of Enlightenment]] came.

==Pedophilia as an illness==

Pedophilia used to be considered a [[mental illness]], but the APA changed its stance in 1994.<ref>[http://home.messiah.edu/~chase/h/articles/regenera/apa.htm Pedophilia No Longer a Disorder, Psychiatric Association Decides]</ref><ref>the American Psychiatric Association has stated is that an adult may engage in sex with a nine-year-old child, and if the adult is not bothered by what he is doing, then he has no reason to seek professional help. [http://home.messiah.edu/~chase/h/articles/regenera/dsm.htm] </ref>

== External links ==

*[http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_eng/text.html#1 Pastoral Letter to the Catholics of Ireland.]

*[http://www.islam-watch.org/Amarkhan/pedophilia-in-islam/pedophilia-islam.htm]

==Notes==
<references />

[[Category:Sin]]
[[Category:Crime]]

Talk:Pedophilia

2011-06-09T22:15:49Z

MHarris:

Another horribly fascinating topic is [[homosexual priests]] in the Catholic Church. [[Archbishop Milingo]] shocked the world with his revelations (or accusations) of homosexuality and even devil worship in the Vatican. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:45, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:Only a minority of paedophiles are homosexual, and very, very few homosexuals are paedophiles. The two subjects are hardly interrelated. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 08:56, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::I expected that if you had any information to back up this claim, you would have presented it here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:13, 22 November 2008 (EST)
==Speculation and unfounded statements==

From just a glance, I can see this page is very unlike any other in this encyclopedia. Mostly with this statement: "Pedophilia would presumably be allowed and nothing would stop grown men and women from marrying children once gay marriage is allowed in the United States."

Speculation and unfounded in any facts. Pedophilia =/= Homosexuality, or specifically, gay marriage. I am unable to find ANY statistic that is isn't just as unfounded like the one in this page. I am removing the statement and afterward, will clean up the page and add a bit of history and clarity to the page so people can know FACTS concerning Pedophilia.

Bible codes

2011-06-09T17:03:33Z

MHarris: exchanged 'zealot' with the word 'believer' as it is a softer and less negatively viewed word than the prior.

Bible codes are various kinds of patterns identified in the subtext of the Bible which some [[Christians]] and [[Jews]] think were put there deliberately, for a purpose, by God or by the writers of the original texts.

All human languages have patterns, and, when put into written form, many of these patterns are easily noticed.

But, among those who believe that at least some of the subtextual patterns in the Bible are unique to literature, there is the contention that one or more profound dynamics are uniquely involved in these patterns in the Bible. For example, there may be patterns of subtext which are unique to true prose records, and if so, then even more so of records of the origins of humanity, of its nations, and of God's own nation.

On the conservative side, there is a wide acceptance of the idea that some of the subtext patterns in the Pentateuch were created by the original Hebrew scribes in order to help preserve the exactness to which the texts were copied, and to detect inferior copies that might be made by ignorant or nefarious persons. However, [[evangelical Christians]] largely reject the idea that the Bible codes have any meaning beyond that<ref>[http://www.cft.org.za/news/davinci/response.htm A Christian Response to "The Bible Code"]</ref>, some going as far as to call pursuit of numerological codes in the Bible 'occult' and 'Satanic'<ref>http://www.christianmediaresearch.com/cmc-31.html</ref>.

On the side of some ‘Bible Code’ believers, there has been every manner of attempt to create a stir in favor of the idea that at least some of these patterns constitute a kind of high-tech mechanism for predicting any number of trivial and non-trivial future events.

In any case, rare important patterns exist in any world in which telic (purposeful) agents exist (such as humans), which means that for such a world never to contain 'amazing' coincidences, someone would have to rig (or otherwise control) that world in such a way as prevent these coincidences.

== Kinds of Bible codes ==

As with any text, there are very many different subtextual patterns in the Biblical text. In the interest of brevity, only a select set of these Biblical subtext patterns will be mentioned here.

. One kind of 'Bible code' is that found in Equidistant Letter Sequences, or ELS. The 'ELS codes' were made popular in the last century by Israeli mathematician [[Eliyahu Rips]], his associate [[Doron Witztum]], and several others.

. Another kind of 'Bible code' (and, for many people, the most interesting kind of subtextual pattern in the Bible), is that found by listing, in chronological sequence, the meanings of the names of the [[antediluvian]] [[patriarchs]] given in Genesis chapter 5.

. A third kind of 'Bible code' is that of a complex set of interconnecting subtextual patterns based on the number 144. 144 is the number of hours in the six days of the [[Creation Week]], and, when 'visually' coded as 930 (Adam's age at death), leads to the Equidistant Verse Sequence (EVS) code of 111: '''a.''' By observing the sum of the three digits (1, 4, and 4), and then observing the differences, or 'distances', between the contiguous digits (1-4, 4-4), the number 144 is seen to 'state' "930" in a way similar to how a perfect circle is visually observed to 'state' "[[pi]]"; '''b.''' 930 is the unique number of the man who represents all of humanity, and is found at the 111th verse (Genesis 5:5); '''c.''' The unit of 111 verses is found to be the primary key to pinpointing both explicit and implicit prophetically pivotal passages in the plain text of the [[Pentateuch]]. (A criticism of the 'EVS code' is in the fact that the original texts had no explicit verse divisions. But, while it is true that no explicit verse divisions existed in the original texts, and that any such divisions that were made were made only recently in world history, the text itself, like any text or any linguistic vocalization, is not comprised either of random or indifferent linguistic sets, which means there are many different kinds of implicit divisions in the text, including that at the level of the standing verses. Furthermore, while the standing verse divisions of the Bible may not be perfect, the kind of verse division of which they make use is, in general, superior for the purpose of general reference than are all other possible kinds of verse division. This is like the distance between any two bodies of the Solar system, including the [[astronomical unit]], which, regardless of the units of measure used, or of the resultant numbers denoting these distances, are individually and interrelatedly critical.)
==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Bible Study]]

Talk:Bible codes

2011-06-09T17:01:20Z

MHarris: Over-powered language

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative TV Shows

2011-06-07T22:59:08Z

MHarris:

== Six Million Dollar Man ==

The technology could have been developed by private companies under contract with the government.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:18, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
:It "could've" been a lot of things, and I would gladly concede the point given any evidence to back up such an assertion. But as I recall, the protagonist was an astronaut who was "put back together" by the OSI (a fictional government agency) and worked in the public service thereafter. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 18:29, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

== Star Trek ==

The Federation was an extremely [[socialist]] government, to the point where the very concept of money was downright offensive to humans. Furthermore, the only "[[capitalist]]" race in Star Trek--the Ferengi--started off as villains in the early TNG episodes before becoming comic relief pn DS9. --[[User:AdamDiscordia|[[User:AdamDiscordia|Yours in Christ, Adam Discordia]]]] 00:08, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

: Sounds like Star Trek should be downgraded to "Debatable Whether Conservative." Please feel free to move it ... but "Trekies" may not like that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:26, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

:: All trekies may refer to RH Junior's Comic linked here for the hardcore truth about Star Trek. http://www.rhjunior.com/QQSR/00001.html

== The Simpsons? ==
This may be a long shot but could the Simpsons fit under the Debatable category? Although it does occasionally send liberal messages, it embraces very conservative family values. I'm just not sure whether or not its liberal messages exclude it entirely from being included here. --[[User:JimMac|JimMac]] 09:31, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

: Personally, I don't any value -- conservative or otherwise -- in the ''Simpsons''. I think it presents [[Hollywood]]'s negative caricature of the family, as several other sitcoms have. But I welcome comments by others about this show, and thanks for the suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:23, 26 May 2011 (EDT)
::I would agree - showing a dysfunctional family is hardly conservative. It would be like saying the abysmal "Married with children" is conservative. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:21, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

==Action shows==
I'm thinking about shows from my youth, such as CHiPs - which portrays law enforcement in a positive light, while wholesome lead characters and little violence, and MacGuyver, again a show with little violence and a character using Yankee ingenuity to extract himself from a tight situation. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:21, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

== King Of the Hill ==

Definitely conservative...its definitely the most realistic modern cartoon show and the Hill family is Republican (but not demonized for being so). [[User:RichDunbar|RichDunbar]] 23:50, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

Circumcision ban

2011-06-06T22:31:36Z

MHarris: A bit of history on bans of Circumcisions in History.

Though out history, everywhere the [[Hebrew]] and [[Jewish]] people had moved there have been attempts to suppress and cut down on their freedoms. Some had gone the easy route and just killed the [[Jews]] they could find. Others had banned their traditions to try and make them forget who they are. One of the classic means to persecute them was to ban [[Circumcision]].

Although Circumcision is mainly related to the Hebrew people, [[Muslims]] and Ancient [[Egyptians]] have also used the act in their traditions, but never has it been challenged as directly as is with the Hebrews.

==Meaning to the Hebrew People==

The act of removing the foreskin from a male in the eight day of their lives is a reflection of their beliefs of a holy Covenant between Abraham and God. One of the requirements of the Covenant is that foreskin be removed from males on the eight day of their lives and from all male slaves. The removal has developed into a ceremony called a [[Brit milah]](or Bris milah, colloquially simply bris), which means "Covenant of circumcision" in Hebrew.

The one who does the removal is commonly a [[mohel]], someone trained in the removal and can do it safely. The circumcision may be performed using surgical clamp techniques or with a special disposable plastic device called a Plastibell. All that is required by the parents afterwards is that the area is cleaned as per doctor or mohel's orders to prevent infection.

==Use of Ban to harm the Hebrew People==

Though out history, cultures and societies that have sought to hurt Jews have attacked circumcision. Ancient [[Greeks]] made the ban when Jews started gaining influence in the area. [[King Antiochus IV]] of [[Syria]], the occupying power of [[Judea]] in 170 BC, outlawed circumcision on penalty of death. [[Roman emperor Hadrian]] issued a decree banning circumcision in the empire. [[Antoninus Pius]] permitted Jews to circumcise their own sons. However, he forbade the circumcision of non-Jews that were either foreign-slaves or non-Jewish members of the household, contrary to [[Genesis]] 17:12 He also made it illegal for a man to convert to [[Judaism]]. Antoninus Pius exempted the Egyptian priesthood from the otherwise universal ban on circumcision.

[[Nazi Germany]] and [[Soviet Russia]] were the major modern nations to make the bans. As well as off and on during the shifting [[Russian]] [[czars]] in Russia pre-Union.

==Recent attacks on Circumcision==

In the [[21st Century]], a new ban has been brought up in [[San Francisco]]. Under the guise of infant health, people like [[Lloyd Schofield]] and [[Matt Hess]] have been pushing to ban circumcision in the city limits. Matt Hess is also using media like the comic [[Foreskin Man]] to push the issue and paint the Jewish people and specifically the mohel who perform the operation as evil.

Talk:Foreskin Man (comic)

2011-06-06T21:54:42Z

MHarris:

I believe we would be better served by an article on San Fransisco's circumcision ban on infants, if we don't have one already. This will be my last talk page edit for the day.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 17:52, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
:this isn't about the ban, sadly. I haven't finished doing research on it. This is just for the comic Foreskin Man. heavily anti-semitic and something that must be talked about. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

Foreskin Man (comic)

2011-06-06T21:46:26Z

MHarris: Fixing things up and linking names as needed.

Foreskin Man is a webcomic that attacks the Jewish tradition of circumcision, the act of removing the foreskin from the penile. The 'Hero' of the story is a blond haired, blue eye man who fights of the rights of babies to not be circumcised by the evil jews. By the comics own words.

Written by [[Matt Hess]], the same man leading the [[circumcision ban]] in [[San Fransisco]] "For the health of the child", the comic follows the adventures of Miles Hastwick as he battles the evil [[Rabbi]] Monster Mohel and his rampage in removing the foreskin of children everywhere in legal, safe and religious activities. In the first issue, the hero meets up with his girlfriend during one of his wild booze parties on his yacht full of busty girls (The comic is NSFW) and she tells him about how her sister marries a [[Jewish]] man and is able to talk him out of circumcising the child. Much to Miles Hastwick's relief.

As he goes with the girlfriend to the religious ceremony were normally the circumcision takes place, he meets up with the couple and child in question. As the wife says happily that she talked the husband out of the act, the husband responds with: "You didn't really think you talked me out of it, did you?" At that moment, Rabbi Monster Mohel busts down the door with his two armed guards and steals the child away from his family. Foreskin Man goes into action, waiting though the Rabbi's 'evil' chant to [[God]], he strikes the man down but not out. Seeing only one option, he stills the baby away and gives it to the Anti-Circumcision movement to take care of and raise it as their own.

==Anti-Semitic?==

Because of the Matt Hess' attempt to ban [[circumcision]] in San Francisco and this comic's bias partial of the Jewish people and the religious act, there have been several questions raised by many people about whether or not it all is anti-semitic. An attempt to persecute the Jewish in the area and push them out with tactics that are eerily similar to [[Nazi propaganda]] like the movie "[[Der Ewige Jude]]". They compare the posters for the movie and the trading card for Monster Mohel and find similarities between them. Along side that, Miles Hastwick is the image of the pure [[Aryan]] race that Nazi's point to as Human perfection corrupted by the Jews.

==Links to learn more==

[http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/06/06/heard-on-tv-anti-semitic-comic-book-hero-foreskin-man/]
[http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/06/03/proof-that-s-f-s-circumcision-ban-is-anti-semitic/]

Foreskin Man (comic)

2011-06-06T21:39:17Z

MHarris: Do not delete this. Read it, fix it up so it fits the standards. But we can not let something like this go unspoken about.

Foreskin Man is a webcomic that attacks the Jewish tradition of circumcision, the act of removing the foreskin from the penile. The 'Hero' of the story is a blond haired, blue eye man who fights of the rights of babies to not be circumcised by the evil jews. By the comics own words.

Written by Matt Hess, the same man leading the circumcision ban in San Fransisco "For the health of the child", the comic follows the adventures of Miles Hastwick as he battles the evil Rabbi Monster Mohel and his rampage in removing the foreskin of children everywhere in legal, safe and religious activities. In the first issue, the hero meets up with his girlfriend during one of his wild booze parties on his yacht full of busty girls (The comic is NSFW) and she tells him about how her sister marries a jewish man and is able to talk him out of circumcising the child. Much to Miles Hastwick's relief.

As he goes with the girlfriend to the religious ceremony were normally the circumcision takes place, he meets up with the couple and child in question. As the wife says happily that she talked the husband out of the act, the husband responds with: "You didn't really think you talked me out of it, did you?" At that moment, Rabbi Monster Mohel busts down the door with his two armed guards and stills the child away from his family. Foreskin man goes into action, waiting though the Rabbi's 'evil' chant to God, he strikes the man down but not out. Seeing only one option, he stills the baby away and gives it to the Anti-Circumcision movement to take care of and raise it as their own.

==Anti-Semitic?==

Because of the Matt Hess' attempt to ban circumcision in San Francisco and this comic's bias partial of the Jewish people and the religious act, there have been several questions raised by many people about whether or not it all is anti-semitic. An attempt to persecute the Jewish in the area and push them out with tactics that are eerily similar to Nazi propaganda like the movie "Der Ewige Jude". They compare the posters for the movie and the trading card for Monster Mohel and find similarities between them. Along side that, Miles Hastwick is the image of the pure Arian that Nazi's point to as Human perfection corrupted by the Jews.

Talk:Hawthorne effect

2011-06-04T21:30:01Z

MHarris: Created page with "Does the effect still work if people know they will be CONSTANTLY reviewed? What about randomly reviewed without prior warning or being told?"

Does the effect still work if people know they will be CONSTANTLY reviewed? What about randomly reviewed without prior warning or being told?

Talk:Satan

2011-06-03T23:37:43Z

MHarris:

[[/archive 1]]
{{Wikiproject Religion}}

== Satan reigning in Hell? ==

I realize this is a concept from Milton, but does anyone know if this is Biblical? The lake of fire was created for satan and his angels for his eternal punishment at the end of days. In Revelation he is thrown down from heaven and he is described as "the prince of this world" in the New Testament, but where does it state he reigns in hell?

Also, where is there a "divine council" of the angels where satan is present in the New Testament? If this is the case, then we should cite the place.

Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:39, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that the Bible implies that Satan is a prisoner in Hell along with the rest of the damned. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:41, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I thought that the New Testament statement that was removed implied that he was referenced in the NT, not this divine council. But I didn't really read it so I may be wrong.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:31, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
::::I will correct accordingly, to make this more clear. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Who tempted Jesus in the desert...? If Satan was indeed IMPRISONED in Hell, how did he tempt Jesus? "Get thee behind me!" Ring a bell? If you believe these things... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:09, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:That doesn't mean he reigns in hell, only that he still has freedom (although it may be limited). [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:11, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::Enough freedom to render the the concept of imprisonment to be null and void. If he can come into our world and tempt The Christ, well, reallly, how does that fit imprisonment? Unless you wish to argue that it was in God's plan, but then, of course, you'd have to show me where that is written (I refer you to the Old Testament book of Job where The Lord makes plain that ot was His choice to let Satan test Job, so that I may set precedent). The point I was making is, Satan niether reigns over what we call "Hell" nor is he imprisoned in it. I could go furtherbut I'd be making this a philosophical and theological debate; one I would be severly chastised over at that...[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:33, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm afraid you may be confusing this issue. All we were discussing was whether or not he reigns in hell, not whether or not he is imprisoned. As the article had previously stated he reigned in hell, it was important to quickly discuss before removing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:01, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

As we all know, there are differing views of the book of Revelation, but most agree that Satan is finally put in hell forever. The idea of Satan ruling hell right now works if you're the cartoonist for the Far Side, but it's not really the biblical view. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::(edit conflict) There are different interpretations depending upon which branch of hermeneutics and exegesis you support; the article appears to be in keeping with what might loosely be termed the majority opinion. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:39, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::Shoot, I think on this I'll go with Dante. At least his rendition is a little interesting. Lake of Ice > Lake of Fire.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 05:27, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::Yeah I'd have to agree with you there. Ice cold fits more with the absence of God's love than flame does. In my opinion. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:50, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Plus it is scarier if you think about it. Frozen in Lake of ice > Burning in lake of Fire. With Fire, there is just the pain, Ice has a whole psychological aspect heaped on top.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:29, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Was he an angel?==

The [[Unification faith]] identifies Satan as the archangel [[Lucifer]]. Is this a common Christian belief? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:47, 13 January 2010 (EST)
:Yes, Lucifer was the most beautiful Angel in God's Kingdom. He lead the Angels before the creation of Man. But some time after or during. Lucifer got jealous. He grew to resent the Humans for taking up all of Gods time. For choising the imperfect and lesser beings over the perfect and first created servants of God. He managed to convince one third of God's angels to rise up with him commit the ultimite sin. Willing and Knowingly attempt to bring down God. They never stood a chance when Archangel Michael took command and personally lead the charge to put down the rebellion and cast him and his ilk to Earth to be forever cursed as Fallen or Demons and have their Angelic names taken away from them. You should never refer to Satan as Lucifer. He doesn't deserve that name anymore. Michael took up command of the Angels after Lucifer fell.

Earlier, some question if Satan can be said to be imprisoned if he can walk on Earth. But think about this. Lucifer, the Proud and self-centered Angel who thought little of the imperfect and fallible little Humans and their world, forced to walk among them or sit in Hell. That is the perfect punishment for him in my option. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

== The origin of Satan's evil ==

Given that the universe did not originally contain any evil, and Satan was created by God, who, being all-knowing and all-powerful had the ability to create Satan in such a way that he would incapable of becoming evil, how did Satan become evil? Satan could not have had free will, given that he is part of a universe which is basically a machine proceeding from a beginning state to a predestined end state; however complicated the machine may be, its destiny is still known beforehand to an omniscient Being, and indeed is controlled beforehand by an omniscient and omnipotent Creator.

So, since everything that occurs, including Satan's fall, must be God's will, how then do we define evil? Satan's "evil" must be the same kind of "evil" that exists in, say, a computer game in which the creator has purposefully scripted evil doings and evil characters into the plot, and programmed them to occur under specific circumstances. As the program executes, the evil will inevitably transpire in accordance with the program; it cannot happen any other way. And there is no outside force that can act on the universe, other than God's, so there is no way God's will can be thwarted. And so we cannot define "evil" as being that which is against God's will. Unless of course, we presume the existence of a universe in which two contradictory things can be simultaneously true — i.e, that God's will can fulfilled at the same time as it isn't fulfilled. Contradictions are not impossible when one assumes the existence of a truly omnipotent being; in such a case, they become [[paradox]]es. [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 20:22, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

:Knowledge has limitations so we have to assume much, faith guides us to the right answers. All was created good by a good God. Puny humans look at the Creator and say why do you allow evil? Humble servants know to ask the question differently. Why has God given us so much good? We are not deserving in our fallen nature, we have so much to be thankful for. Glorious mysteries... how, why, when may remain just that...a mystery. Don't under estimate free will. Satan chose, man chose. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:44, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

:Even logic has surprises. Faith and love would be less meaningful if they were not choices, and if some were unable to reject them. Order is meaningful because of the possibility of disorder. What God created is good, but it is also meaningful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:52, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

== Is this serious? ==
Part of this article says you can fight Satan by calling him names or using sunlight.
Is this a joke?
Satan is like Dracula and gets his feelings hurt easily?
What is this based on?
Sounds like instructions from a computer game or something.
:Satans very prideful. calling him names is more likely to piss him off more. however he also cant stand light >.>--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:21, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
Seriously? Where are you getting this information from? I don't remember reading in the Bible that light keeps Satan away. If that was true, does standing in sunlight help keep you from sinning as Satan can't get at you?
I cant help but think this article has been hijacked as a parody.[[User:Webcomicwizard|Webcomicwizard]]
: Maybe people are thinking of that song, you know. "This little light of mine~. I"m gonna let it shine~" Maybe.[[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

Talk:Web comic

2011-06-03T23:21:53Z

MHarris:

I don't know if this is an appropriate place to write about the deleting of the xkcd article, but since there is no page and you can't access the talk page for it I thought I might as well. xkcd happens to be a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math and language, it has formed a large fan base and has won quite a few awards. If this is a true encyclopedia shouldn't we be allowed to at least create an entry for it?
- [[User:deepdiv3|deepdiv3]] 9:45, 16 December 2009 (EST)

==Comicbook killer?==

The internet is ether killing some news organizations or helping other grow. Will the same effect move to comic books? With more freedom that comics have online, like other mediums, it could be possible that paper comics will ether have to adapt or fall to the wayside as privately made comics are brought to the surface. Viva la free thought.