Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Sedition Act of 1918

2009-11-14T17:51:50Z

MichaelZ: /* Are they good things? */ response

I copied a lot of this from wikipedia, but I thought it more important that it at least be here for now. Seeing reports that many home-schooling parents use conservapedia (sorry, don't have the link so feel free to dispute), I thought it important that this at least have an article. --TheisonMarsh

What would be the best way to reference the Sedition Act of 1798 here as well? Should we have this one page speaking of both (like I did at [[Missouri v. Jenkins]]), or should we have the Sedition Act of 1798 at [[Alien and Sedition Acts]]? Or should we have two separate pages for '''Sedition Act of 1918''' and '''Sedition Act of 1798''' and have this be a disambiguation? If the second, should we have a "See also" link at the top of this page like Wikipedia does? --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 22:27, 13 November 2009 (EST)
:Good question. This page will be moved to Sedition Act of 1918 and "Sedition Act" will be turned into a disambiguation page. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 02:34, 14 November 2009 (EST)
==Are they good things?==
conservatives strongly oppose sedition in wartime and have historically supported these laws--which have been upheld by the Supreme Court.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:44, 14 November 2009 (EST)
:Yes, the Supreme Court has upheld the act of 1918, but '''not''' the act of 1789 - see [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0376_0254_ZO.html], which mentions it in passing. Besides, we value the US Constitution, including the [[First Amendment]], and also limited government. As Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote,
:{{quotebox|That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution; and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner, a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power, which more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right.}}
:But even so, what's wrong with the additional information I added about how they've been seen? --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 11:55, 14 November 2009 (EST)
::The Supreme Court never held either act unconstitutional. Liberals dislike the laws but this is a conservative encyclopedia and we don't like the actions prohibited. Most states rejected the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions--which led to horrible misery in the Civil War.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:57, 14 November 2009 (EST)
:::I'd say that the Supreme Court has:
:::{{quotebox|The invalidity of the Act has also been assumed by Justices of this Court. See Holmes, J., dissenting and joined by Brandeis, J., in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630; Jackson, J., dissenting in Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 288-289; Douglas, The Right of the People (1958), p. 47. See also Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (8th ed., Carrington, 1927), pp. 899-900; Chafee, Free Speech in the United States (1942), pp. 27-28. These views reflect a broad consensus that the Act, because of the restraint it imposed upon criticism of government and public officials, was inconsistent with the First Amendment. [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0376_0254_ZO.html] }}
:::But, sure, I don't take the SCOTUS as a fully authoritative source [[Roe v. Wade|either]]. Still, I hope we can all agree that we should be free to criticize President Obama and ex-President Bush. That would have been prohibited by the Sedition Act:
:::{{quotebox| That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or publishing, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.}}
:::--[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 12:03, 14 November 2009 (EST)
::::the invalidity cites are to DISSENTING positions--losing positions, and a book by one of the dissenters. Do liberals dislike tghe law--indeed yes. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:16, 14 November 2009 (EST)
::::Evan, you should try actually reading the text of the laws. Only an unpatriotic liberal would consider doing one of those crimes. [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 12:22, 14 November 2009 (EST)
:::::I have. That's what I quoted above. In short, it outlaws "malicious"ly criticizing the government with something that the court believes is "false". It seems like anyone who dislikes the current President is going to do that. In fact, I think [[Barack Obama|we're criticizing the government ourselves]], and a court could easily conclude that what we say is false.

::::::It's called libel, and it's already illegal everywhere against private citizens. Unless the judge in question had been bought by "President" Obama, he would easily find that it was all true, as we've provided citations for everything.

:::::Evidence: Congressman Matthew Lyons accused President Adams of "a continual grasp for power"; he was arrested. Then, he said his imprisonment was unjust; he was almost arrested again. [http://www.fjc.gov/history/sedition.nsf/page/narrative#lyon].

::::::What he was doing was libelous. What patriotic conservatives like us do has nothing to do with him.

:::::Ideally, under a good government, only "unpatriotic" people would criticize it. But, right now, we've got a government made up of [[United_States_Senate|unpatriotic liberals]]. So, we end up being the ones "writing, printing, uttering or publishing... writings against... either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government... or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States." That's why the United States has the [[First Amendment]]: the Founding Fathers knew the government might go wrong, and people would need to speak against it. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 12:43, 14 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Yes, they would need to speak the truth against it, not propagate unsubstantiated lies. [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 12:51, 14 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Sedition Act of 1918

2009-11-14T17:22:27Z

MichaelZ: /* Are they good things? */ response

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-11-13T23:19:20Z

MichaelZ: /* Middle name usage */ response

{{PermProtected|TK}}
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

==Obama clueless about American history==
In introducing Sotomayor, he flubs the constitution being the paper written over 200 years ago, mistakenly says 20 centuries ago. Maybe Totus was thinking the other paper written 20 centuries ago, the Bible! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiRhHqlzaG4 Video Obama: Constitution written "20 centuries" ago]
::A much as I hate to say this, I think taht was simply a slip of the tongue nothing more, also sign your comments please--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 21:02, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

::This really says more about you than about Obama, you're willing to think that a person with a Harvard education is below the line of mental retardation when it comes to History - US history in particular. It was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. If everytime Obama made a slip of the tongue you overreacted like this then you wouldn't be able to see the actual substance and be unable critisize his legislation or his political way. Really, grow up and stop looking for mistakes like that as it makes conservatives and you in particular look stupid and petty.

== Unlock article? ==

Can this article be unlocked? [[User:ConservativeCanuck|ConservativeCanuck]] 15:22, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Specifically I want to delete this

"# Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam. "

This doesn't offer any evidence of Obama being a Muslim. [[User:ConservativeCanuck|ConservativeCanuck]] 15:52, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

:Actually, it does. For example, if this practice didn't exist, somebody might say, "Obama can't be a practicing muslim because a practicing muslim wouldn't deny Islam." The existence of this practice makes all of Obama's claims to Christianity irrelevant, because it proves he would make those assertions regardless of his actual religion. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 00:05, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
::Actually, ConservativeCanuck has a point, it makes the facts sound like conspiracy theory when they're mixed up with terms like that thrown around. Taqiyya is solely a shi'ia muslim doctrine. Indonesia is Sunni muslim (actually the people the doctrine was created to hide from) and its not part of their teachings. He doesn't need a magical doctrine to just lie outright. -[[User:JMaker|JMaker]] 11:58, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Are you Christian? If you say yes, then that means you aren't Christian! I'm not (not) NOT Christian, which means absolutely nothing! [[User:boyiloveboys|boyiloveboys]] 15:08, Yesterday (BDSM)

==Obama Received Aid as Foreign Student?==

I've seen this reported in several places. Apparently, Obama (under the name "Barry Soetoro") received financial aid as "a foreign student from Indonesia." The mainstream media seems to have basically ignored this; does anyone know more about it? This would lend quite a bit of credence to those who question his American citizenship. <ref>http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/obama-receives-foreign-student-tuition-aid-smoking-gun-finally-found/#more-6734</ref> <ref>http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/1995743.aspx</ref>

==The Muslim Section==
The call to prayer is very beautiful, one need not be a muslim to appreciate it.

"Obama declared in prepared remarks, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them" Anyone with the slightest amount of reading comprehension could see that he was referring to having muslim in his family (he does) and lliving in a Muslim-majority country (he did) Neither of these prove him to be a muslim.

"He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world." That proves him to be a muslim? So if you don't muslims have to either convert or live in the stone age, you're must be a muslim yourself?

"Obama used his Muslim middle name when sworn in as President" I believe there's some requirement for using your middle name in the oath.

"Obama botched his public oath of office in which he placed his hand on a Bible, then chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath." Did he use a Koran, where is anything Islamic found there. Perhaps he's just not a very devout christian, is that a problem?

"On the campaign trail, Obama was reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,[34] which is written from a Muslim point-of-view" Yes, Fareed Zakaria is a muslim, if one day, I turn on CNN and watch his show am I now a muslim? All of these prove not that Obama is a muslim, but that he simply isn't a anti-muslim fanatic and is open to all beliefs.

"Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior" It's absurd to think he was using the conventional use?

"Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth."
Malcolm X has inspired millions for his activity in the civil rights movement. The Nation of Islam was a radical group, but I can understand radicalism in the face of what had been done to african-americans at the time. Malcolm X left the group because he disagreed with their radical views. I fail to see how seeing him as an inspiration makes someone a muslim. I'm jewish, I'm inspired by Martin Luther King, that makes me a christian?

I could go on on and on, but I won't. Aside from all of this, what if he is muslim? Are muslims not allowed to be president? Can a muslim child not dream to one day be president just like every other kid? --[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 16:04, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well, it is an open question, IMO, or should be. The open question about his place of birth is another. The Koran actually calls for the use of deceit and violence against those who do not accept it 100%. That, in and of itself gives one pause. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:13, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

::I will add that since Israelis were prominent in U.S. politics circa '70's, from that time forward Muslim American's began to be heavily invested thanks to Middle East states such as Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Kuwait. Their ultimate goal was to get Muslims into U.S. politics. Today are the fruits from that investment, Illinois's Barack Obama and Keith Ellis. Chicago has over 400 Mosques, some capacity over 1,000. Home to Muslim Farrakhan, U.S. Muslim Brotherhood ties, big Saudi charities, Fundraising for dead Palestine suicide bombers. Obama bows out of great thanks and respect for the King.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:24, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Keith Ellis is from Minnesota not Illinois. Neither Keith Ellis or Barack Obama received donations from Middle Eastern countries.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:19, 1 July 2009 (EDT)--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:19, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:::: Then why is he keeping his campaign donations secret? Answer: they are coming from compromised foreign Muslim sources.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 15:15, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

I fail to see how it is relevant that President Obama may or may not be of the muslum faith. If he came out and said that he was muslum, then you could put that as his faith, but it is not important enough to have an entire section about

== Article in disrepair ==

Please, we need to either unlock the article or the moderators need to be responsive to the talk page. The frequency of updates is embarrassing for such a high value article. Several sections need to be cleaned up, which is too tedious for just a handful of administrators. This man is destroying our country and we are not keeping up. If we do this right, we can become one of the best repositories of Obama scandals and transgressions, but we have to be at least current.

Now as far as specific content, I'd like to expand on the Ayres ghost writing ''Dreams From My Father''. Jack Cashill updated his argument two days ago (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/breakthrough_on_the_authorship_1.html), and frankly, I think is proven well enough to warrant sufficient detail in the article. I'd propose a paragraph here on the talk page, but I feel it may be ignored like my last suggestion. [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 11:46, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

: Here is the other proposal I had. I suggest the following paragraph be added to the end of the section "Obama and Elitism":
<blockquote>
:Obama clearly exhibited his elitism on his May 5, 2009 limousine trip to Ray's Hell Burger in Arlington, VA.<re.f>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAvq12Sa3VE</ref> Intended to showcase a connection to the ways of common Americans, Obama instead struggled to compose his order, finally settling on a cheeseburger with fancy Grey Poupon french mustard. This combination is rare among those who frequent burger joints in the United States, demonstrating Obama's lack of familiarity with U. S. culture and lack of American upbringing. Naturally, the liberal media abetted Obama by covering this up during their doting coverage <r.ef>http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/05/msnbc-hides-obamas-dijon-mustard.html</ref>, in which he purchased burgers for liberal reporters.<r.ef>http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/05/barack-and-joe-go-to-white-castle-%E2%80%A6-i-mean-ray%E2%80%99s-hell-burger/</ref>
</blockquote>

:(I broke the ref tags so it would be easier to copy and paste.) There are a lot of ways to attack him, but roughly since the election, little is making its way into the article. The time for mourning is over; now we catalog! [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 11:52, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:*''Fancy French mustard?'' Are you being serious? I have been to a place in Madison, Wisconsin that has a "Dijon Burger". And the area is known for its sausages, Brats, and most places routinely offer that kind of mustard. Granted Madison is a bastion of fuzzy liberal thinking, but still... And your statement about their being "lots of ways to attack him" is totally out of place here. We are an encyclopedia, and therefore do not "attack". If you, or anyone, want to think adding facts is the same as attacking, that is just clap-trap. Your Grey Poupon suggestion smacks of disingenuous mischief. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:35, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

: The best criticism of Obama you can think of, is he isn't familiar with American burger joints? I personally find the average burger joint greasy and disgusting (and usually trayf), that doesn't mean I'm un-American.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:06, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

First, thanks for following up with me. The reason my proposal is not "disingenuous mischief" is that it is not my creation. As I linked, the criticism comes from reputable sources like Sean Hannity, as well as Ingraham, Limbaugh and many others I forget. Also, and very importantly, it is not merely about mustard but about the media fawning over him (see the legal insurrection link). It is popular conservative discussion. Thus, if we are to have a section on elitism, and given the solid sources, it merits discussion. If it then does not make it in, or we decide that the Elitism section for some reason is not justified (I would object), then I will accept. Another point I was to argue is about the attack. Conservapedia does not have to be the attacker, but it should help the reader to formulate an attack. The best niche for our 'pedia is to be where conservatives go to help develop an attack on a liberal or anti-American position. If someone wants to show Obama is an elitist, he can come to the Elitism section, follow the links and choose which arguments to make. And if he wants to prove Obama's a Muslim, he can ignore Elitism completely. On the other hand, if we just want to be a synopsis facts without direction, we are competing with Google and Wikipedia. It thus helps to include as many attacks as possible as long as they are vetted. Maybe I'm wrong or in the minority. And BTW, River Falls.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 15:07, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

== Table of Contents ==

Seeing as so many people find the position to be a problem, and more importantly that moving the ToC up would bury important information on Obamas muslim faith, could we include the ToC into the muslim "faith" section, as a side colum perhaps? Just a suggestion --[[User:IScott|IScott]] 21:47, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:I like that. How about the following: Make "Religion: Described in the article" link to the relevant section(s), shorten the intro and integrate many of the details into the body or into new sections, then bring up the ToC. That way, the ToC is early, but the Muslim section is not push very far down. (Note that one of my criticisms tacitly in mind above is that the intro section rambles and the TOC is not first.) [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 15:12, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
:: The article in general is ordered in a completely bizarre fashion. Regardless of how important the list of facts linking Obama to Islam is, it's way to long to preempt the table of contents, which is stuck around the end of page two as it is. Is isn't that the question of Obama's faith isn't an important one, because it is; it's just that the list of facts - many of which even I would admit are pretty tangential - don't constitute an important portion of Obama's brief bio, which is what normally goes above the TOC. Toss a reference to the controversy over his faith into the intro, then bury the list of facts (I might be biased against them because they're sort of ugly) somewhere in the article, parallel to where faith is talked about in the articles about other famous people. Perhaps, due to its contentious nature, spin it off into its own article, where it can grow into a more encyclopedic format. There's also a bunch of random criticisms and negative observations which, while appropriate for the article, are scattered sort of hodgepodge. The second most important biographical fact about Obama is not that his aunt is living in the United States illegally. Note that I'm -not- saying that it's not an important fact, it's just not a basic fact about Obama. Regardless of what he gets from the MSM, he doesn't deserve any sort of special treatment from CP. His article should be formatted in the same order as anybody else's, with random controversies and criticisms going into a controversies and criticisms section, in their own articles, or woven into sections of the biography where they are -directly- relevant. Given the number of sort of disconnected criticisms (like the "statements" section, which is great to read, but sort of unsituated), I really think a separate page for miscellaneous controversies and criticisms is warranted.[[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 16:16, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

== Pakistani pronounciation ==

"Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one." I don't see this as relevant evidence of anything, you gonna call World War II veterans french because they correctly pronounce Bastogne?

:Typical of liberal deflection, moral equivalence. Open your mind. It will indeed set you free. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:30, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

::Set me free? Sounds more like it will make me angry and make me start hating everybody that doesn't think the same thing as me.

:::Seems to me you already are, posting anonymously, not owning what you post. Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:05, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

I agree with the anonymous poster, using the correct pronunciation of a word is not evidence of someone's religion. Are foreign (non-Christian) leaders that know how to pronounce America like a native born American accused of being Christian? These kind of obviously biased statements were what Conservapedia was created to get rid of, isn't it?

==Updating a link==
Earlier tonight, somebody mentioned the reference link was broken, and suggested we remove that content. I snapped at him, for suggesting to remove that content, but it turns out the link actually is broken. I did a simple google search for the quote, and found hundreds of sources. Here's a few of the working links:

http://middleeast.about.com/b/2009/04/06/obama-in-turkey-at-the-gates-of-islam.htm
http://www.freep.com/article/20090604/NEWS05/906040435/
http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=6235.4664.0.0

Can we replace the current reference 22 with this reference? [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 17:21, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:I've unlocked it for you to update the link. Please edit in a constructive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
::I would like to point out that the user who pointed out the broken link was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ABush20082012&year=&month=-1 blocked] infinitely for pointing it out. [[User:InnocenceIntent|InnocenceIntent]] 11:19, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:::The reason provided for the block does not support your comment, and the user name chosen by the blocked user was ridiculous. But you want to spend your time as an advocate for that blocked user who has not made a single substantive edit, then please take it up with TK. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:23, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
:::: I hate to disagree, and if the block was based on his name I am, but the only edits he made were to this page, about the broken link. [[User:InnocenceIntent|InnocenceIntent]] 11:25, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Godspeed to you. I see you were previously blocked, or at least I intended to, because I deleted your user page:
<blockquote>
22:41, 12 April 2009 TK deleted "User:InnocenceIntent" ‎ (Troublemaker/Troll)
</blockquote>
Obviously I judged your intent not too innocent before, and your past edits show obvious trolling, including reverting an Admin:
<blockquote>
# 22:25, 12 April 2009 (hist) (diff) ACLU ‎ (Undo revision 652421 by Jpatt (Talk) My original revision was undone by patt due to a personal bias by the user.)
# 22:18, 12 April 2009 (hist) (diff) ACLU ‎ (adding information about how the ACLU has fought for Christians.)
</blockquote>
And I can now see why, again, since you didn't do what Aschlafly said to, and posted here again, rather than contacting me. Such actions (the reason(s) for so doing) are immediately obvious to those of us who have been around here for a while. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:34, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Andy, thank you for unlocking the page - I fixed the broken link, so if you'd like to re-lock, it should be fine now. I'm going to go ahead and check all the other links on the page, and if they're not working, find replacements. If I find anything, I'll post here. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 17:20, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Many Broken Links==
OK, this deserves its own section. There are many broken reference links, which I'm trying to find replacements for.

5, first link, doesn't seem to be working for me, but it might just be me. This link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2104131/posts would provide a reference for the same statement.

9 is broken, the page no longer exists. This link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6051268.ece would provide a reference for the same statement.

12 is broken, the page no longer exists. This link: http://news.chennaionline.com/newsitem.aspx?NEWSID=9fab8324-a1a1-4ad6-840f-76b04a405a65&CATEGORYNAME=INTER would provie a reference for the same statement.

19 has the same link listed twice. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems kind of sloppy to me.

Reference (23) is broken, the page no longer exists. This is my fault, since I just added it, but (22) is just fine as a single reference. So we can eliminate this broken link without replacement, especially for a statement that returns as many google hits as this one does.

Reference (26) is broken. This is a toughie - most online references are copy-paste of the Wikipedia article, which itself sites these books:
:A Brief History of The Fourteen Infallibles. Qum: Ansariyan Publications. 2004.
:l-Qarashi, Baqir Shareef (2007). The life of Imam Husain. Qum: Ansariyan Publications.
I don't have these books, and I haven't read them, so I don't know if they back up the reference.

Reference (28) links to a video which, by the decription provided by the uploader, attempts to discredit the quote being referenced. A shorter video which arrives at the quote in question faster is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw

Reference (49) redirects to the blog's main page, and blog does not have a search feature. Regardless of whether link is broken or not, we should replace with http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/White_House_No_bow_to_Saudi.html which is more to the point.

References (56) and (57) are the same link, we can delete one for neatness.

Reference (61) isn't even a reference. Suggest instead using http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26101

References (72), (73), and (75) are all broken. Suggest replacing all three with http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html

Reference (89) is broken, but we can just link to Conservapedia's own [[Atheism and Uncharitableness]].

Reference (91) is broken, suggest replacement with http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/11/01/obama_campaign_to_return_aunts.html

References (97), (98), and (100) are broken. These were the same as (72), (73), (75), so we should have a single reference http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html and have all 6 of these citations be to this one article.

Reference (115) is broken, replace with http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2433

Reference (128) is broken, suggest replacement with http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/05/obamas-in-control-no-more_n_105407.html and rewrite of sentence which cites this reference.

References (129) and (130) are identical, suggest we delete one for neatness.

Reference (132) is broken, but will be difficult to replace. Citation is a direct reference to the reference and the authors of the reference. I'll work on this.

Reference (140) is broken, replace with http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/11/john-lewis-warns-mccain-y_n_133903.html

(150) is broken, replace with http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

(152-154, 158) each have two identical links, delete one each for neatness.

(163) isn't a reference, but maybe Andy has the review procedures lying around so we can cite them?

(171) Access denied - we shouldn't cite references that require subscriptions. Suggest http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1753197/posts for same content, by Limbaugh.

(182) is broken, replace with http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=28189

(184) is broken, replace with http://vodpod.com/watch/956078-obama-we-already-have-economic-disaster-from-john-mccains-president-george-w-bush

Suggest rewrite of last two paragraphs of "Politcal Views" section, to reflect his election and change "current president" to "George W. Bush"

(187-189) are broken, I'm still working on replacements.

(190) is broken, replace with http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts

(191) has two identical links, delete one for neatness

(201) is broken, replace with http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html

(203) is broken, replace with http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,370529,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g12:r1:c0.487981:b25437592:z0

(209) is broken, replace with http://www.politicalbase.com/forums/topic/obama-rebukes-mccain-camp-on-terrorism-criticism/3781/

(215) and (217) are broken, replace both with http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

[[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 18:20, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

That should be everything, though I might have missed something. Since it appears I can still edit the Obama page, I'm gonna go ahead and start this. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 18:45, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:We should lock this article again, it's being vandalized already. I'll just copy the source into a word document, make the necessary changes, and alert a sysop when it's ready to go up. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 18:51, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for identifying the broken links, but why not simply fix it directly? The entry is unprotected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:45, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

::: Great work! I wonder why you deleted this, however: "After one debate against [[Hillary Clinton]] in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:52, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:::: The source for that was missing, and I found a new link which supported the relevant statement in the article, but not that addendum in the references. The new reference I found does not make that statement verbatim, although, it's basically implied - I'll continue to look for a reference for that sentence. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 21:59, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
:::: I have been looking, and I can't find a source for this statement. I've re-added it with a citation needed. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 23:12, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Can someone insert this?==
My browser can't handle editing the page, can someone insert this under 'Election': In the weeks leading up to the election, Obama's staff worked to delay investigations by the [[Justice Department]] into allegations of voter fraud committed by [[ACORN]], Obama's former employer. In this way, hundreds of thousands, if not many more, votes may have been overcounted. [http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=297446] --[[User:JDelaney|JDelaney]] 21:28, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
:The link checks out, content's relevant, I added this material to the election section, but maybe it might be better placed in presidential campaign? Dunno. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 21:35, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
::Thanks, Mr. JDBowen! It may be better there; but I think that, since more people look at this page, it may be okay here, too. Whatever you decide, I'm just happy it's out here! --[[User:JDelaney|JDelaney]] 21:45, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

==liberal vandalism: mulatto==
While an accurate statement, it may be a derogatory slang (mule-like). User remains blocked for disobeying sysop, lying. Remove--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:34, 14 July 2009 (EDT)
:Um... yeah, it's extremely derogatory and it's still up. We might as well call him.. well, n******. I see you have the last edit, so I won't remove it - but is that an accident that it's still up? Can we please take that down? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 09:40, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

::It's obvious liberal vandalism, JacobB, and you could have fixed it directly yourself. Please do fix vandalism directly in the future as that is more efficient. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

:: how is that ''liberal'' vandalism? obama's a democrat!

==Animal rights==

In an article entitled "Does President-Elect Obama Bring Hope for Animals?" [[PETA]] quotes Obama as saying,
:"I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other. And it's very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals." [http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/11/does_president-.php]
Interesting. Wikipedia reports in its Animal Rights article,
:"On November 24, 1933, the ...animal protection law, was introduced, with [[Adolf Hitler]] announcing an end to animal cruelty: ..."In the new Reich, no more animal cruelty will be allowed." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#1933:_Tierschutzgesetz]
[[Himmler]] likewise is famous for preaching kindness to animals [http://www.manasjournal.org/pdf_library/VolumeXIII_1960/XIII-11.pdf p.2]

Perhpas this area needs more study. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:17, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

::Great find! This is absolutely chilling. May God help us.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 13:48, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

while this is chilling and ironic....... it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 15:28, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

== Kenya ==
Now that he have absolute proof that Obama was born in Kenya, can we change his place of birth ot Kenya? An image of the REAL Kenyan certificate was posted on the mainpage! Thanks!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 13:42, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

*No. A news report, of such a certificate submitted to the U.S. District Court, is just that, a report, not a fact. Some of the other information, in the Main Page News section, about Obama's failure to disclose other information, if not already there, will be added. If and when the purported birth certificate is authenticated, we certainly will add that in! As for now, the article reads, ''as it always has, factually...his actual place of birth is open to question.'' --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:00, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

== George Obama article for upcoming content of CP Obama article ==

George Obama article for upcoming content of CP Obama article: http://www.zimbio.com/George+Hussein+Onyango+Obama/articles/3/George+Obama+Barack+Obama+Brother+Fights+Life [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:42, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

:Excellent work. And long overdue. Much of this material is available, it just need to consolidate in one place. ty [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:27, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

== Praise! ==
I applaud the men and women who have edited this article since the start of August! I cannot believe how much this evil man has done and tried to do in less than a month! Great job on revealing the lies and evil that surround this crook!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 09:32, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

==Soetoro citation flaws==

The reference in the article's introduction to Obama's former/current(?) name of "Barry Soetoro" is sourced only to a short article on Pravda (RU). The first issue I take with this is the fact that the article itself does not concern Obama's/"Soetoro"'s true name, and doesn't seem to draw on any evidence regarding such, either. While, yes, the articles title is "Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama vs World Leaders", the only mention within the article is that "no one knows his real name" - yet the article's title seems to assert that Pravda (possibly as part of a larger movement) does, in fact, know just that.

Secondly, the article's overall professionalism and coherence is in doubt. Note the claim that America is "a Nation under the control of mob rule." (Be aware of the false capitalization, also - a classic sign of non-intellect, mind you). Now, Conservapedia defines [[Mobocracy|mob rule]] as "the rule by a group of people unrestrained by any meaningful principles". Now, this seems an odd thing for Conservapedia to grant audience to, as this Obama article makes it quite clear that Obama/"Soetoro" ''has'' principles, immoral and anti-American has they may be, they remain principles (much as one may say atrocious actions make the perpetrator inhuman, but this allegation does not affect their biological status as a human).

So the point must be made that either Obama/"Soetoro" is a dictator (the homepage often makes that viewpoint quite clear) or America is under the rule of the people. It can not be both, without delving into figurative speaking.

So I ask, given all these flaws in logic, argument, sentiment, and general intelligence on the subject, why is this article given what amounts to top-billing on this prominent Conservative site, when it does little, if anything, to back-up the point? I imagine other editors out there have brought this up before, and I'm curious what consensus or reasoning, if any, was reached on the issue. Thank you for your time. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 07:29, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
:Not only does ''Pravda'' state no one knows his real name, it also states no one knows where he's from. Then it raises the issue, if he is indeed barred from holding office of president, do foreign agreements and treaties he signs have the force of law? While this issue is being discussed elsewhere in the world, it hasn't been considered in the United States at all. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:03, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

::Perhaps I wasn't very clear there. I'm aware of the related cover-up regarding Obama/Soetoro's origin, but the problem lies with the citation itself (however, if you wish to improve the page by elaborating on the "origin" controversy as well, be my guest). I found it odd that such a scatter-shot, incoherent source article (from ''Pravda'') was used to make this point.

::'''Basically, if the ''Pravda'' article states that ''no one knows his real name'', why is it used as a citation for the name of "Barry Soetoro"? Surely there is a source out there which details the methods by which the "Barry Soetoro" name was discovered in the first place. The only mention of it within the ''Pravda'' article is in the title.'''

[[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 23:38, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
:::Interesting point. Can you suggest any other sources?

:::Oh, and this recalls the old Soviet era joke about censorship in the two soviet communist official daily publications, "there is no ''Pravda'' in ''Izvestia'' and no ''Izvestia'' in ''Pravda''" (there is no ''Truth'' in the ''News'' and no ''News'' in the ''Truth''). But that was when both were openly commie rags. Let's give Glasnost a chance. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:18, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

::::Well, that's the problem. The only sources I can find are blogs - but even the '''most''' detailed ones only go so far as to say (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Barry Soetoro was Barack Obama's name in Indonesia", but again, these don't provide any documentation/interviews/quotes whatsoever. I'm afraid I tend to focus more on the man's policy than the controversies surrounding him - and I am, for the most part, willing to accept whatever good or bad comes along with such tunnel vision. So it's quite appalling that debates so rancorous turn out to be so hollow (perhaps the noise is product of the echo). Besides, if this "Soetoro" thing is true, I'd like to think that their was more discourse about how and why to include it in a biographical encyclopedia entry on BHO than someone doing a Google search and picking the first article with "Soetoro" in the title. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 11:00, 11 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::''Pravda'' is not a blog, in fact, ''Pravda'' has quite a long history and reputation as a mouth piece abnd critic of the United States. We are simply reporting what traditional critics of U.S. political system, society, and culture are saying. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:24, 11 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::I wasn't referring to ''Pravda'' when I mentioned blogs. I was referring to the sources I was able to find which ''did'' deal with the Soetoro name in the actual text of the article, which, as I said, even then were merely mentions of it rather than proof. If you can provide a source which '''''proves''''' the name, rather than mentioning it, you will have made a happy editor out of me. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 08:56, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::::Ok, I see your reasoning now. If you can cite a source that ''proves'' George W. Bush lied about WMD rather than just mentioning it, you'd make a happy camper of me. too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:27, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Oh, come on. I'm not trying to disprove the claim, and I know you're smart enough to have figured that out. I just want CP readers to have direct, streamlined access to the facts. And I wouldn't claim that Bush lied, anyway. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 21:39, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

==His Excellency the President of the United States and Her Majesty the Queen==

I will propose that you revist this statement: "At the G20 summit in April 2009, Obama bowed deeply to Saudi King Abdullah, a Muslim who is also the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.[135] Never before in the history of the U.S. has a president displayed such shocking deference to a foreign official and Obama has not bowed to any other royal leaders. Obama later stated, "We have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect."[136] Obama's spin doctors and left-wing apologists dismissed the obviousness of the bow. One anonymous aide stated, "It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah."[137] However, in video of the incident, Obama's left hand can clearly be seen staying at his side until after he had finished his bow.[138] Additionally, Obama also met with Queen Elizabeth, who is much shorter than King Abdullah, but he did not bow when he shook her hand and neither he nor the queen appeared to have any difficulty." and view this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71N34K9EVLU. Here, you will see that His Excellency the Honourable Barack Obama bow twice to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second of the United Kingdom, and once to His Royal Highness the Prince Phillip.

== Funds from undisclosed sources? ==

Near the very beginning of the article, it states that Obama's campaign spent $700 million dollars, most of which was came from undisclosed donors. This information is cited. The source that this information came from actually shows that most of his funds ''did'' come from disclosed donors. I corrected this error, but it was reverted, and the reverter says the edit and sources should be discussed. Can we agree that the source (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00009638) shows that over half of his money came from disclosed donors so that this bit of misinformation can be corrected? [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 00:47, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

:Your cite does not support your claim. If you have a cite that provides disclosure for the identity of most of Obama's contributions, then post a link to it. You haven't done that, so the entry stays as is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:57, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

::Check the above link again. My citation (which I got from the article, so it is Conservapedia's citation as well) very clearly shows that most of Obama's funds came from disclosed sources. Scroll down to where it says "How complete are this candidate's campaign finance reports?" to see that he gave full disclosure on $378,216,383 of funds, which amounts to 90.2% of funds from sources on which data is collected -- those that contribute $200 or more. Again, I got this source from Obama's article here on Conservapedia. [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 16:17, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

:::I checked your cite again, and my conclusion remains the same. "Full disclosure" presumably means all that the law requires, which often is not the identity of the donor. The opinion that you rely on is unsupported. Conservapedia did not cite that source for the point you raise.

:::Nevertheless, in response to your point, I've improved the statement in the entry and added a quotation and citation to support it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:50, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

::::Description of full disclosure from the website: "FULL DISCLOSURE: Includes full name and occupation / employer." This would be a statistic that is objective, observable, recordable, making it a fact. If the source is valid for some facts but not others that seems like some pretty strict cherry picking. Even in the source you provide there isn't even evidence that "much" of the funds came from undisclosed or fraudulent sources: the few examples provided would constitute an incredibly small portion of Obama's funds. I would guess most presidential candidates, with or without knowing it, have recieved money from sources that gave false names or addresses. While the statement in the article now still doesn't seem appropriately relevant or supported, it is an improvement over the blatant falsehood previously used. Others should investigate this to bring this article up to trustworthy standards. [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 21:05, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

== Liberals and Uncharitableness, Liberal Politicians and Uncharitableness sections ==

There are two sections in the Obama's article about Liberals and Uncharitableness and Liberal Politicians and Uncharitableness. While this information is worth reading, these two sections are not really about Obama at all, and don't seem appropriate to include in the article in this manner. Both of these sections are summaries of articles on the given topics here on Conservapedia, and link to those articles. The sections themselves do not refer to Obama at all (only liberals -- or liberal politicians -- in general), and shouldn't be included in Obama's article unless we plan on adding the same sections to every page about liberals. It seems the best way to include this would be as links to those articles at the end of the section about Obama's uncharitableness -- as in "See also: Liberals and Uncharitableness, Liberal Politicians and Uncharitableness" sentence at the end of the descriptions of Obama's uncharitableness. [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 14:13, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

== Nobel Peace Prize ==
Maybe Obama being one of the few presidents to win the Nobel Peace Prize should be noted in the introduction of the article.--[[User:AFM|AFM]] 18:25, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

There is an existing category 'Nobel laureates in Peace', to which Obama should be added. [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 14:27, 3 November 2009 (EST)

== Minor fix ==

Under the section "Obama is likely the first Muslim President," there is a wikilink to "Barack Obama," which redirects back to "Barack Hussein Obama."
There is another wikilink to "Barack Obama" under the section "Primary election (2004)." These should both be delinked. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 13:25, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

== really guys? ==

as much as i can't stand the man and thank he's a communist traitor to our country....... this article is a freaking hack job! its embarrassing. We're conservatives, we can do better than this! [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 15:25, 28 October 2009 (EDT)
:Have you read Wikiality's [http://wikiality.wikia.com/United_Socialist_States_of_America United Socialist States of America]? Looks inspirational. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:56, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

its called satire. let me ask you. are we an encyclopedia? or a political site? [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:05, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:Your own contributions have not been particularly substantive or enlightening. How about doing some edits of value, as in something related to the [[Bible]]??--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:04, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

Your point is? Because you've made more edits your somehow more enlightened and worthy enough to discount my opinions? I'm a conservative like all of you. I, like you, can't stand the man and is scared to death by what he could do to our great country... but unlike you, I have a desire to accurately and fairly represent the man. The truth, will be so much more damaging to Obama than any hack job out there. They'res a lot of truth here...... but also a lot of crap. Theres no need to attack each other here. By the way, I have done some rather constructive work on here. I've just been so busy lately I can't get on here much. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 21:44, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:Saksjn, your edits have been pathetic here. Talk, talk, talk, and you occasionally sprinkle in an edit about ... an obscure rock band. You say you like Wikipedia and it's easy to see why. That's why we're not trying to imitate Wikipedia. Try something of substance, if you're up to it: the [[Bible]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:12, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

::Andy, must you really attack me as a person. I haven't edited the Bible's article because its a well written article that I haven't found places where I can add to it. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 19:43, 2 November 2009 (EST)
:::Saskjn, that's how he rolls. Accept it or go somewhere else. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 19:47, 2 November 2009 (EST)

:::Saskjn, I didn't attack you "as a person"; I evaluated your edits. Surely you don't think that should be off-limits. Do you think every student should get an "A", that every politician should be reelected, that every business should be bailed out? Of course not; we should evaluate edits on a wiki, and be candid about their quality.

:::As to your other point, please take no offense (I'm being as gingerly as possible), how does one know if the Bible is well written if he doesn't read it regularly??? Food for thought for an open-minded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:10, 2 November 2009 (EST)

::::On a side note—not addressing the argument at hand—the [[Bible]] article here ''is'' extremely well written and well cited. One of the best references on the internet, in my opinion. I think that's what Saskjn was referring to. --[[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:20, 2 November 2009 (EST)

If your implying that I don't read the Bible on a regular basis you'd be wrong. And yes, I agree that my edits are not off limits. Realize I haven't edited the wikis in a good while and am just getting back on so you won't find much recent work. I have enough on my hands at wikipedia trying to defend conservative values there to get on here a lot. And just for the record, while my work on the [[Switchfoot]] is not substantial at all, (only one edit I believe) the band is a major band and isn't just some obscure rock band. Go to your church and ask any teenager or 20 year old who they are and they'll know. Ask anyone one 30 and up and they'll probably know. Ask anyone young person on the street thats unchurched and they'll probably know who they are too. But that's beyond the point, were here to write good articles right? (I know that last sentence was bad grammar) So lets discuss and write good articles. I spend a lot of time on talk pages because that's where most of the work really gets done. Major edits should never be made without discussion unless the article is a new article or is being expanded. I, as a conservative, want an accurate portrayal of this traitor. I feel that an accurate portrayal will be far more damaging to the man than the one we currently have on here right now. We're on the same team Andy. Jefferey's right, the reason I don't see anywhere to add to the Bible article is because it is already a well written article. Now if I was a Bible scholar I'm sure I'd find something to edit, but as it is I'm only a young missionary kid (18) that is currently going through his own missionary training school. While my knowledge of the Bible is definitely higher than most church goers, I'm not a scholar, so I won't act like one. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 21:39, 2 November 2009 (EST)

:Wow, a lot of words there, Saksjn. How about this: let's do some substantive edits on a variety of entries, and go from there?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:09, 2 November 2009 (EST)

::Your really not here to discuss anything are you? Glad to know you feel your a part of the elite aristocracy that only certain editors such as yourself can be apart of. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 13:40, 3 November 2009 (EST)

== Uncharitableness ==

The stuff about charity in the "Barack Obama and Liberal Elitism" section on this page is exactly same as the entire contents of [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]] which is linked to from the section. Can I suggest either deleting the separate article, or removing the stuff on charity from this article (or perhaps summarising it only) and providing a link to the more specific article? [[User:EJHall|EJHall]] 19:06, 7 November 2009 (EST)

== Slightly over the top perhaps? ==

I cannot help that feel that the content of this article is just a little over the top with the level of content devoted to criticizing President Obama, both personally and politically. Now I realise that, given the nature of this site there is of course going to be quite a large amount of criticizm towards Barack Obama, but the sheer bulk of this article being devoted to trashing him, undermining his policies and generally not being very nice to the man just makes it all seem rather petty.

Is it possible that the article, or at least parts of it, could be rewritten so that less of it is devoted to giving entirely negative information? I believe doing so would make the article more respectable and academic in nature. --[[User:RyanMcLaughlin|Ryan McLaughlin]] 15:38, 8 November 2009 (EST)

:This site strives to be factual, forthright, and free of liberal bias. Do you have a specific issue in mind?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:41, 8 November 2009 (EST)

:A good example of a section which could be rewritten to provide a more NPOV is the information given on Barack Obama's presidency. The entirety of the content in this section is perhaps slightly ''too'' bias. I understand the need to provide accurate and honest information on the flaws of the Obama Administration, but reading this part of the article it just seems like disorganised critisizm. Only one part of this section is directly relevant to Obama's presidency, and that is information on the health care reform disinformation scandal.

This section could be devoted to far more important information than whether or not Barack Obama is a Muslim, or what enemies he has gained since becoming President. These could be included in other articles, or even elsewhere in the article, but surely changes to domestic and foreign policy, and how President Obama is managing the economic crisis should be present in this section, as they are directly relevant to his actions since coming to power.

Thoughts? --[[User:RyanMcLaughlin|Ryan McLaughlin]] 16:03, 8 November 2009 (EST)

== Middle name usage ==

There's an edit I'd like to make, but I suspect it will be quickly reverted, so I'm initiating a discussion first.

My issue is with putting Barack HUSSEIN Obama in the blue banner atop the article. It seems clear that this is done because of unsavoury associations with that name. I say this because the bulk of other articles on presidents (and the index -
http://conservapedia.com/Category:Presidents_of_the_United_States) do not put their middle name in the top banner unless it was how they were generally known (William Henry Harrison, for example). I suggest that the Hussein be removed from the top banner, or every president's middle name should be displayed.

I imagine this debate has occurred before though. Is there any editorial rationale for including Obama's middle name in the banner, but not other presidents? [[User:Montecristo|Montecristo]] 11:34, 9 November 2009 (EST)

:The rationale is simple: we can't prove for certain that he's a Muslim, so we have to insinuate it as best we can. The name stays. [[User:DonnyB|DonnyB]] 18:08, 13 November 2009 (EST)

::It's difficult to prove anything when you're fighting a cover up created by the "President". Of course there's no total proof, but there is plenty of evidence. If you looked at the actual page, that would become quite evident to even a closed-minded liberal. But the original point made up top actually shows that we should keep the middle name, as "Hussein", like "Harrison" is generally known. [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 18:19, 13 November 2009 (EST)

== Nobel Prize ==

Why is there no mention of his Nobel Prize here? It's a major news story and a divisive issue. [[User:EMorrissey|EMorrissey]] 13:48, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:It says more about the Nobel Prize than about Obama, so you can find info about it in [[Nobel Prize]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:53, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:: That's really just editorializing though. It's still relevant to the article. If you feel the prize was undeserved, you can cite sources who say so (there are plenty). But leaving it out altogether does take away from CP's "trustworthiness" - it makes CP editors appear behind the times and if information is left out, people will go to other sources for their information.[[User:EMorrissey|EMorrissey]] 14:07, 13 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-11-13T02:39:33Z

MichaelZ: /* Is this debate necessary? */ response

I'm not sure what to make of this, is it a parody?

If not then how could the climatic conditions required for Arctic animals be maintained alongside those of desert dwelling species?

How can the geographic distribution of species and fossils be explained by all the animals disembarking from the ark at the location?

How could a vessel be large enough to hold the enormous number of animals it would take to preserve a minimum 2 of every species let alone be large enough to hold fodder for a year especially considering the highly specialized feeding requirements of many animals?

What about animals that have lifespans shorter than a year, but also require very specific conditions to be met in order to be able to reproduce? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 14:28, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

:Keiko the killer whale (a cold-water species) was maintained for years in a Mexico City (hot environment) aquarium. Polar bears are exhibited in zoos located in temperate and hot locations around the world. Add to that a species of penguin found in the Galapagos Islands at the equator, when it should be near Antarctica.
:In the Bible, God tells Noah that "every sort of animal shall come to him" (Gen 6:20); if God can tell the animals to go to the ark, He can tell the animals where to go when leaving the ark.
:40,000 animals the size of sheep can fit into 167 railroad boxcars, which is roughly 30% of the capacity of the ark. Furthermore, you have to take into account that not every animal is full-grown when it's aboard; after all, how much space does a 30-foot anaconda take up versus a two-foot baby? Then there are birds and reptiles which could have been cared for while they were eggs; there's hibernation. [http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Galapagos penguins survive so far from the south pole because of two cold ocean currents that well up at the Galapagos islands making the water temperature much colder than would otherwise be expected for its latitude.
::40,000 sheep may be able to fit jammed into 167 railway boxes, but they cannot live there for a year and all their fodder for a year cannot fit either.
::How would hummingbirds (of which there are hundreds of species) have been supplied with enough food given the extremely specific nature of their dietary requirements, or koalas for that matter who require a huge amount of eucalyptus and only eucalyptus per day?
::How were parasites, viruses and pathogenic bacteria be prevented from totally overwhelming the animals on the ark given that the conditions would be ideal for their propagation?
::How were carnivorous animals kept fed for a whole year given the great number of prey animals it takes in the wild to support even a few large predators?
::It is strange that you feel the need to justify the story of the ark as if it were even remotely possible, but in the end you resort to explanations via magic anyway. If magic had to be used why didn't god just get rid of all the sinners in the blink of an eye? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 07:39, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== In answer to Mr. MacKenzie ==

Mr. MacKenzie:

Did you take the trouble to read the essay itself, or the [[Noah's Ark]] article? Your comments suggest to me that you have not. You overlook many key passages in which I answer every one of the objections you raised. With one possible exception: animals having life spans less than a year. I answer that those life spans were probably a good deal longer, before the altered state of the earth's atmosphere took their toll. Recall that the average life span of the descendants of Adam was about 900 years. After the [[Great Flood]], man's life span dropped ninety percent, and in a hurry. We must assume that the life spans of animals varied in similar proportion.

Where did [[User:Karajou]] resort to invoking miracles? For that matter, where did I? Did I not explicitly state that one must employ an economy of miracles, to go along with scientific parsimony as prescribed by [[William of Occam]]?

While I'm on the subject, you overlook one other thing. You assume that true randomness exists in a [[God]]-centered universe. It does not. Nothing, of whatever character, happens without God's direct authorization. We can guess how likely a thing might be, but if God wants to act out of the ordinary, such is within His capability and, more to the point, His authority. Hence if God wants to ruin a man for repeatedly testing Him, or testing "the fates" or "Lady Luck" or whatever he wants to call it, that's His prerogative, too. (And I've seen Him do it, too. Ask any [[Las Vegas]] gambler who doesn't know to quit while he's ahead.)

Nevertheless, you overlook still another thing: God gives explicit warnings, and equally explcit instructions, to certain people when and as He pleases. He did this in [[Noah]]'s case, again in [[Abraham]]'s case, and then in [[Moses]]'s case, in which He gave far more detailed instructions for an amazingly intricate building project: the [[Tabernacle]] and all its furnishings. And then there is [[Jesus Christ]] Himself, Whose very ministry was a miracle.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:22, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for the reply.

:Can you substantiate the claim that humans and other animals lived longer life spans in the past? The bible obviously doesn’t count because its verisimilitude is highly questionable. I ask because the current scientific understanding at least as far as humans are concerned is that life expectancy has steadily increased with time rather than decreased.

:Anything that could not be repeated by humans using the same technology as was available at the time in question is a miracle/magic. All the animals moving to the ark and not killing each other as they assembled are certainly magical or miraculous.

:If true randomness cannot exist then how can free will exist? Also can you substantiate that this universe contains properties that might be associated with a god?

:As for my questions being answered I cannot find that in the essay or the article, particularly the parasite question and the point about specialised food supplies (koala bears). Also I’d like to add another question – If Noah and his family of 8 were the only human survivors then how come such a population bottleneck is not shown in human DNA evidence? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 14:55, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

If you're going to dismiss the Bible ''a priori'', then we have nothing to discuss. ''You'' question the "verisimilitude" (I think you mean "veracity") of the Bible, but I do not. We address [[Biblical inerrancy]] in another article on this site, and I can also direct you to [http://creationwiki.org/Biblical_inerrancy this article] that discusses the subject in somewhat greater detail.

Let me take just one aspect of the issue: prerdictions of future events. For centuries, skeptics believed that the Book of Daniel, for example, must have been written long after [[Alexander the Great]] conquered the [[Middle East]]. Then in 1947, in the middle of the high drama surrounding the establishment of the Republic of [[Israel]], a small boy threw a rock into a cave near Qumran, and the rock's impact produced the sound of breaking pottery. The little boy checked it out, and then showed up in [[Jerusalem]] hawking what he found. These were the first of the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]]. Those scrolls include manuscripts of Daniel that clearly predate Alexander, and predict his conquest of the Holy Land exactly as it occurred. And Daniel isn't the only one.

There, by the way, is a modern miracle for you. The finding of those scrolls persuaded the [[United States]] to grant diplomatic recognition to the Republic of Israel, and made the difference between Jewish statehood and a Second Holocaust.

As I said, Daniel isn't the only one. Isaiah is another. And Isaiah predicted the most striking event of all: the ministry, death and resurrection of [[Jesus Christ]].

Any text that can get all these things absolutely right, four hundred years or more ahead of time (and against odds of ten thousand quinquagintillion to one, by the way), can certainly be trusted on other events that it recorded. Like the genealogy of Adam, and the tremendous average lifespans, and the genealogy of Shem and the tremendous decline in lifespan. And like the [[Great Flood]] and the plans of [[Noah's Ark]].

I have no trouble accepting the assembly of the animals. The same God Who gave [[Noah]] his instructions for building the [[Noah's Ark|Ark]] was certainly capable of assembling the menagerie that Noah would carry. Nor is that necessarily as difficult as you are attempting to portray. Are you assuming that the continents in Noah's day were distributed as they are today? They weren't. Initially they all fit together, like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. The Flood got started with a hairline crack that appeared in this landmass and then went all the way through it. That crack persists as the Mid-Oceanic Ridge System. See [[Hydroplate Theory]] for some further details, and a link to an outside source that explains it in far greater detail than I have space to use here.

How can free will exist without randomness? Well, it can't. But that does not mean, by the way, that we need to accept the authority of any [[Barack Hussein Obama|one human being who is trying to pretend that he's God]]. It does mean that God not only knows what is going to happen well before it happens (and can give memoranda of instructions to whomever He chooses, whenever He chooses), but that He has ''decided ahead of time'' what is going to happen. Perhaps He has decided ahead of time to bring you to me, figuratively speaking, so that I may testify to you concerning His Existence, His Pre-eminence, and His Role in human affairs, ancient and modern.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:23, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for the reply, I'll have a proper read of it tomorrow morning and answer you then, as for now, before I sleep I just wanted to say that I did indeed mean to write verisimilitude - a word which means "the appearance of truth or likelihood", so for something to have its verisimilitude lacking or questionable is not to have a lack of truth but to have a lack of a semblance of truth. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 18:52, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

==My answers to your questions==
''Galapagos penguins survive so far from the south pole because of two cold ocean currents that well up at the Galapagos islands making the water temperature much colder than would otherwise be expected for its latitude.''
:Still the water there is a lot warmer than it would be around Antarctica, and these penguins have no problem with the hot conditions once they're out of the water.
''40,000 sheep may be able to fit jammed into 167 railway boxes, but they cannot live there for a year and all their fodder for a year cannot fit either.''
:I didn't say there were 40,000 sheep jammed in 167 boxcars, did I? What I stated was a matter of ''capacity'', and you seemed to also overlook the fact that I said this number of animals occupied 30% of the Ark's total capacity, leaving enough room for other animals, and fodder for a year.
''How would hummingbirds (of which there are hundreds of species) have been supplied with enough food given the extremely specific nature of their dietary requirements, or koalas for that matter who require a huge amount of eucalyptus and only eucalyptus per day?''
:Again, you missed what I said above, so I'll say it again. Baby birds come packaged in eggs. Baby reptiles come packaged in eggs. Baby mammals feed upon their mother's milk, and if they don't have a mom, someone is going to get milk from elsewhere and do the job. Any zookeeper or farmer knows that, and I find it strange that a self-professed scientist doesn't. Do baby koalas slurp on eucalyptus juice before they get their teeth in, or is it mother's milk?
''How were parasites, viruses and pathogenic bacteria be prevented from totally overwhelming the animals on the ark given that the conditions would be ideal for their propagation?''
:The conditions on earth during that period of time from the creation were just about perfect; viruses were virtually non-existent. As to parasites, even a monkey can pluck them from another monkey, or a tick bird can remove them from a cow; that kind of behavior has been observed and proven, IAW step one of the [[Scientific method]].
''How were carnivorous animals kept fed for a whole year given the great number of prey animals it takes in the wild to support even a few large predators?''
:Again, mother's milk. Didn't you see that displayed in the Noah's Ark segment of the John Houston film ''The Bible''?
''It is strange that you feel the need to justify the story of the ark as if it were even remotely possible, but in the end you resort to explanations via magic anyway. If magic had to be used why didn't god just get rid of all the sinners in the blink of an eye?''
:I never resorted to a ''magic'' explanation; that one is your's. And God doesn't just "get rid of all sinners" when He knows it's much better to give them an opportunity to come to repentance through Jesus Christ. You came here with the standpoint that God doesn't exist, so now I request that you prove beyond doubt on this page that God '''doesn't''' exist...and use the Scientific method when doing so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:00, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

::Where does all this mother’s milk come from, either there are adults on the ark providing it, thereby mitigating your argument by infancy, or there is a huge stockpile of milk taking up yet more space on an already impossibly full ark leaving alone questions of spoilage! Also owt but milk for a whole year, really?

::The parasites I was specifically thinking of are the internal type that cannot be groomed off, but also must have been on the ark from the start.

::According to Christian doctrine god is omnipotent. He knows who will repent and who won’t depending on what warnings he gives therefore he can simply erase those who he knows will not fit into his criteria for survival.

::You know that I cannot prove beyond doubt that god doesn’t exist. However you should also know that I cannot prove that the Dagda and the Morrigan don’t exist and therefore the impossibility of proving the existence of anything does not prove its existence. You have however inspired me to write an essay on why I think my atheism is scientifically justified, I’ll send you a link when i get around to it.

::By the way, no hard feelings right? Just a bit of stimulating debate! [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 17:15, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:::First, and most important, there are no hard feelings anywhere! As to the mother's milk - and I did indicate this small tidbit from John Houston film - farmers ''milk'' cows and goats on a daily basis. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:57, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== General Reply to Jamesmackenzie ==

Two points dispose of all of Mr. MacKenzie's objections. First, there is no ''logical'' objection to the biblical account. It cannot be disproved. Let's be clear about that. It may not comport easily with someone's everyday experience 5000 years later, but the same could be said about many other facts in history also. There is simply no ''logical'' flaw in the account.

Second, the [[theory of evolution]] has even greater difficulties explaining how species survived massive flooding. No one credibly denies that worldwide flooding occurred; even today the world is over 70% covered with water, nearly all habitation occurs within 100 feet of sea level, and limestone deposits from water are found at all heights. Local, but massive, flooding occurs frequently and widely, with devastating affects. The theory of evolution does not have a more plausible explanation for how species survive this in the long run.

Put another way, if you think the saving of species from massive flooding was difficult with God's assistance, it is even more difficult without such assistance.

Finally, Mr. MacKenzie need not speculate about animal behavior 5000 years ago. Animals fled to high ground in the tsunami that devastated Indonesia merely 5 years ago. Mr. MacKenzie would likely claim (based on materialism) that such behavior is impossible or implausible, yet it undeniably occurred. No need to go back 5000 years; why not simply address behavior of 5 years ago that confound [[materialist]]s?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:''"Two points dispose of all of Mr. MacKenzie's objections. First, there is no logical objection to the biblical account. It cannot be disproved. Let's be clear about that. It may not comport easily with someone's everyday experience 5000 years later, but the same could be said about many other facts in history also. There is simply no logical flaw in the account.”''

:There are indeed logical flaws in the story, and it can be disproved. The lack of a population bottleneck in humans from any time around when the flooding was supposed to take place is disproof of the story. The population bottleneck as described in the bible is not something that could hide; a population bottleneck of 8 individuals is extreme (the species would be classified moribund). In fact the extremity of the so called bottleneck is another logical flaw in the story, since a species requires a minimum population to remain viable (MVP(1)). The MVP for primates is estimated to be over 5,000 individuals accounting for inbreeding. Even ignoring inbreeding the MVP would still be around 1,000 individuals. That makes the most favourable (and somewhat unrealistic) estimate for minimum number of humans required for the species to survive as 125 times higher than what the bible claims we had.

:There are other logical flaws too, to name but a few: where did all this water come from? Where did all this water go to? If the world was flooded so recently then how come aquatic species are so localised and varied? Why did human lifetimes rapidly drop after the flood?

:''“Second, the theory of evolution has even greater difficulties explaining how species survived massive flooding. No one credibly denies that worldwide flooding occurred; even today the world is over 70% covered with water, nearly all habitation occurs within 100 feet of sea level, and limestone deposits from water are found at all heights. Local, but massive, flooding occurs frequently and widely, with devastating affects[sic]. The theory of evolution does not have a more plausible explanation for how species survive this in the long run.”''

:The world has indeed seen times of much higher sea levels, however it has never been totally submerged. Limestone deposits found at high altitude are more the consequence of isostatic action rather than eustatic action. During the times of high sea level the world would have been more like Indonesia and the Philippines, a global series of island chains and archipelagos, certainly extensive enough for terrestrial life to survive upon with some adaptation (island gigantism/island dwarfism, or terrestrial animals such as whales returning to the oceans).

:Also tsunamis aren’t really the same as long term flooding; the flood of a tsunami lasts days or weeks at most. It is certainly not difficult for animals from nearby lightly affected regions to rapidly colonise the tsunami hit area. However in the case of a tsunami it is also the case that not all animals will be killed even in the worst affected regions. These animals that do manage to survive will sometimes do so out of luck, but most will do so because they were stronger swimmers, or fast climbers etc. Then as the survivors repopulate the region they will pass on the traits that helped them survive the last tsunami to their offspring. In this way the gene pool of the animals that populate this region will have changed from how it was pre tsunami. Hence in this example evolution by natural selection has occurred!

:''"Put another way, if you think the saving of species from massive flooding was difficult with God's assistance, it is even more difficult without such assistance.”''

:I think you are making a chronological error here. Sea level change is gradual, and landmasses do not abruptly disappear into the sea. In fact the shrinking habitat, isolation of high ground from previously connected land and increased competition that will occur as a landmass is gradually overrun (over thousands of generations) by the ocean creates an exquisite set of conditions for evolution to occur in.
:As for humans previously having an extremely long lifetime, I’d like to specifically call that into question, especially given the fact that one of the justifications for the feasibility of the ark is that Noah lived hundreds of years and spent more than a modern lifetime constructing the ark. From a biological point of view the idea of historical humans living to the age of 900 is preposterous. There is a fairly consistent trend observable in archaeological evidence of human lifetimes lengthening over time. I’d be interested to hear about the remains of ancient humans that show signs of extremely (and unfeasibly even by modern standards) advanced age in their bones and teeth.

:(1)Minimum viable population – This is the threshold number of individuals required by a species to remain viable. It is defined as the point when the likelihood of extinction due to insufficient numbers of individuals remaining reaches 95%

:Also as an aside, whilst it is perfectly correct to spell Mackenzie a few different ways, including MacKenzie, I spell my name in the former manner. [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 21:37, 1 November 2009 (EST)

::Your reply is extremely verbose, but identifies no logical flaw in the biblical account. All of Christianity, and historically all of evolution, are based on one Adam and Eve. Evolutionists have recently changed their story, but not due to any logical difficulty with a beginning of only a few. There is no problem with Noah et al. populating the world post-Flood. Indeed, the population size of today is compatible with a small number about 5000 years ago.

::There is no shortage of flood water. If Earth were merely slightly flatter than today, then 99% of current inhabitants would be under water without the need for one extra drop of water.

::Evolutionists cannot explain the survival of species over time any better than the Bible does. Living creatures settle near water. Water inevitably and surprisingly floods, killing the living species. This wipes out evolution. Adding intervention by God and an Ark is one logical explanation; evolutionists don't offer '''any''' alternative, let alone a logical one.

::Finally, you duck the undeniable point about tsunamis: animals flee to high ground just before it hits the shoreline. Ducking the point doesn't change the fact, which even liberal media like PBS have fully admitted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:08, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::I’m not sure what to make of your response; it seems to me that you have missed the point of many of the things I wrote. I think you misunderstand the implications of population bottlenecks in humans. Our DNA contains a lot of information about our ancestral history, from which we can clearly see past population bottlenecks. For example the results of the mega eruption of (???) which reduced the human population to around 10,000 individuals are clearly visible in our DNA, it is like a giant red arrow on the human genome. However there is no such bottleneck visible for such a small population as described in the story of Noah’s ark, nor is there any population bottleneck at any time period even close to 5000 years ago. The implications of this are thus: either the story of Noah’s ark is not true or DNA is meaningless, and let me make this abundantly clear - we know DNA is not meaningless, the influence of DNA has been repeatedly displayed in experiments under scientific conditions.

:::I’m not sure what you mean by “''and historically all of evolution, are based on one Adam and Eve. Evolutionists have recently changed their story, but not due to any logical difficulty with a beginning of only a few.''” so I will have to refrain from attempting an answer.

:::I will again assert that there is a problem with 8 closely related individuals repopulating the world, in my last post I explained how this cannot be the case using the science of MVP which you have yet to respond to with anything other than complete dismissal. In any case I shall add to why the world wasn’t repopulated by such a few with DNA haplotypes. I don’t know the exact specifications of Noah’s family, but it really makes little difference. Noah, his wife and his children together could amount a maximum of 1 Y DNA haplotype and 2 Mitochondrial DNA haplotypes (of which only 1 Mitochondrial DNA haplotype could survive the death of Noah). Even adding a few cousins and the like you will only be able to add a few more unique DNA haplotypes (even with the most liberal of predictions) to the list. This poses another insurmountable problem to the idea of the repopulation of the world at such a late date with so few people. There are many DNA haplotypes in the world today which fit on a family tree showing their relationship with each other. There is no way to reconcile the model of DNA haplotype descent that must be the case had the story of Noah’s ark been true with what can actually be observed. Unfortunately for advocates of Noah’s ark being a factual account, as with population bottlenecks, the family tree of DNA haplotypes can and has been verified as fact through the use of repeatable experimentation in scientific conditions. Furthermore the mutation rates of specific DNA haplotypes are predictable and known, and are totally at odds with the current diversity of DNA haplotypes descending from a very small amount as recently as 5000 years ago.

:::With your implication that if the world was flatter it could easily be covered by water, you seem to be ignoring the massive elephant in the room. For the world to become flat firstly there would need to be impossibly fast tectonic action so violent it would destroy everything on earth. Secondly you ignore the fact that should the world suddenly become flat the ensuing wave of water would obliterate everything in its path regardless of it being sheltered in a relatively flimsy ark. Thirdly the cause of the flooding according to the bible is rain, not tectonic action. Given the preceding absurdities I feel I scarcely need to assert the fact that there is no evidence of any such tectonic action occurring in the past and indeed much geological evidence suggesting it didn’t.

:::You say that evolution fails to account for the survival of species when confronted with flooding. Firstly you mistakenly assume that flooding has a 100% death rate for animals affected by it. You also mistakenly assume that flooding always affects 100% of a species range. You also assume that most ‘floods’ are much more rapid then in reality. As for animals retreating to high ground just before a tsunami hits the shoreline, I haven’t read anything about this and can offer little comment. However I expect that the vast majority of animals do not retreat like this but are ignored by the media in favour of the few that do. In any case since when has endorsement by the mass media ever been a measure of truth? [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 01:07, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::::James, first, it's obvious you didn't read the Biblical description of the Great Flood. What does Genesis 7:11 say? The "fountains of the great deep broken up" is tectonic action employed when a fault exposes an underground water source under pressure. And for the most part animals and people end up dead due to flooding, and how many fossils were ''not'' found in sedimentary (sedimentary means "water-laid") rocks? Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands or more in a short period of time. Rats, mice, rabbits, salmon, sardines, pigeons, ants, and cockroaches do it. Want an example of a large animal doing it as well? Plains bison herds in the country number about 45,000; a century ago they numbered less than 100. Sounds like a traditional small gene pool to me. And third, evolutionists are always changing their story, and it's always going to be any story ''except'' Adam and Eve. What is it now? Some monkey named "Ardi"? Two years ago it was "Lucy"; before that it was another ''Australopithicus''; before that it was good'ol Piltdown; before that it was Darwin's face mounted to a chimp.
::::Honestly, James, we've been through this many times with many others in the past, and all you're doing is putting the same old spin on the same old story. It's been debunked thoroughly on every point; it fails the [[Scientific method]] because you can't even get past that first step; and from what I've read from the above, you're just accepting evolution and old-earth stories at face value without even trying to investigate at least ''one'' aspect of them to see whether or not it's even true. From where I stand, you have to prove it's true. So please, go ahead and do exactly that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:43, 5 November 2009 (EST)

::::James, your massive essay is unresponsive. If you don't know about animals fleeing to high ground ''before'' a tsunami hits the shoreline, then open your mind and learn about it first. Really, is that too much expect? Instead, you seem to take a position of [[deliberate ignorance]], and then go on trying to disparage it anyway. Even evolutionist sources (like PBS) admit that this phenomenon occurs, but lack any plausible materialistic explanation.

::::As to massive flooding, materialists don't explain the survival of species through historic flooding any better than the Bible does. So if you find the biblical explanation deficient, then by applying your same standard you'd find evolution even more deficient. Instead, you use unproven speculation upon speculation to try to salvage your theory, while giving the biblical theory none of the same benefits of the doubt. That's called a [[double standard]], an unattractive characteristic common to the [[liberal]] ideology.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 5 November 2009 (EST)

== Quick Reply to Karajou ==

You obviously have no idea what a DNA haplotype actually is, otherwise you would not have made such a nonsensical statement as ''"Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands..."'' DNA haplotypes have nothing really to do with genetic viability of a small population expanding into a larger one.

And what's next? A nonsensical rant about Adam and Eve, Piltdown man (which has some suspicious links to anti evolution advocates) and Darwin's face on a chimp. It is clear that you are deeply confused about evolution, you think that Darwin's face on a chimp was an evolutionist idea? It was a cartoon by creationists intended to lampoon Darwin. You accuse me of accepting old-earth and evolution at face value, this is highly ironic since from your posts I can be reasonably sure that you do not come even close to understanding what evolution actually is. I'm frankly not surprised that you have gone though this many times before, and I’ll wager you will go through it many times again because the problem here is not with everyone else. It is your incomplete understanding that creates this cycle, a cycle that can only be broken if you actually investigated evolution from a pro evolution scientific position. But I imagine that this will never happen because I'd guess you aren't interested in the truth, rather you are probably trapped within an ‘us and them’ mentality that can never allow you to explore the possibly that the position you hold is untenable.

Please prove me wrong, explain to me in simple terms what the theory of evolution entails and if you do a reasonable job of it I will concede the point to you. Also could you tell me when DNA haplotypes have been debunked or when population bottlenecks have been debunked? I suspect what you when you say debunked is actually ignored or dismissed with no justification.

I don't like having to make such a negative reply, whilst I disagree on many levels with Andy and others I have been debating with on this page none of their replies have made me angry, whist yours has me frustrated at the ludicrous way you have responded to my points without even knowing what they are. [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 16:16, 5 November 2009 (EST)

:Two things, JamesMackenzie: First, I did investigate evolution, I know full-well what evolution consists of; I know it's a claimed "change over time" scenario; and I know full-well that evolutionists such as yourself have no intention of backing those claims up with absolute proof. I and others on this site are fed up with being given a the "hearsay" argument by evolutionists, and ''hearsay'' is all they got. Second, when directed to provide proof of evolution ''as per the Scientific Method'', you back down and turn your reply into the rant that is here. It is you who is ignoring the debunked evidence.
:So, when directed to prove it, you demonstrated an attitude problem. I think you need to edit somewhere else. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:42, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::Just a quick note, you seem to have misunderstood the scientific method. The aim is not to 'prove' the theory of evolution, this, as with all general theories, is logically impossible. Science operates by trying to falsify theories. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 16:45, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:::Oh yes, the process of falsification. And if evolution is falsified, then what's the problem? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:49, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::::Before I get bogged down in explaining the fundamentals of the scientific method all over again, may I suggest you read in more detail what it is and how it works. The article on this site actually has some rather good details on this. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 17:03, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:::::DWiggins, if you look at the history of that article, you'll discover the fact that I wrote it...[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_method&diff=188946&oldid=168951] :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:06, 5 November 2009 (EST)
With all due respect, I would not consider 3 edits out of around 100 to in anyway constitute a claim to having 'wrote it'. I said ''some'' rather good details, insofar as it gives a reasonable overview of the scientific method but is rather clumsy in addressing more specific aspects, omitting several key points. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 18:28, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_method&diff=367588&oldid=168951 That's] a pretty big contribution. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 18:38, 5 November 2009 (EST)

James, your own postings are extremely verbose with little on topic and yet ... you accuse Karajou of a "rant"??? This talk page is your criticism of the biblical explanation of survival by mammals of a massive flood. Do you think evolution has a better explanation of how mammals could survive a massive flood? I'd love to hear it if you have one. I don't think anyone denies that all of the inhabitable earth has been flooded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Arguments don't go away when you call them verbose.

1. He wasn't saying that small populations don't become larger over time. That's the story of human history, but a small family with nothing other than stone tools would be fighting an enormous struggle just to survive until tomorrow and maybe raise and sustain enough children to replace those who have died. They would all live together. Disease would strike and spread fast. Up until the Renaissance, one out of every three children died before they were five, and that was within societies that had some degree of agricultural development, trade, and infrastructure. A small clan left to nothing but their own strength cannot possibly create, feed, and keep alive enough offspring to grow the population.

That's what happened when the Spanish deported the people of Rapa Nui as slaves. Passed a certain point, the population does not recover.

2. Evolution is not a theory about the Great Flood. You don't disprove it because it doesn't address the Great Flood. That's like saying the Bible is false because it doesn't talk about atoms, photons, DNA, or redox reactions.

3. There is nothing you could tweak in the atmosphere that would make people live to be 900. Changing or adding anything other than oxygen and maybe some nitrogen would be lethal, and oxygen can only increase so much before it becomes toxic. The basic nature of life in general is that it does not last nine hundred years.

4. About the Running From a Tsunami thing - There is a completely naturalistic way to explain this. The animals hear the infrasound produced by the wave rolling in and run away. The animals that can't hear infrasound get spooked and run too. Regardless, nature is infinitely more complex than the human mind can possibly understand. Just because you can't tell me why the animals run doesn't mean it's magic.

5. About the Milk thing - Infant animals are small and able to sustain themselves on milk, but where does the milk come from? Saying they lived off milk is saying they weren't infants since milk is produced only by adults. So did they pack the milk in the ark? If they did, where did it come from?

6. If the water came from under the earth's crust, wouldn't it have been steam? What have you seen coming out of the mantle that isn't scalding? Is there any evidence that such a split happened, or is it just a semi-plausible explanation for something you already made up your mind to believe?

7. Limestone takes time to form. The flood would've had to last for hundreds of years (or longer) in order to build up the global layer of rock. The more likely explanation is that, at one point in geologic time or another, all land was underwater. The limestone formed there and was transported above sea level by the normal processes of the earth.

[[User:DanPugachev|DanPugachev]] 19:06, 7 November 2009 (EST)

: Dan, logic is concise, while running from logic takes many words. The biblical account is perfectly logical. You can't identify a logical flaw in it.

: You have free will to reject logic. But if you reject it, then lots of new questions are raised about your substitute. Massive flooding undoubtedly occurred. How do you think mammals survived it? Evolution does not have a plausible, detailed explanation.

: Most evolutionists run from [[Counterexamples to evolution|facts that disprove their theory]], just as animals run to high ground before a tsunami hits shore. No, that isn't random running from being "spooked" by some mysterious ultrasound, any more than chickens ''randomly'' return from distant places at the exact same point of nightfall each day, and jump into their chicken coop in the exact same order. I know, you never heard that about chickens either. There's much an evolutionist has "never heard of." I urge to you open your mind and let logic in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 7 November 2009 (EST)
::In answer to his #6, he's implying that water underground is steamy-hot, as well as a figment of my imagination. If he'd pay more attention to geology - specifically the geology of the Great Plains - he'd probably find mention of the Ogalalla Aquifer [http://www.npwd.org/Ogallala.htm], which is a remnant of the "waters of the great deep" bursting forth in Genesis. In answer to his #5, I stated that twice above, but apparently he forgets that ''people get milk from cows''. That's ''cows'', Dan; it means you tie Bessie to the hitching post, grab a small stool, and sit for an hour filling a wooden bucket. It's where milk came from in the days before people went Krogering. Remember, Andy, that these people expect and demand that we accept whatever explanation science has to offer - and that's ''any explanation except the Bible''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:55, 8 November 2009 (EST)

:::First off, it's not some mysterious ultrasound. It's infrasound, and it's completely different. It is emitted by tsunami waves and is very well documented as causing signs of discomfort and fear in animals and even human beings, though we cannot consciously detect it. So why do the chickens return? It isn't some combination of sense of smell, homing using the sun, and possibly detecting the earth's magnetic field (which many birds do)? Is it the hand of God, who somehow forgot to warn the people about the tsunami? It's just the animals? Stories about animals being impressive do not disprove evolution in any way.

:::Evolution does not explain it because evolution is not a theory about surviving a flood that may or may not have occurred. Outside of the Biblical story, can anyone produce a single piece of physical and indisputable evidence? Karajou, you'd call any massive aquifer a remnant of the great flood, when it is perfectly explainable that the Ogalalla formed from water moving down through the soil and into the water table when the North American glaciers melted. If it resulted from a massive flood, wouldn't you expect to see aquifers like the Ogalalla (which, yes, I have heard of) all over the world? There aren't. And if the flood happened, as it was asserted earlier, when a fault broke Pangaea apart in a process like the seafloor spreading we see today, anything that would be released would come from the mantle as steam or superheated water that would boil on the surface. [[User:DanPugachev|DanPugachev]] 12:36, 8 November 2009 (EST)
::::Indisputable evidence for the Great Flood:
:::::Fossils, of which more than 99.9% of them were found in sedimentary ("water-laid") rock. They are usually intact, and deposited as if they died in agony. ''Step 1 of the Scientific Method in this case:'' observe the burial and fossiliztion of an animal. Cannot be done due to weather conditions and biological influences (scavengers) which tend to destroy the carcass and scatter the remains (note...that fact alone is ''observable, iaw Step 1'').
:::::Footprints, which were deposited ''when the ground was wet and muddy''. Footprints include ''raindrops''[http://www.twoguysfossils.com/dino3.htm]. The traditional explanation from science is that they harden into rock over the course of millenia just by sitting there, as if no one ever heard of the first rainstorm to come along and wash them away. ''Step 1 of the Scientific Method in this case:'' Make a track and fossilize it under the natural conditions described by science and see what happens.
:::::Folded layers of rock, which cannot fold unless they are first wet layers of mud. There is an "S"-curve in the rock in this image[http://www.purchon.com/ecology/images/folds.jpg], which didn't get that way if it was ordinary dry rock. This is indicative of differing types of sediment depositing in layers, then something violent happening to cause these layers to bend before they harden. ''Experiment:'' try setting down several layers of flat slate or similar hard rock, ''then bend the whole without breaking it''. Then do the same with wet layers of clay.
:::::Oral traditions, which are found world-wide in every language and every culture; it is a preservation of a single event. In more than 70% of these traditions, the following are present: global flood; large boat or raft; less than ten survivors; carrying away of a large number of animals; landing on or near a mountain range; sacrificial offering to the gods. ''Science'' in this case, needs to dismiss this as simple ''folk tales'' [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:08, 8 November 2009 (EST)

I'm in New Zealand at the moment and have only somewhat irregular access to internet, which is the cause of my periodic outbursts interspersed by silent periods, I regret posting my last thing in a bit of a foul mood, the point of this talk page isn't evolution is is Noah's ark, and I allowed Karajou to lead my reply off topic. The point remains that there is no pro Noah's ark answer to the questions of DNA haplotypes. And now that Karajou has likely googled "DNA halotype" he will be unable to reconcile the statement that he originally made in response to that point.

"As to the mother's milk - and I did indicate this small tidbit from John Houston film - farmers milk cows and goats on a daily basis"

I intended to answer this glaring example of doublethink a while ago but got caught up in other things. There would have to be hundreds of cows/goats to feed all the animals on the ark, but what would these goats and cows eat? And anyway can't there be more than 8 animals of each type? Furthermore the milk of other species is not very good for animals, this would further reduce resistance to disease and parasites (which is lower in infants too). [[User:Jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 22:41, 8 November 2009 (EST)
:James, you have been told quite clearly several times that 1) there was a lot of stored fodder onboard the ark; 2) that animals onboard occupied a smaller percentage of the total capacity of the ark; 3) that hibernation played a role, saving feeding time; 4) that young animals and unhatched eggs took less room than adults. Apparently, these simple and rational explantions cannot alter your agenda, which was to come to this site and push whatever Bible-hating mantra you have. You've been told; you don't want to listen. Since you want to push the argument ''ad nauseum'', then you need to go elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:01, 9 November 2009 (EST)
::You say that you have answered the problems I have posed but this is not the case.
::*Please can you tell me how the story of Noah’s ark can be true given the current distribution and affiliations of the human DNA haploid genotypes?
::*Also can you explain how the story of Noah’s ark can be true when there is no evidence of a global flood event in all of dendrochronology?
::*Finally can you explain away the fact that there is no global break in human activity shown in archaeology for the period in question?
::Please let’s do this in a more structured manner, perhaps if you can directly address these 3 points then maybe you can present 3 counter points in support of Noah’s ark which I will attempt to falsify prior to positing another 3 points of my own and so on. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 15:19, 10 November 2009 (EST)

==Is this debate necessary?==

I talked to my pastor about these issues. According to him, Noah may or may not have been able to care for all these animals, but since the Bible does not specify how it happened, it must be assumed that it is not relevant to the overall account of the Flood. We know that individuals such as Alexandrina Maria Da Costa have found sustenance in the Love of God, so why wouldn't He bestow such a gift on the animals in the Ark? Maybe a materialistic explanation can be found, but it is by no means necessary.--[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 20:19, 9 November 2009 (EST)
:If archaeological and geological evidence shows something to be hypothetically impossible then divine intervention can be given as the solution, however if the evidence shows that something never happened then it never happened. This is the point of this debate, without physical corroboration the bible is about as historically realistic as the lord of the rings. How many serious political and social decisions are made according to what's written in the lord of the rings? conversely how many are made because of what's written in the bible? This is why this debate is necessary. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 15:41, 10 November 2009 (EST)
::This "debate" happens here all the time because there's always one or two individuals who want to force the issue. He listed questions above which were answered previously; in one case three times. His pattern indicates someone who refuses to listen, totally contradicting the "open mindedness" that his side claims to have a market on. And now he's bringing up dendrochronology? Since I already know the answer to that one, I doubt it will be something he'll listen to. So, since he's bringing up the constant ''argumentum ad infinitum'' - with some egotistical pressure, I might add - I'm going to have to declare his presence here at an end. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:02, 10 November 2009 (EST)
:Well we have the Word of God that it happened. The only 'evidence' that could be found in this case would be the remains of Noah's Ark, which could serve as an additional argument. The absence of evidence, on the other hand, would prove nothing, as wood decays. The Ark would also likely be used as a shelter for Noah's family, and maybe as firewood later on, so we can't expect it to have been preserved to this day.
:My point is that this debate seems be on whether specific, materialistic methods could have fed all the animals. The Bible says nothing of the actual method used, and it has left no evidence. And maybe it is simply impossible to feed that many animals with eight people. Why should we shy from accepting that the Lord could provide for them? --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 11:06, 11 November 2009 (EST)

Tell you what, since he's here to demand that we accept his viewpoint, I'm going to make a demand of my own. Jamesmackenzie, since you came to this particular page with the intention of pushing your opinion that Noah's Ark did not exist, I'm going to call you on it. According to the Bible, Genesis 8, the ark rested in ''the mountains of Ararat''. You, Jamesmackenzie, are going to scour the area once known as the Kingdom of Urartu, which now is occupied by eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, and northwestern Iran, and I don't care how you do it. You can use Google-Earth or take a jet to do some hiking, but you are going to go over every square foot of that ground ''before you carry on with your opinion in this website''. That is the only way I will accept from you the proof needed that the ark doesn't exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:22, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:Well, it wasn't easy but I have scoured the entire area using Google Earth and there is nothing there. I assume that is the end of the Noah's Ark story. Should I start making appropriate adjustments to articles? --[[User:VincentV|VincentV]] 15:29, 11 November 2009 (EST)

::Way to go, VincentV. You must be brilliant. With your wisdom, can you explain and give us the detailed evolutionist explanation for how mammals survived the massive flooding that no one denies happened?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:41, 11 November 2009 (EST)

:::I detect an element of sarcasm in your post. I have just spent a lot of time undertaking a difficult task. I don't know why you think that sarcasm is an appropriate response. Also, I am not sure exactly what you mean by "the massive flooding that no one denies happened". Are you saying that no-one denies that the entire world was flooded in the manner described in the Bible? --[[User:VincentV|VincentV]] 15:49, 11 November 2009 (EST)

::::Your non-answer is an example of [[liberal style]]. The question was clear, and it's clear you don't have an answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:36, 11 November 2009 (EST)

:::::I confess that I do not understand why you are acting in such a confrontational manner. In order to answer your question I must understand it. I asked whether you were saying that no-one denies that the entire world was flooded in the manner described in the Bible? You didn't answer. Is that what you are saying or not? Further, I am also at a loss to understand why you asked that question of me in the first place. I professed no expertise in providing "detailed evolutionist explanations". I am willing to give it a go, but all I did was carry out a task suggested by Karajou. He said that, upon the task being carried out and no ark being found, he would accept that the ark does not exist. Obviously you have different criteria in terms of evidence. I was only seeking to satisfy ''his'' evidentiary criteria. --[[User:VincentV|VincentV]] 16:44, 11 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Vincent, if you don't want to open your mind, then no one else is going to open it for you. There is no logical flaw in the biblical account of the Flood. Can you accept that? If not, you're wasting your time and ours. And, by the way, evolutionists cannot explain how mammals survived the undeniably massive flooding that did occur.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:23, 11 November 2009 (EST)

To be perfectly fair, your statement rests on the assumption that the global, not one of which agrees that a flood on the scale described in the Bible occurred. I think you are misapplying the theory of evolution as well. The theory does not really try and address the question you have posed about surviving flooding, it is an attempt to answer the question of 'the origin of the species'. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 20:43, 12 November 2009 (EST)

:Your first sentence is missing some key words. You next two sentences are missing the point. Mammals didn't take airplanes to dry land a hundred miles away. Massive, undeniable flooding is an unsolved problem for evolutionists' story of descent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 12 November 2009 (EST)

::Agreed. DWiggins, suggesting that a Global Flood did not occur flies in the face of 100% of the evidence. You can keep your mind closed and believe your "truth" but don't expect to be welcome here when you have to confront the actual truth, and not liberal "truth". [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 21:39, 12 November 2009 (EST)

Cafeteria Catholic

2009-11-13T00:08:45Z

MichaelZ: added colbert

A '''Cafeteria Catholic,''' or '''Catholic in name only,''' is someone who claims to be a member of the [[Catholic church]] and yet picks and chooses doctrine to believe and what not to believe. A Catholic is supposed to believe in the entire teachings of their faith, all the bible liturgy and all church mandates. In particular, those terms are often used to refer to a self-identified Catholic who rejects the [[bishop]]s' teachings on [[abortion]].

Catholic [[Democrats]] are most often associated with Cafeteria Catholics because their party ideology believes in [[abortion]] as a right and gay [[marriage]]. This is in direct opposition to what Catholics are taught. By no means is it exclusive to Democrats. Catholic [[Republicans]] that believe in the necessity of capital punishment are also considered Cafeteria Catholics. Though, the Church teaches that the guilty put to death in no way equals the innocent death of children in the womb, an intrinsic Evil. Other examples of the pick-and-choose include Catholics who deny there is a [[Hell]] or state that [[Moses]] did not part the [[Red Sea]] or that [[Mary]] was not Immaculate. By Canon law, a Catholic believing other than what the Church teaches is guilty of [[heresy]] and should not take [[Holy Communion]]. Most Cafeteria Catholics ignore this and take Communion anyway, a Mortal [[Sin]]. The Church believes that such a person is separated from the [[Holy Spirit]], even without direct [[excommunication]] from Church authorities.

==Examples==
*[[Joe Biden]]
*[[Tom Brady]]
*Gisele Bündchen
*[[Stephen Colbert]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani]]
*[[Ted Kennedy]]
*[[George Pataki]]
*[[Nancy Pelosi]]
*[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Cafeteria Christianity]]
*[[Catholics for Obama]]
*[[Republican in name only]]

[[category:idioms]]
[[category:Catholic Church]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2009-11-12T01:57:08Z

MichaelZ: /* Possible Bias */ new section

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



== Validity of claims of Evolution page bias ==

I find this statement to be rather hypocritical:

"Wikipedia's evolution article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section its evolution article which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position despite the evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it."

It seems like a vindictive ad hominem attack against "liberals" rather than a legitimate argument. You cannot assert that "which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored...etc." and honestly think that you are being unbiased. Sarcasm is not a valid way to respectfully argue against another's theories.

A liberal could just as easily state,

"Conservapedia's creationism article certainly does not have a robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section, which is not surprising since conservatives are rather enamored of the creationism position despite having a total lack of evidence supporting it."

and be just as "accurate" as whoever wrote the original conservative criticism. I'm not debating whether evolution or creationism is the correct theory (I'm neutral), but rather trying to suggest a way to improve your arguments. If you want to accuse someone of being baised, then you can't be biased yourself.

== I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that Eric Holder..." ==

I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that [[Obama]]'s Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] called the United States a "nation of cowards" when it comes to the discussion of race."

The citation was a link to an old revision of a Wikipedia page. The new revision DOES mention this. --[[User:Andrew1123|Andrew1123]] 17:22, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

==Reference Needed for Claim that Wikipedia Called Bush a Nazi==

The claim that G. W. Bush "was called a supporter of the Nazi regime" on his wikipedia page is very believable, but could someone find a reference proving it? [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

== Is #150 really relevant? (The criticism of GWB/BHO) ==

Looking back at the history of the "Presidency of George W. Bush" article, the Criticism section was not added to the article until July 5th, 2006. If Wikipedia had a liberal bias wouldn't they have added that much sooner? BHO has been in power for less then two months, not enough time to form a valid criticism of his presidency as a whole.

:I'm sorry - and you are?
::20:34, March 9, 2009 Dparker (Talk | contribs | block) New user ‎
::20:44, March 9, 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia‎ (→Is #150 really relavent? (The criticism of GWB/BHO): new section)
:Do you have any interest here other than this issue?
:Anyway, to answer your question, the articles are not simply about criticism of the men as they acted as president. They are about them in general. B.O. has been around quite a while before January 20, 2009. Was there no criticism of him before that date? Has there been no criticism of him after it? And what, pray tell, defines criticism as "valid" or not and what is the official figure for how much time must pass for the criticism to be worthy of Wikipedia? I mean, is criticism of George W. Bush's personality - his ''personality'' for crying out loud! - valid? This is a ridiculous line from the ridiculous WP article:
:<blockquote>"Raised in West Texas, Bush's accent, vacations on his Texas ranch, and penchant for country metaphors contribute to his folksy, American cowboy image, which occasionally served as fodder for criticism."</blockquote>
:Oh, my dear Lord in Heaven, NOOOOOO!!!! His accent! His ranch! His metaphors! Why did we ever let such a man be president with all these valid criticisms?! Chimpeachment!
:Okay, I freely admit that was gratuitous sarcasm, but it sure felt good.
:Bottom line: the excuses people are putting forth to excuse the blatant B.O. worship and kowtowing on WP are lame and don't hold water. I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:28, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

The WP articles are referenced in the "example of bias" are "Presidency of" articles, not general articles. You would know if you read them. But I guess reading an article on a site with a "liberal bias" is a lot to expect from someone here. Laying the sarcasm so thick isn't helping your argument either. If you think that line is so ridiculous then you've obviously blocked out the last eight years from your memory, not to mention that his attitude is probably the weakest criticism anyone has of GWB. Also, it should be mentioned that if that page on WP is ridiculous, then how do you describe this: [[Religion of Barack Obama]]. The rabbit hole of crazy goes really deep here.

: Your unsigned comment is incoherent. But in answer to your question, it is biased to point of absurdity to criticize Bush for his "accent" and his "ranch". Do you see similar criticisms of Obama and Ted Kennedy on Wikipedia???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Gothic architecture ==

I am confused by the entry. It is maybe linked to the wrong wikipedia article? Because right now anyway, the article "Gothic Architecture" has its whole 3rd paragraph, out of 5 in the introduction section, about churches and cathedrals. And after that, there is the section "Religious influences" which is talking about christian monastary orders. Then it does mention moslems but only to say that their architecture had pointed arches, and i agree this is bias because there is no reason to think christians did not invent pointed arches themselves, but i still think that the entry bullet point makes little sense. The article mentions christianty in the third paragraph, after maybe 100 words not 1 500. It credits Christianity first and not moslems. It mentions christians many times through out, not "never mentioning christianity again." I am not saying it is unbiased but what we say about it is incorrect in fact. And it is strange to open with this, too. The list should start with the worst, like the black-list on intelligent design and climate sceptics, the celebirty gossip, and then on. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 00:24, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

:I agree that this article is a poor example of bias. The article says that "Gothic architecture is most familiar as the architecture of many of the great cathedrals, abbeys and parish churches of Europe," in the first sentence of the third paragraph. These are definitely Christian buildings, not Muslim. If a specific mention of Christianity is necessary, the article mentions the Cistercians by name after 1,097 words (1,280 words if you include the table contents), which is well earlier than the claim of 1,500 words and also before any mention of Islam. Unless somebody can show [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture Wikipedia's article on Gothic architecture] to be biased, I am going to delete this entry in the list of biases. [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 22:28, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

::Wikipedia bias includes a refusal to credit ''Christianity''. This is an example of that. There are many other examples also. When Wikipedia gives credit where it is due with respect to Christianity, then this entry can be updated. That hasn't happened yet at Wikipedia, and probably never will.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:39, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

:::How, exactly, does the Wikipedia article not credit Christianity? The points made in the entry are untrue: Christianity is mentioned before Islam, Christianity is mentioned well before 1500 words, and the article frequently references churches, cathedrals, and other distinctly Christian structures. The article may be biased, or it may not be, but the facts currently presented in the bullet point are not true. If you want to show that Wikipedia's article on Gothic Architecture is biased, you'll need supporting evidence that is factually correct. Maybe an older version of the article was biased?[[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 11:26, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

== Drudge Bias ==

I don't have the time now but will somebody compare (and post a summary of) the existing Wikipedia DRUDGE REPORT and MATT DRUDGE entries with the existing Wikipedia entries for BILL MAHER, ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, and KEITH OLBERMANN? You will see that the DR and Matt Drudge, '''news aggregators,''' are cited in the first sentence as "conservative" while no such labels are applied to the latter '''pundits''' in even the first paragraph. Instead, they are buried well down the page or omitted entirely. In fact, it was the case recently that none were objectively called liberals but instead made use of sleight of hand, e.g., saying they had been critical of certain right-wingers at certain times, but not mentioning that they were proudly liberal. Good example of Wiki bias, in my estimation.

: You're right. Thanks for your insight. Please add a point about this, or I will if you don't get around to it. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

Personally, whilst I don't disagree as such with your observations, there is still an element of bias in them as well. You have cited just 3 'liberal' examples against 2 'conservative' examples. Who's to say there aren't others on each side which in fact show the opposite to what these do. It seems highly selective to select these few for comparison. The Michael Moore article for example does state in the opening that he is a 'liberal', so basically I think you would have to see how wide ranging this is before calling it bias. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 18:59, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

: You're right that we cannot make sweeping generalizations from a handful of articles, but that was never my intention. My point was that '''at this point in time and on each of those articles,''' there was resistance to "equalizing" the labels so that they were applied to all or none. The most dedicated editors made sure to protect accusations of conservatism while preventing--EVEN BANNING--those who suggested the others were liberal. Additionally, Matt Drudge is a '''news aggregator''' who has claimed to be libertarian, and he gets the 'conservative' label even while '''pundits''' who are proud and open of their liberalism get to play shy about it? And until recently, the Drudge Report was labeled while its openly liberal challenger, The Drudge Retort, was described as merely "left-leaning." In summary, I don't mean to make broad claims from narrow examples, just to acknowledge that those examples are there. Added together, hundreds or thousands of examples can suggest, if nothing else, an important trend. [[User:Iamchipdouglas|Iamchipdouglas]] 21:21, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

== Organizing instances in order of severity? ==

While I don't really agree with the comment about "Gothic Architecture" above, the author may have a point: would it be better to list the most egregious examples of bias first? Perhaps have a section for the most blatant instances of bias, and then a section for other instances? It just seems like good common sense to present the strongest arguments first. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:00, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

Dear Conservapedia editors

Firstly, I would like to disclose that I am a regular Wikipedia editor. I wanted to thank this site for this particular article. I regularly review it for errors Wikipedia might have missed, and whilst I don't agree that every complaint raised in this article is valid, a reasonable number have proven to be correct. This site, and I wish to stress I don't agree with a lot of it, does serve as a watchdog which many Wikipedia editors value for its investigations, and helps to keep us on our toes. Thanks again. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 14:52, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

:Thank you! No place is immune from the benefits of "outside" eyes, offering suggestions or solutions. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:57, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

== Thank you as well! ==

:Thank you as well! I am sure that a growing number of contributors to Wikipedia are beginning to rethink their alleged objectivity and purveyors of unfettered information in a quest for the unvarnished truth, as well as a genuine effort "to present all sides" in a so-called fair manner, especially when "fairness" is tangible and wholly subjective in a multitude of cases. Their editorial staff once seemed to be the paragon of inclusion; now, an increasingly harsh tone of what cannot but be considered pious liberal subterfuge seems to confront the participant. Indeed, the forbearance manifested by the editors of Conservapedia - apparently from editors secure in their own intellect and the resilience of their faith - is a most nonthreatening and refreshing antithesis to those of us who have been savaged by an ever-noxious and insipid constriction of the truth or, as said, objectivity of the presentation. What one unfortunately faces on WP is a sort of editorial goon squad set about to investigate the alleged self-serving proprieties of them who deign to taint their presuppositions--tragic denial of their quest for greater information. I see in the current socio-religious (and socio-political) culture wars which currently afflict this nation a most disturbing phenomenon played out in the generation of information made available to the masses through the internet: The war of words and information waged between what appears to be an encroaching governmental superiority vs. the rights of man. If we are not careful, that which we feared the most shall come upon us--God help us all if the truth that sets us free is submerged in the blather of the self-righteous platitudes of so-called progressives whose purposeful and/or inadvertent desire is to manifest their disdain of any and all absolutes (especially those which the faithful project) - and in so doing, descend to a most horrible absolute wherein truth becomes fiction and fiction becomes the truth. The matter astounds - they who profess such indignity toward personal aggrandizement are countered (thankfully) by the accused who embrace their absolutes with calm and persistent expression of unfettered information which irritates the so-called guardians of information. Keep up the good work! [[User:Kriegerdwm|Kriegerdwm]] 00:13, 29 March 2009 (EDT)kriegerdwm[[User:Kriegerdwm|Kriegerdwm]] 00:13, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

== Update regarding the "Controversies and criticism" section at Wikipedia's Presidency of George W. Bush article ==

Regarding current example 153: "Wikipedia clearly adds a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"... but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"".

After consensus was reached on Wikipedia that this section on George W. Bush was not appropriate, it has now been removed. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 14:10, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

:The word "criticism" or "critics" appears 24 times in the George W. Bush article. It only appears twice in the article on Obama, one referring to his criticism of others. So they can reshuffle the page all they want, but it's the content that matters.--[[User:FredCorps|FredCorps]] 14:15, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

==Why do they do it?==

Let's turn this article into a table with two columns: next to each example should be the '''reason''' Wikipedia presents the information the way they do. For example, is it policy, or just the current editorial consensus? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:29, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

==Cassie Bernall==

Number 11, as it stands, is simply not true. The Wikipedia page currently echoes what is written on the truthorfiction site: "Emily Wyant, who had been sitting with Bernall in the library as the shootings began, asserted that the exchange did not take place. Wyant stated that she and Bernall were studying together when the gunmen broke in. According to her account Bernall exclaimed, "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home." Wyant described how Eric Harris suddenly slammed his hand onto the table top and yelled "Peek-a-boo!" before fatally shooting Cassie Bernall." This is exactly what is described at the truthorfiction site. In fact, the Wikipedia article has been accurate about this since at least 2006, ''before'' the Conservapedia article was amended to include this example of supposed "bias." It should be removed. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 12:47, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:Please quote the sentence in Number 11 which you feel is not true. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

::"Wikipedia's entry about the Christian martyr at Columbine refuses to admit that she was murdered by an atheist as she was expressing her faith in God, as confirmed by multiple witnesses."--Actually, the Wikipedia article acknowledges that Cassie was praying, "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home," before Eric Harris shot her. This is what the link cited as a reference also claims. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 12:59, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:::So you are saying that Wikipedia '''does''' admit she was murdered by an atheist? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:03, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

::::Is Wikipedia's failure to note Eric Harris's atheism what is considered "biased"? If so, I guess 11 should stand. The sentence makes it sound like Wikipedia didn't note that Bernall was praying when she was shot (which it does). In any case, the truthorfiction site linked doesn't note Harris as an atheist, either. I'm sure he was but I don't have a link off-hand for it--I'll try to find one later. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 13:15, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

== Negative Words ==

While alot of this article is valid, alot of negative words are using. This simply makes the facts come across as angry attacks at wikipedia. Words like "vulger", "frivolous" and "blatant" aren't neccessary and make this wikipedia look very unprofessional. If anybody has any concern with the removal of these words, let me know. --[[User:Carceous|Carceous]] 08:00, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

===Racistpedia===
I checked the link, and a good majority of the search results are from book titles, song/album names, direct quotes, and other such media. In the first 50 results, only 8 instances can be justified as being frivolous--not in the form of a proper noun or direct quotes. [[User:JonathanG|JonG]][[User_talk:JonathanG|Tennisu no Boifriendo]] 21:40, 27 June 2009 (EDT)
:I concur. Wikipedia isn't perfect, and I hope my posts have demonstrated that is my view, but most of the results are legitimate. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 20:04, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

::These postings are incoherent. What are you referring to?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

::My sincere apologies for not replying earlier. #164 says "The scope and depth of racism prevalent on Wikipedia is despicable. Over a thousand pages that include the ethnic slur 'Nigger', many in the page title." What I, and I think JonG, was getting at, is that the results listed when you click the link at the end of #164, are mostly legitimate; i.e. the word "nigger" is used in the title for songs, books, even an island which have names with the word "nigger", and that makes those results legitimate because if that is their names then Wikipedia can't really call them anything else. Hope that clears things up. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 19:37, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

:::You make a valid point. But "mostly legitimate" is not all that reassuring. Also, I sense the liberal [[double standard]]: liberals often think it's OK for liberals to utter racist terms, but will savage any conservative who does. Surely no one denies the existence of that double standard, and surely no one defends it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:31, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

::::It's not just Wikipedia. [[Mark Twain]] was called a racist way back in the 1970s for using the word ''nigger'' nearly 1,000 times in [[Huckleberry Finn]]. It's just as much an anti-slavery novel as Stowe's [[Uncle Tom]], but some professor counted all the words and assumed that the more times the word is used, the more racist the author must be. I always ask liberals if they recall reading the part where Huck pretends to have been washed off the raft during a storm. His poignant realization that Jim cares more about him than his own father ever did, shows the reader that blacks are just as human as anyone else is. Surely, a novel teaching a lesson like that merits the use of authentic dialogue. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:58, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::Is it agreed then that this particular bullet point is not a legitimate complaint against Wikipedia? [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 21:57, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

== Cover up ==

Looks like Wikipedia is trying to hide up an embarrassing scandal it's involved in. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Blacketer_controversy] Check out how it has been nominated for deletion. Maybe this is significant enough for a front-page report? [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 09:26, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:This ref [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191474/Labour-councillor-David-Boothroyd-caught-altering-David-Camerons-Wikipedia-entry.html] says "Wikipedia appoints supposedly impartial and unpaid moderators to review and correct changes," about one member of its 15-strong international arbitration committee is a fraud. Plus, another ref [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10577178]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:09, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Messy ==

I removed a few lines of things that were off topic, such as the 'while wikipedia has a rainbow banner on the page regarding homosexuality it fails to list the related higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases'

I don't think mentioning that they have rainbow banners is relevant to anything, that is until I see a cult of conservatives who secretly love rainbows. This is highly unlikely.

== o3o ==

Well, it says that Wikipedia has a "smear of Conservapedia" and you guys are mad about this...so why not go on Wikipedia and edit it to what you want? After all, you don't need an account to edit Wikipedia, so it'd be quick and easy. [[User:KnightOfTheNight|KnightOfTheNight]]KnightOfTheNight

:Such edits would last a mere few minutes, if not mere seconds. Liberal, Conservapedia-hating editors would make sure of that (and they'd gang up to game the three-revert-rule to ensure their preferred viewpoint prevailed). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 20:49, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

==Concealing facts==

Can we make a list of facts which are well-referenced but deliberately omitted from Wikipedia articles, along with our best guess as to their motivation for concealing the fact? I daresay a list like that could even be maintained at Wikipedia, on some user subpage at least.

If we get enough cases together, we can rally some support to lobby for the inclusion of these omitted facts - if they are indeed being removed due to something like anti-religious bias.

Or can we start an article (here, of course) on such themes as [[scientists with a religious motivation]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:38, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

==a question==

People, if you think all these things in wikipedia are biased then why not just edit them with valid sources to support your edit? seems simple enough, and if wikipedia was as pro liberal as you claim then wouldnt the conservative page be alot more smeared? it seems factual to me, if established and proven facts conflict with your ideas of the articles' subject, find something valid that challenges whichever part you find conflicts with your views, otherwise accept that your view has been proven wrong for the time being, instead of calling it liberal bias. [[User:Euaaan|Euaaan]] 22:56, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:That "seems simple enough" to someone who doesn't understand the liberal mobocracy that runs Wikipedia. Many Wikipedians quickly revert the conservative truth. These Wikipedians view their role in life as censoring conservative insights and observations wherever possible.

:If you doubt it, then you can try to editing Wikipedia to fix any of the over 100 biased entries listed here. Watch how quickly it is reverted and/or distorted to conform to the liberal/atheistic mindset.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
::Well i would have to disagree with you there, a while back i edited the article on "elitism" to remove an image of barrack obama which was the flagship image of the entire article, it had been there for quite a while, atleast a month if i remember right. Anyway, most of the time i have seen conservative viewpoints removed from wiki is because they are just that: viewpoints, not properly cited. I'm sure there are examples of liberal bias on wikipedia, but my example just goes to show there are also conservative ones, its not just one sided.[[User:Euaaan|Euaaan]] 23:43, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

::: You're free to take any opinion you like, but the list of examples of bias far exceeds 100, and many Wikipedians are well aware of it. They like Wikipedia ''because'' it has liberal bias and gossip.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

== Jim Pouillon ==

The Wikipedia page for Jim Pouillon is here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Pouillon Jim Pouillon]

==I beg to differ==

First of all, I'd like to say that I fully support the idea of a Conservative-based encyclopedia. But you make an encyclopedia that is a hundred times as biased as Wikipedia, and you justify it by saying that Wikipedia is biased as well. Pages on Conservapedia are full of negative critics towards Liberals. Wikipedia may have a bias (Note please; if ALL conservative users on Conservapedia would just edit Wikipedia's pages into genuinely balanced pages, this would not be an issue) but it is nowhere nearly as awful as the bias on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia, articles do not criticize people with certain opinions. They do not pretend to be appalled by the oh-so devastating thought of people not agreeing with them. On Conservapedia there are pages like [[Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?]]. Instead of accepting that opinions aren't moral crimes, and that your opinion's value equals a liberal's opinion's value, you portray liberals as ignorant, morally unjustifiable idiots, who are brainwashed by modern science. Now tell me, is that what "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is supposed to look like?
I am willing to debate about this. --[[User:GatesOfDawn|Arno Sluismans]] 2:00PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)

:"GatesOfDawn" (what a ridiculous user name!), you lost credibility when you claimed that conservatives could add the truth on Wikipedia. It's like trying to reason with a lynch mob. Wikipedians do not tolerate truthful edits on politically sensitive issues.

:Unfortunately, I doubt you have a clue about "modern science" and you have this backwards: it's liberals who just passed a hate crimes bill that criminalizes opinion, and it's liberals who censor prayer in public school. Conservatives believe in free speech.

:Open your mind a bit, please, for your own sake. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:49, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

::First of all, my name being ridiculous is already a pretty narrow minded thing to say. It's a reference to a great piece of art. Anyway, that's not the point of this conversation.
::I think your reaction already shows what I mean. I speak about "opinions" and "beliefs", you speak about "the truth". The things that you call truth are often half proven, half disproven, meaning that it's everybody's personal choice what to think of it. Many reasonable Conservapedia users prefer to see everything from a biblical point of view, trying to relate things to God's work, while I, and many other reasonable Liberals, see things from a mathematical and scientific point of view.
::I'm rather new to Conservapedia, but, for example, I've seen pages in which is matter-of-factly mentioned that God created earth about 6000 years ago. This makes me wonder how it is possible that scientists have been (quite accurately) able to estimate dead livings' age through C14-isotopes, finding out that some of them are tens of thousands years old? Other, more accurate ways of determining a cadaver's age, have showed us that certain species even used to live hundreds of millions years ago. Doesn't this show you that literal biblical quotes should be taken with a grain of salt? On another note, the Bible was written by humans, during times when science was not as correct as it is now. For instance, the Bible claims that earth is a flat disk, while every broad minded person nowadays understands that it is a sphere.
::Another thing: "Conservatives believe in free speech," you say. I have a question for you, then: If I go and edit the [[Evolution]] page, adding a list of plausible evidence for the theory of evolution, would it last long? I see a list of implausible evidence, and quite some critics contra-evolution. So would Conservapedians be okay with me adding some "reason to believe" to that page?
::Oh, and please don't tell me there is no plausible evidence for the theory of evolution, which you might have been thinking of saying. You know just as well as I do that there is plenty of it.--[[User:GatesOfDawn|Arno Sluismans]] 11:09PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)
:::'GatesofDawn' why don't you read our [[Evolution]] and [[Carbon dating]] pages with an open mind. While you're at it, read our [[Liberal Style]] article. [[User:JohnFraiser|JohnFraiser]] 17:29, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
::::John Fraiser, the [[Liberal Style]] is actually a great article. But please, rename it to "A person arguing with somebody with an opposite opinion Style". You're trying to make Liberals seem like desperate kids who have nothing reasonable to say. The truth is that, in an argument, people simply have a certain style of writing and speaking. And since Liberals argue, and Conservatives don't (they just state their point and say it is true), this article only applies to Liberals when it comes to writing style on Conservapedia.
::::I had expected a more open minded discussion here, hoping my reasonable post would trigger reasonable answers. Yet instead of replying with supportive arguments and examples of where I'm wrong, you pretend I'm a retard whose sole purpose is to be laughed at. Seriously, people, your Trustworthy Encyclopedia has a long way to go.--[[User:GatesOfDawn|Arno Sluismans]] 11:43PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)

:::::Who names himself after a "piece of art"??? From that starting point you ramble on a way not worth responding to. Scientific wannabees are fooled by the [[radiometric dating]], not realizing the rates of decay have certainly changed over time since the origin. Perhaps you fell for the [[global warming]] fraud also; I've found the overlap between belief in evolution and belief in global warming to be nearly 100%.

:::::The Bible is the most logical book ever written. If you spent just 10% of the time that you chase evolution frauds on actually reading the Bible, you'd have an entirely better outlook on life. Do yourself a favor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:05, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

== "None even exist off the shores of the United States.... " ==

Funny how things that aren't in the United States end up being featured on the WORLD WIDE web. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:05, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:You miss the point. If the world's biggest and most competitive economy doesn't use something, not even once, then it's not a good example of engineering. Surely people aren't so anti-American to miss that obvious point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:09, 1 November 2009 (EST)
::I see in the current version of the article six images--the wind turbines off the coast of Belgium, a Spanish example of a British steam engine, a German turbine, the American space shuttle, a Québecois bio-engineering facility, and the Italian Leonardo Da Vinci.Given that there's nothing from a Asian or African country, I'd say the US, if anything, is OVER-represented in that list, in terms of being representative of the number of people in the world and how they relate to engineering. Why not a well with a hand-pump, say, or a bicycle--the types of engineering that most human beings encounter on a daily basis. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:18, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::Are you saying that you've fallen for Wikipedia's notorious [[placement bias]]? Most viewers don't read beyond the top screen. That's where the bias is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:22, 1 November 2009 (EST)
:::::You're not addressing my point about the non-western world being completely ignored in the article in question. Besides that, in terms if your irrelevant tangent, I don't know about most readers. I read the whole article. That's how I learned to read in public school and from my professor-values-addled professors in college. The whole article. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:26, 1 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Peter, you're in denial. You well know that the top of an article is the most important, and by far the most widely read. Your refusal to admit that results in a loss in credibility, and makes a discussion about bias with you pointless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 1 November 2009 (EST)
::::::::Sure, the top is most important, which is why I'd love to see a hand-pump or something similar as the first image. What's a true sign of denial, however, is your refusal to admit the images in the article completely overlook the majority of humanity. Unless you're able to shed your US/Eurocentrism, and deal with the real problems in the article in question, I see no point in discussing with you further. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:34, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::::This may be a moot point as it stands, as the article now has a steam engine at the top of it. [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 19:51, 11 November 2009 (EST)

== Wikipedia recommends using "God" rather than "Allah." ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:ISLAM#Allah]

Worth including?

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:45, 11 November 2009 (EST)
::You know, the clear bias is that in the sentence after they state they prefer the use of "God" over "Allah," they point out that the God of Islam should be a distinct addition to only the first mention of God. They are differentiating between the gods, just in a very subliminal, slimey way. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 17:48, 11 November 2009 (EST)

:::Any other thoughts on this? I'm leaning strongly towards adding it...especially given the comment on the same page about how the word terrorism is 'contentious.' So's blowing up innocent people, if you ask me. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 11 November 2009 (EST)

== Possible Bias ==

The WP article on "Argumentum ad populum" has several anti-religion statements in it. [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 20:57, 11 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Ronald Wilson Reagan

2009-11-12T00:54:36Z

MichaelZ: /* Category */ response

== Photo ==

'''If someone is there who has had luck uploading image files here, please replace that unviewable picture with the following, please? Thanks!''' --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:29, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

http://www.nndb.com/people/359/000022293/reagan.jpg

:Done. I can't upload it though, as the page is protected. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]] [[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 05:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

----

I'm a little confused. I see why many of Undelia's edits were removed, but why the part about Reagan opposing government aid to the poor? Isn't that a component of opposing big government, trying to cut welfare programs that would benefit the poor? I don't think that all of Undelia's edits should have been removed wholesale, since some of what was added seems factually accurate.

== Why do you dislike my references? ==

Why were my edits unceremoniously and completely undone? Most of the edits were adding book citations so that claims were supported by some sort of sources. Does Conservapedia dislike facts and evidence? Or does it just dislike citations to viewpoints that don't harmonize with its own narrow agenda?

The question of whom to credit for the end of communism is a major one for historians and scholars. And there are a lot of scholars (I would say it's an accurate characterization to say most scholars) who disagree with those who credit Ronald Reagan for the end of the Cold War. I would've thought Conservapedia of all places would've appreciated trying to teach the controversy in a fairly even-handed way. Providing references to the "other side" in this debate doesn't strike me as contrary to Conservapedia's purportedly educational mission.

Obviously Conservapedia has its own conservative bias, which it is proud to wear on its sleeve. However, where I'm "biased" is that I'm not satisfied with assertions lacking grounding in sources. But it seems like Conservapedia is undermining its own objective of being "educational" by eschewing sound scholarly practices of documentation, references and -- gasp! -- presenting multiple sides of an issue, all so it can engage in unsubstantiated opinion. Wikipedia, for all its faults, likely would not arbitrarily remove several references and citations. One of their major flags, after all, is for articles with unsourced statements. Such articles appear endemic to Conservapedia, which one could attribute simply to it being so new and experiencing rapid growth, but given the way this particular entry has been butchered by administrators, it looks like unsourced statements might simply be official policy.

You do a great disservice to potential users by not only tolerating but encouraging such slipshod methods of scholarship. More than anything else, this will cause large numbers of people to reject the information in Conservapedia ''prima facie,'' and will lead more people to trust Wikipedia because it at least appears to uphold more rigorous standards. While I haven't prevented students explicitly from using Wikipedia (though I've strongly discouraged its use and urged them to consider its problems as a source), you have me leaning toward banning the use of Conservapedia outright, because the standards appear so low as to not even warrant further discussion.

Also, in simply removing my edits wholesale, I should point out that you removed several minor changes that had no business being expunged. For instance, adding "was born" in the sentence about how "Reagan was born and raised in Illinois ..." Also, I corrected the capitalization of "American president," since "president" (like other titles) should only be capitalized when used as an appositive before a proper name (e.g. President Lincoln, but Lincoln was elected president). See a style guide (Strunk and White, Chicago, etc.) for more on that.

: Please sign your comments if you can, using the signature button, so we know with whom we're speaking. Thanks.

: I did revert this entry because it tried to take credit away for Reagan for the fall of communism. I apologize if other edits were also removed in the reversion (rollback), but such is the nature of the Wiki software.

: We welcome well-supported facts here. We don't censor alternative views. But an entry is going to give credit to conservatives or Christianity or American where credit is due. If you want to insert a liberal view that attempts to deny credit to Reagan for the fall of communism, then it should be well-supported and near the end, after the credit is fully given. It can't be inserted in a manner suggesting that the issue is unresolved, or that we have no way of knowing whether Reagan deserves credit. He obviously does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 10 March 2007 (EST)
::So what you're saying is that you don't censor alternative views, as long as they acknowledge that you're right? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:24, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==Rekjavik, the Freeze, and the fall of Communism==

:: Well, no. It isn't obvious that Reagan deserves credit. One hypothesis is that Reagans presence in the White House played a significant role in the eventual fall of the Soviet Union. But you would have to test that against a counter hypothesis that the Soviet Union would have ended roughly at the same time and in the same manner if Reagan had not been president. Of course we can't revert history and control for that factor so any argument regarding causation is tenuous at best. However, there is a whole body of research looking at multiple explanations for the end of the Cold War and most of this research looks at mult-causal explanations. Social scientists generally are wary of monocausal explanations and especially monocausal explanations that single out any one individual. It is for this reason that the Reagan hypothesis is largely rejected--it has little to do with Reagan himself, but mostly to do with the complex nature of large-scale political processes. That isn't to say that Reagan and his policies weren't an important variable, it is just not certain whether he holds the most explanatory power.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 03:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well Jack, we have cites to demonstrate Reagans Defense spending in the early 80s virtually spent the Soviet Union out of existence, because they could not keep up. Gorbachav has virtually admitted as much. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have cites that say Reagan's spending extended the length of the Soviet Union's existence, I have cites that say internal social movements in the Eastern Bloc ended the Soviet Union, I have cites that the Peace movement in the United States was what brought about the changes in Reagan's attitude change that led to his willingness to open up negotiation space. However, I wouldn't make the claim that any of these provide the strongest explanatory power. Having cites doesn't confirm or disconfirm anything, it only provides one plausible explanation for an event. Selective citing is just as biased as no citing at all and, in fact, is more academically dishonest.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 00:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Well, when I say I have cites, I don't mean it in the common Wikipedia sense of WP:V that any lie anybody told somewhere so long as it got in print is a valid citation. Not at all. I'm refering to a credible witness who has been properly vetted to stand up against cross examination. And I wouldn't make the reference if it were not so. Junk science, for example, does not qualify as a cite. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Neither do passing observations. And people who are directly involved in an event will sometimes hold the most biased explanation for how that event happened. (By the way how does someone virtually admit as much?) Especially when you are talking about huge sociopolitical changes. Behavior is complicated, especially political behavior and, like I said before, monocausal explanations are generally weak.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 00:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::That Soviet Communism was pathologically ill and doomed to an end sooner or later there's no question; indeeed, Ronald Reagan may have been the only guy in America who saw that & believed it in 1980. And he certainly hastened it's demise. What's more, many who opposed him, actively sought to prop up the existing status quo. And here the Nuke Freeze Movement suspects we can cite in particular. If they had their way, the Soviet Union would still exist and all the Nuclear weapons would still be '''frozen''', intact. They cannot pretend now that they did not take those positions, or hold those views, then. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: I think you would enjoy reading the book the Reagan Reversal by Betsey Lamb (I think). It is very favorable to Reagan but does a good job breaking through some of the myths about him that are propogated by both the left and the right. BTW, Ronald Reagan wasn't the only one to recognize that in 1980 and his policies after 1983 were in many ways more in line with the Freeze movement than it was with the Arms hawks.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 12:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: On that question, the Reykjavik summit is key; while widely reported as a failure, it really was the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union, and the begining of the cooperative agreements that came later. Gorby basically was begging for an opportunity for Soviet institutions to survive through perestroika, and when he walked out, he knew it was the end of the Soviet Union. The Jackson Hole signing between Baker & Shevardnadze was the death warrant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

*I will find you the sourcing, Rob...but Reykjavik was a calculated gamble, quite deliberate on Reagan's part. Besides, he said when home, he had a terrible sinus and was testy. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Gorby came to Reykjavik holding absolutely no cards. Unlike Khurschev's bravado, all Gorby could do was plead for time to let Perestroika work, cause everyone knew if 100% of the Soviet economy had been shifted to defense spending, it ''still'' could not compete with Reagans defense build-up and next genreation Stars Wars etc. When Gorby walked out, he knew it was the end of the Soviet Union. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Where's your evidence? ==

An interesting approach to documentation and sourcing. You accept a hypothesis (in this case that Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War), then refuse to tolerate any alternative explanations, no matter how well grounded. You claim that such "liberal" views require substantiation, and yet, when substantiation for them is offered, you excise the substantiation altogether. I'll note that no documentation whatsoever is offered in support of the hypothesis that Reagan brought the end of communism in Eastern Europe.

I should add that "liberal" is a very misleading and damning characterization of these views, since the thesis that Reagan wasn't responsible for the fall of communism derives more from any number of factors in which Reagan had no bearing whatsoever. The references provided and then unceremoniously removed without explanation explain these in more detail.
For instance, Jan Kubik's work on the emergence of civil society and Solidarity in Poland shows how important the Catholic Church and especially the election of a Polish pope, John Paul II, helped to galvanize opposition in Poland. The pope's first visit to Poland in June 1979 provided a major source of inspiration and rehearsal for the opposition and the blossoming of civil society. The fruits of that emerged in the summer of 1980, when a wave of strikes gave birth to Solidarity, the independent trade union that played a major role in undermining Communist authority in Poland, and also in fostering opposition in other parts of Eastern Europe. You'll note that John Paul II became pope in 1978 and Solidarity emerged in August 1979, both of which occurred long before Reagan became president. Moreover, the work of Solidarity had little support from the United States, or from outside of Poland in general. Much of the limited American support lent to Solidarity (and I place emphasis on the idea that it was limited and had little bearing on Solidarity) actually came from the AFL-CIO, which provided some funding and supplies (things like printing presses). Even though Solidarity was forced underground when Poland came under martial law in December 1981, it continued to exist and function as an illegal organization, and civil society continued to develop beyond it. The reemergence of Solidarity in early 1989 came not as the product of external factors, but rather from a recurrence of the persistent economic problems that dogged the Communist regime throughout its existence. The regime reached out to Solidarity. To the extent that pressures from without even played a role, these would've been marginal, and would have emanated mainly from the Kremlin. But, in truth, even that was negligible, since Moscow did little more than to tell the Polish regime that it was on its own.

Similarly, works by Timothy Garton Ash, Gale Stokes and Vladimir Tismaneanu point to the systemic weaknesses of communism within Poland. Some of the important factors they cite are economic weaknesses and a growing crisis of legitimacy that prevented Communist regimes from persisting in hardline methods of repression. At the same time, these factors also led to the genesis of opposition movements within Eastern Europe (groups like Solidarity in Poland, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia, the Prayers for Peace in East Germany).

The United States and Ronald Reagan don't receive credit in these explanations not due to pervasive "liberal bias," but rather because these factors that are seen as more important (and I should add as someone who has read widely in the scholarship, these are the most commonly cited explanations for the collapse of communism) and the role of the United States or of Ronald Reagan could only have been peripheral at best. It was limited largely to symbolic acts (such as Reagan's speech at the Berlin Wall), but even these symbolic acts were directed more at the West and American constituents than at the people living in Communist countries.

I believe this very point was made in one of the edits that an administrator purged.

To give primary credit to Ronald Reagan or the United States for the end of the Cold War would to engage in staggering ignorance of the domestic and systemic factors that undermined Communist regimes, and to marginalize unfairly the many ordinary people and dissidents in Eastern Europe who helped to bring down communism from within. In addition, Reagan in particular deserves little credit for these developments because he was relatively late to the scene. The systemic factors, and in many cases the opposition movements as well, long predated Reagan's presidency, which had little bearing on them.

Now, call me biased, but I think that offers a very well-developed and -substantiated account of other explanations for the end of communism. Nothing in that strikes me as excessively "liberal." Indeed, the only "liberal" thing about it is that it doesn't engage in the same sort of pooh-poohing of Reagan that blindly credits him without offering substantiation.

If someone cares to offer more substantive reasons (citing references for this explanation would be a welcome change) for why Reagan deserves credit, then this entry and discussion can go somewhere.

But simply asserting that Reagan ended communism because you said so, then placing the onus on critics of this position to refute it using evidence, and then suppressing evidence that contradicts the ''a priori'' thesis/assertion: this doesn't exactly give Conservapedia's entry the ring of truth, or much in the way of credibility for that matter.

It would seem, based on the actions taken with respect to edits on this entry, that Conservapedia's "educational" mission would be more accurately described as disseminating conservative propaganda rather than presenting facts and seeking "truth."

You may castigate me for propagating a "liberal" viewpoint, but my true "bias" is that I like some sort of substantiation for sweeping generalizations and disputed claims. I merely attempted to present the alternate explanations that are mostly widely accepted among experts and scholars. You can criticize those groups for "liberal bias," but as I've made clear, there's nothing inherently liberal in these approaches. Moreover, a better response would be to offer your own facts and sources to support your claims, rather than engaging in knee-jerk censorship of someone who deigns to cite references and offer substantiation.

And your request for a signature is laughable. It has echoes of "Big Brother," and given the fascistic censorship witnessed in this article, I'd rather not risk being unceremoniously blocked for not blindly toeing the party line. The truth may not be determined democratically, but the authoritarian methods on display in Conservapedia have proven no more reliable.

-- "Karol Wojtyla"
::: None of us are perfect, probably all of us have overlooked signing our edits or our discussion at some time or another. But it is common procedure and helpful in discussion. Even months later, it is helpful in reading through a discussion to see who is making what points in what sequence. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 23:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: I made the edits turning "most" into "some" and "other". The reason being is that it is more accurate to say that than to claim "most historians". There is plenty of literature that supports the claim that Reagan's willingness to meet the Soviets expansion-by-proxy and military buildup forced the Soviets into an arms race that they could ill-afford, and that this helped to break an already-faltering Soviet economy. There is also plenty of personal commentary from citizens of the former Soviet client-states who say that Reagan's opposition to the Communists gave them hope.

Your entry wasn't expunged; your points are still there. Personally, I think they '''are''' valid ones and that you simply overstated the level of agreement amongst historians.

I hope this helps you to understand why I made what I considered to be minor edits. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:41, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Agreed, although I'd still like to see some references for the literature that credits Reagan's policies. But I would add that there's substantial agreement, at least among historians who study the Eastern bloc, on the question of whether Reagan's role was that important. Reagan appears very little in that literature, so I'm wondering where the sources/references are that give him so much credit. After all, the Second Commandment says sources must always be credited and cited. We can continue to debate those sources on the discussion page, but I think the bigger point is that there's no widely accepted monocausal explanation for the end of communism, so it would be more appropriate to provide sources for the different theses, and to also expound on those interpretations. In other words, rather than simply saying "Reagan ended the Cold War," someone needs to elaborate on the reasoning behind that. Otherwise, it violates the Sixth Commandment (don't give personal opinions in entries).

:I agree with your central contention - there is no monocausal explanation for the fall of Communism. There were several separate forces that converged to break a flawed system. In fairness, though, I think that if you re-read this article you'll see it is more even-handed than you give it credit for. Most every single acclamation given to Reagan is qualified. And, as I pointed out before, your alternate sources were not deleted.

:I would go so far as to say that, for a Conservative site, it is close to the most balanced article on the site. Perhaps you would like to write an article on the Fall of Communism that explores the other causes? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:13, 10 March 2007 (EST)

My apologies to Dave3172. I wasn't accusing you of censorship. Rather, it was an earlier iteration of this page [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&oldid=22986]], which user Aschlafly rolled back wholesale. In that iteration, there were several references to texts supporting some of the alternative explanations for the fall of communism. While Dave3172 is right to note that the fall of communism would warrant an entry unto itself, what seemed more inappropriate was Aschlafly's decision to expunge many book citations (the earlier version was even more substantiated than the current version), with his stated reason:

"But an entry is going to give credit to conservatives or Christianity or American where credit is due. If you want to insert a liberal view that attempts to deny credit to Reagan for the fall of communism, then it should be well-supported and near the end, after the credit is fully given. It can't be inserted in a manner suggesting that the issue is unresolved, or that we have no way of knowing whether Reagan deserves credit. He obviously does."

User Aschlafly refuses to accept that, contrary to his personal opinion, the question of Reagan's credit for the end of communism is, in fact, unresolved. As other users have also tried to indicate, there are a wealth of alternative explanations that don't lend support to the "credit Reagan" thesis. And, at least in scholarly circles, it could be argued that there is substantial agreement that Reagan was not the primary or even a significant factor.

What I think is lacking for this entry, and would be worthy of inclusion on a separate entry for the fall of communism as well, would be some substantiation for the argument that Reagan deserves credit. As the article currently stands, and at least in the various iterations I've seen previously, it hasn't provided any support for this argument, aside from the anecdotal evidence of Reagan's speech in front of the Berlin Wall, the importance of which, I might add, seemed more to bolster Reagan's standing as a Cold Warrior and anticommunist in the West, rather than to make any significant impact on developments on the other side of the Iron Curtain (a point I recall seeing in an earlier, since censored version of this entry).

I'm not the one to provide such documentation. Frankly, in my studies of this question (and it was a subfield for one of my M.A. exams, so I've read in the scholarly literature quite extensively) I'm yet to encounter anyone who has presented a very extensive or, in my opinion, compelling argument for crediting Reagan. I am generally familiar with some of the reasons conservatives have given in support of the "credit Reagan" thesis, which user Dave3172 recounted above. But I have not encountered and cannot think offhand of what sorts of books, articles and other sources might lay out this argument at greater length. I would strongly encourage someone -- anyone -- to present those reasons more lucidly. As a teacher, I want to present my students with as many different interpretations as possible, and with the reasoning behind such arguments, so I can teach them to evaluate claims and sources more effectively. It would only be appropriate to include such material in Conservapedia, and I would think that especially on Conservapedia there would be contributors better able to provide that dimension of the debate.

As it stands, I do agree with user Dave3172 that the Reagan entry is rather even-handed and balanced. And in general I think the two of us are on the same page in terms of what we'd like to see.

But as a matter of course, I think it's always better to have too many references rather than too few. This is especially true for encyclopedias. In my mind, an encyclopedia should serve as a quick reference for basic facts, but also as a mere starting point for finding more extensive treatments of various issues and questions. Even if an editor happens to doubt the credibility of a source, it's better to allow users to know what sources are being used and to enable users to access those sources and make assessments of their credibility for themselves. If only more people learned those skills and the ability to read critically, and with a healthy skepticism, my job as an educator would be infinitely easier.

The real source of my aggravation lies in user Aschlafly's cavalier attitude toward sources and evidence that don't support his personal opinions. And while such attitudes are bound to be endemic on any wiki (whether Wikipedia or Conservapedia), which was part of the stated reason for the launch of Conservapedia, I find it troubling that Aschlafly of all users, as a founder or administrator of Conservapedia (if I understand correctly) is engaging in precisely the same behaviors that Conservapedia's founders deemed so troubling and problematic in Wikipedia. It just strikes me as highly hypocritical for user Aschlafly to be just as guilty of censoring viewpoints with which he disagrees.

-- "KW"

== Evidence that Reagan helped to end the Cold War. ==

I assume this stuff is copyrighted, so I'll just give names and page numbers. These aren't historians, mind you - they're witnesses to history.

Margaret Thatcher on Reagan's impact with ending the Cold War "Statecraft" p. 10-11.
Also included in this passage is testimony from the last Soviet Foreign Minister Alexandr Bessemertnykh.

A quote from Lech Walesa, leader of Solidiarity on the back of Peter Schweinzer's book, "Reagan's War."

I can provide more evidence, if necessary.

By the way, when the Soviet Union imposed martial law on Poland because of Solidarity, Reagan did take crucial action, and the results can not be underestimated. He revoked Poland's most favored nation trading status, which meant Polish goods faced a high tariffs on exports to the US. Most importantly, he banned the sale of oil and gas technologies to the USSR. Both of these actions put tremendous pressure on the Soviets to settle the strike on terms favorable to the Americans.

You got that last part absolutely wrong. The Soviet government didn't impose martial law on Poland. The Polish regime of Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski declared it because the alternative was to watch its own collapse and allow Poland to descend into complete chaos. The Soviets were not a factor -- repeat: not a factor -- in the end to the Solidarity crisis. In fact, we now know based on documents in archives in Warsaw and Moscow that have become available since the fall of communism that the Kremlin was prepared to allow Poland to "go its own way" in 1981. This was not Moscow's preference, for obvious reasons, but after Soviet leaders assessed the likely outcome of a crackdown (a la Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968 or Afghanistan in 1979), they ruled out the military option. Some of the reasoning behind this was that Soviet leaders feared the repercussions of intervention, which they surmised would have brought an end to detente. However, equally important was their conviction that the Poles would fight back, and that the Polish Army could not be trusted to remain loyal to the Communist regime in the event of a Soviet invasion. The decision to crack down on Solidarity was left entirely to the Polish leadership. (For more elaboration on this, see Vojtech Mastny's article "The Soviet Non-Invasion of Poland in 1980-1981 and the End of the Cold War," and Matthew Ouimet's "The Rise and Fall of the Brezhnev Doctrine in Soviet Foreign Policy.")

The irony, of course, was that the West widely believed (rather erroneously, as we now know) that Moscow had been calling the shots in Poland. So, despite the fact that it hadn't ordered the crackdown and resigned itself to the possibility of a non-Communist Poland, the Kremlin still faced the loss of benefits that had come with detente.

I'm also perplexed by your claim that the end of the legal Solidarity movement (and it's much more accurately characterized as an independent trade union and opposition movement than a strike, since hundreds of strikes occurred in this period in Poland) saw the Soviets "settle the strike on terms favorable to the Americans." Martial law was about the last thing the Reagan White House would've wanted. Or perhaps the next-to-last thing, since only a direct Soviet invasion of Poland could have been worse from an American standpoint.

However, even if you point to the end of detente and the economic hardships this brought to the Soviet Union as a major causal factor in the fall of communism, it's still debatable how much credit Reagan deserves for that. Many of the moves in that direction, such as the end of American food relief to the Soviet Union, had been initiated by Jimmy Carter following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and prior to Reagan's presidency. Under Reagan those policies may have been pursued to an even greater degree, though it is likely that, had he won a second term in office, Carter would have followed much the same course (especially if you recall that his national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was a Pole). Much of the basis for crediting Reagan with the collapse of communism seems to dwell on his outspoken opposition to communism, and to having been in the right place at the right time. Given the array of systemic weaknesses, the developing opposition movements and the long-brewing crises that culminated in East-Central Europe in 1989, and in the Soviet Union over the following two years, it is highly probable that communism would have collapsed roughly when it did regardless of who lived in the White House in the 1980s.

Furthermore, I'd be interested in seeing the verbatim quote from Walesa. A professor said that Walesa gave a talk in Seattle some years ago where one of the audience members asked him if he thought Reagan or Gorbachev deserved the most credit for the collapse of communism. Walesa replied, "No, it was the Holy Father!" by which he meant Pope John Paul II (since Catholics refer to the pontiff as the Holy Father). So from the perspective on someone who obviously "witnessed" (and also shaped) history, you can see what people on the ground thought.

-- "KW"

==McCarthy reference==
Reagan tesitified in 1947 before the HUAC -- even before the Hiss & White episodes; McCarthy didn't produce his list til 1950, and was a Senate Committee. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:03, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Flipping through some of the history pages, I see that PraiseTheLard mentioned Reagan's role as head of SAG in blacklisting supposed Hollywood Communists. However, I notice that this was repeatedly removed by other editors.

My question: why? This really happened, and I don't think the facts are in dispute. Thus, shouldn't it be included in an entry on Reagan, especially as it was one of the more notable (or notorious, depending on one's perspective) things he did in the years before he became governor*, and it can be seen as a stepping stone to politics, as well as an early sign of his zealotry as a Cold Warrior.

* Unless, of course, you consider the classic Reagan film "Bedtime for Bonzo" (1951) to meet these criteria. But it's already in the entry under miscellanea.

:Why? Yes, Reagan did testify in 1947 regarding subversive communist influence in SAG; Joe McCarthy started his investigations in 1950 of government employees and contractors doing business with government. Now, unlike Wikipedia, we can't fit a square peg in a round hole. For example, for several months I was in dispute resolution over things like people who died in 1948, 2 years before McCarthy, who nevertheless were victims of McCarthyism. Or all the atomic physicists who ended up on the Hollywood Blacklist. Or McCarthy, who never served in the House, sat on the House Un-America Activities Committee. Now these are quite simply facts any child has access to, nonetheless, it is the policy of Wikipedia not to allow some of this information into the sum total of human knowledge. So unless you can somehow prove that 1947 = 1950, Ronald Reagan in no way shape or form can be said to have any conection with "McCarthyism". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

* If you read my comment on the removal more carefully, you'd notice that I never mentioned McCarthy or McCarthyism (I had nothing to do with the edits that included and removed that information, which is why I was questioning the actions of those involved). What I was trying to call attention to (and clearly failed to do so) was why information on Reagan's anticommunist activities, such as his role in blacklisting people in Hollywood for alleged Communist sympathies, was removed. What I suggested ought to have happened was that the incorrect information linking Reagan to McCarthyism could have been removed, but the other information outlining his anticommunist activities in conjunction with SAG and the Hollywood Blacklist should have been retained. Something about not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. -- "KW"

:KW, Thanks for the clarification. There is much confusion regarding the so-called Hollywood blacklist. What you find is (A) deliberate efforts to cite HUAC as the source of the blacklist (B) deliberate efforts and distortions to cite McCarthy as serving on HUAC at the time.

:The simple fact of the matter is (A) the "blacklisted" actors and writers were blacklisted by the MPAA (the same group that issues movie ratings and the Oscars); (B) the US government '''did not''' blacklist the Hollywood actors; (C) McCarthy's Committee, which had nothing to do with the blacklist in the first place, would not possess legal authority to investigate anyway. McCarthy's Committee only had legal jurisdiction to investigate the US Government or government contractors.

:Now, it is argued that some Hollywood films had business relationships with the US Government in the making of films in WWII. Yes, this is true. To that extent, if there were a pretext to investigate Hollywood studios, screenwriters, and actors who were acting as government contractors, why ''didn't'' McCarthy investigate them.

:Needless to say, unravelling the a half century of deliberate distortions and deceptions is messy indeed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:''P.S. Reagans credentials as an anti-Communist aren't really something we need to speculate about; attempts to "link" Reagan to some of the unpleasant aspects of "McCarthyism" is something we need to be concerned about.''

*'''Something our younger members might want to keep in mind, it is totally ''revisionist thinking'' to view the House Un-American Activities Committee, its investigations and Congressman McCarthy as evil. I think the genocide of the Soviet Communist Party, and its leaders are very well documented. So are the hundreds of spies sent to the U.S. It is a proven fact that many true-believers, as opposed to those who were easily mislead or naive, did actively get jobs in the film industry. What you know today as "transparency" didn't exist in the 50's and 60's. Nuclear bombs were new to us, the leader of the Soviet Union announced on TV that they would "bury" us. These are things you need to take into consideration when examining the period.''' --[[User:TK|TK]] 19:35, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Can we limit the speculation and the removal of facts/sources to include unsubstantiated opinion? ==

Someone earlier today inserted a line at the end of the survey of various interpretations of the end of communism to the effect of "Nevertheless, Reagan was the personal driving force behind the fall of communism." Given the multitude of other interpretations presented in this article and elsewhere on the talk page, it seemed inappropriate to add that line as a way of denying the existence of controversy in this debate and asserting a personal opinion as manifest fact. As it stands, and as I reverted it, the article never claimed that any single interpretation was "right." Instead, the main idea (and what I would hope would be more important for an encyclopedia) is that the issue is not clear cut, and to present the basic contours of the debate.

Similarly, I noticed that a user changed the section on the presidential legacy regarding SDI/Star Wars, removing the information about how the principle of atmospheric-based missile defense (the foundation of SDI) has never been tested successfully. Moreover, the same user changed the line that said (and I paraphrase from memory), "Even though many conservatives claim SDI gave the U.S. considerable leverage vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, most analysts of Soviet policy note that such considerations were of minor concern and that internal considerations played the paramount role in Soviet policymaking." In its place, the new line (again, I paraphrase) said simply that "SDI gave the U.S. considerable leverage against the Soviet Union." Any notion that the existence of leverage is disputed was summarily excised.

While I understand that many (most?) of the users of Conservapedia likely believe Reagan to have been the driving force behind the end of the Cold War, and to have though that SDI brought the Soviet Union to its knees and spurred the collapse of communism, I underline that these are only individual opinions. They may be based on certain sources, but they remain interpretations and not cut-and-dry facts. At the very least, there should be documentation and evidence to support these sorts of assertions. But I also think that, given the level of contention over these questions in academic and political debates, a better approach for Conservapedia, or any encyclopedia for that matter, is to present the controversy and the various sides, rather than unilaterally presenting one perspective as absolute fact.

It's my understanding that this was a major motivation for creating Conservapedia as an alternative to Wikipedia, to include viewpoints that were being summarily removed on Wikipedia. I'm all for presenting alternative viewpoints, but I think what's essential to give Conservapedia any broad credibility is to not provide '''only''' the viewpoints lacking on Wikipedia, but to present all the viewpoints. If you only want to present certain viewpoints, well, it is called Conservapedia, but you should probably stop claiming to be encyclopedic in nature.

'''**Reagan, while President of SAG, opposed Communist infilteration of the guilds in Hollywood, however he was also instrumental in fighting for actors who were painted by McCarthy's broad brush, and got their names removed. He did just that in helping a young actress, Nancy Davis, who he eventually married.''' --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:07, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Good observations. With reference to,
::''"Even though many conservatives claim SDI gave the U.S. considerable leverage vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, most analysts of Soviet policy note that such considerations were of minor concern and that internal considerations played the paramount role in Soviet policymaking."''
:the subtle thing said here is trying to separate "conservatives" from "most analysts", i.e. moderate or manistream. Facts are so-called "conservative analysts" are very mainstream given the subject under discussion. The so-called "moderate analysts", or others this referes to, are journalists and opinion makers, not defense policy analysts. This sort of subtlety needs to be watched for. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: But I think you're falsely interpreting a statement that says "many conservatives" to exclude conservatives from or the "mainstream." Perhaps the issue was in the paraphrase I believe the exact language said something to the effect of "many political scientists and historians," or "scholars," or something a bit more specific. But when I said "analysts," I meant this merely as a shorthand for a variety of groups, which included many relevant scholars, and did not mean it in the narrow sense of defense policy analysts. I certainly don't think defense analysts had a monopoly on wisdom or insight regarding Soviet policymaking. We know from documents and materials available after the fact that as much as analysts and observers got right, they also got many things wrong. And this assessment applies equally to academics, scholars, journalists, politicians and opinion makers as it does to defense experts, policy analysts, etc. Likewise, I meant policymaking in a broad sense for the Soviet case, having in mind domestic political and economic policies as much as military and foreign policies. --[[User:SmithHall|SmithHall]] 01:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In fact, here is the verbatim passage: "While supporters of Reagan claim SDI gave the United States a large amount of leverage in its standoff with the Soviet Union, most political scientists and historians note that Star Wars played a fairly minor role in the calculus of Soviet policy-making, where internal structural problems were paramount."

:: I think you'll agree that the language here is much less problematic. And while there are undoubtedly Reagan supporters in the ranks of political scientists and historians, I think it's accurate to suggest that more of them aren't Reagan supporters than are.

::Anyway, my apologies for having been lazy and not citing the exact passage earlier, which I think was a source of much confusion. --[[User:SmithHall|SmithHall]] 01:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::''most political scientists and historians note that...."
:::How about, ''many [or some] political scientists and historians are of the opinion that ...'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I am somewhat skeptical of citizens from another country being able to tell fact from fiction, when quoting Soviet citizens, who were or are a part of that government, being as their vested interest is in denigrating any accomplishments by Reagan. Likewise the part about military service, which I removed, was completely inaccurate, in that it failed to mention that he did indeed enlist, was an officer, and contributed to the raising of millions of 1940's Dollars on behalf of the war effort. Likewise his fighting of the black lists, which his own future wife, Nancy Davis was put on. Cannot the Sysops here block this highly inaccurate and troubling information being listed? It troubles me users cannot contact anyone about this, in a easily identified manner. Someone put up these web pages, it belongs to someone. Someone is ultimately responsible, no? If not, perhaps I need to refer all this BS to the likes of Ed Meese or Mike Deever, for rebuttal. --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Reagan actually served ''two'' non-contiguous active military stints, if I recall. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Reagan entered military service in 1942 and served for three years in the U.S. Army, for which he made training films, and he was discharged with the rank of captain. [http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0329270-00] --[[User:TK|TK]] 10:47, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Reagan states in his 1965 autobiography [http://www.biblio.com/books/28287897.html] he served in the Cavalry, confirmed here [http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25513&page=51 Ronald Reagan, Cavalry Lt/USAAF Capt, FMPU; personnel officer 9th AF]; Peggy Noonan likeqwise cites it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Explain to me what was "inaccurate" or "troubling" in saying that Reagan, as head of SAG, was involved in naming members of the film industry on the Hollywood Blacklist? He was involved. He answered questions in HUAC hearings and kept the FBI informed about "disloyal" members of his union. These are facts.[http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/blacklist.html] I can't assess the veracity of the statement that Reagan also tried to shield actors victimized by McCarthy, which would certainly make Reagan's a complex and difficult-to-read character.

But the main points to make are 1) nothing in the statement that Reagan played at least a contributing role (by testifying before HUAC, informing the FBI, etc.) in the Hollywood Blacklist is factually inaccurate; 2) if Reagan ''did'' try to clear the names of actors caught up by McCarthyism, including Nancy Davis, then it needs to be cited (see the Conservapedia commandment if you're unclear on the reason why); 3) whatever role Reagan may have played in vindicating those unjustly accused by McCarthy, it still doesn't make it any less true to note that earlier he played a part in the anticommunist persecution of individuals who wound up blacklisted in Hollywood.

Also, I find it maddeningly ignorant and offensive to make such a blanket statement as to claim broad skepticism regarding the ability of "citizens from another country being able to tell fact from fiction," whether quoting Soviet citizens, or in any other context. First, I don't know why the whole "immediately distrust foreigners" is even relevant to this discussion, or to the edits on the Reagan article. Second, ignorance, like wisdom, knows no national boundaries. Americans hold a monopoly on neither. You can love this country and think it's the greatest in the world, but that doesn't preclude you from recognizing the intelligence of non-Americans, or the ignorance of many Americans. Rather than making such a blanket condemnation, try to point to specific examples of bias, ignorance or what have you, instead of speaking in such vague generalizations. -- "KW"

::Ok, so by Reagan giving testimony to HUAC, then a separate non-governmental entity, the Motion Picture Association of America blacklists actors, that makes Reagan "involved". Whereas in fact, the actual involvement of the MPAA is suspect, because it appears to be coincidental that the members of MPAA are the ones who refused to extend contracts, not the MPAA itself.
:::''Reagan did try to clear the names of actors caught up by McCarthyism, including Nancy Davis...''
::I beleive you may be misusing the term "McCarthyism here; and can you provide a cite for the specific reference. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

*By the way, HUAC stands for "House Un-American Activities Committee" '''which was an official body of the United States Congress'''. It was Chaired by Congressman Joesph McCarthy, of Wisconson. As for extending contracts, the motion picture studios are the true villians here, in caving into pressure from the Congress. Not excusing Congress's actions but it wasn't the Government refusing the contracts.--[[User:TK|TK]] 15:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:You make my point for me. It is ignorant, in the extreme, to give half-answers as "fact" like about Reagan's testimony before the HUAC, without explaining further, his other actions. To ignore, or leave them out is bias indeed. It proves my point, because most anyone from the Untited States, politically involved, knows the story about how Ronald Reagan met Nancy Davis!! You are using clearly liberal, left of center sourcing material, and passing it off as fact, just because you provided a source. Go to moveon.org, and you can get those types of "facts". You have a very revisionist view, imo, almost of someone too young to remember, prersonally, the period. It was not considered heinous at that time, to oppose Communist infiltration of the entertainment industry, and while most people did not agree with McCarthy's tactics, they did not oppose the goal. --[[User:TK|TK]] 01:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: My omission of the story about how Ronald met Nancy was based on ignorance, yes. I didn't know the story behind it, but that doesn't reflect willful or malicious neglect on my part. I couldn't tell you how any president met his wife, which is more a product of my priorities, or "bias," as you term it: I simply don't care much for personal gossip of any sort. There, you know my personal "bias" regarding the matter at hand.

::But, again, if I made an omission, then the correct move on your part is to correct it by '''adding the missing fact, not expunging other facts that don't tell the story you like.''' That's all I requested. I don't profess omniscience, and I'm certainly not an expert on the intricacies of the Reagans' courtship. But since you apparently have knowledge of that and consider it so essential to the story of his involvement with HUAC, then add that to the entry and share your particular wisdom with everyone. Balance is a good thing, and that's what I was trying to urge you to provide. Obviously I want as complete a picture as possible, but I also don't know every side of the story, and I know I don't know.

::And you're right that I don't have personal recollections of the period. However, my age or experience make my contributions no less valid. I don't discount the very real sense of fear and terror that pervaded the era. But while you might consider this a hindrance or claim this forces me into "revisionism," I can respond by saying that your personal experiences and recollections dooms you to your own "bias," in that you evidently feel like you have a stake in the matter, whereas I didn't have anything to gain or lose based on its outcome. Neither approach is necessarily "wrong" or more "objective." It's just a way of noting that no one is immune from bias, and that bias takes a number of forms. This, among many other reasons, is why I place such emphasis on including as many different dimensions as possible. Clearly you have a perspective that I don't, but your perspective might cause you to focus on certain things to the exclusion of other factors that seem noteworthy to me. Why not use our different perspectives to mutual advantage? -- "KW"

:::I think you confuse this place for Wikipedia. This is the Conservative version. Therefore like values are tensed more than those which oppose, otherwise what is this place for? I also think you mistake personal things for purely historical ones. I am not making you, personally less valid, however this place is the place for debating your personal ideas, and the failure to go the extra mile and inform the people who will use this as a resource, of the whole story, not a fragment of it. You are using, in my opinion, the same tired liberal sources those of us in the States have grown to mistrust. --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Evidently I confused this place for an encyclopedia interested in facts. I see you arbitrarily removed the information about how Honecker could and did ignore Gorbachev's entreaties for reform. The fact that several Soviet troops were stationed in East Berlin was quite ancillary to the issue at question, namely the status of the Berlin Wall. Were, as you (or whoever added the line about the Soviet troops) suggested, Gorbachev to have exercised military pressure on Honecker to reform, he would've ceased to be a reformer. You can't force through those sorts of liberalizing measures through violent and oppressive measures. The French Revolution attempted that, and in ended in the Reign of Terror and, later, with military rule under Napoleon. Your decision to willy-nilly ignore the realities of internal dynamics, both within the Eastern bloc and within individual countries of the bloc, makes your own ''opinion'' regarding the importance of Gorbachev (and what he potentially could have done) to the fall of the Berlin Wall exceedingly groundless and unsubstantiated. Even though the first incarnation of the Berlin Wall was erected in 1961 with Soviet assistance, this was what the East German government at the time wanted as well, in order to triage the massive population loss and brain drain of East Germans who went to West Berlin and from there to the West. Those desires held true into 1989, and it was only when popular pressures began to mount within East German for opening the borders that things began to change. Moreover, the fall of the Wall itself was not the product of deliberate policy on anyone's part; on November 9, 1989, the party head in Berlin read (or perhaps misread, as scholars have debated) an announcement on television in somewhat unclear language (if you see a clip of the broadcast, you can even see him looking a bit surprised and what he thought he was reading) to the effect that the border would be opened for private trips abroad, which the East Germans watching on television interpreted to mean the complete opening of the border, prompting thousands to storm the checkpoints and begin tearing down the Wall. In the end, not Gorbachev nor Honecker nor Reagan, for that matter, played a key role in tearing down the Wall. Credit a bureaucrat's vague words and the initiative of the thousands of East Germans who made it so.

::::And I don't know why you keep making thinly veiled illusions suggesting that I'm some sort of foreigner. You keep using that canard to try to discredit me, but it only reflects poorly on you because 1) I'm an American, born and raised, and 2) your implication that anyone who bothers to learn about the other side of an issue (or in this case to pay attention to what was actually happening on the other side of the Iron Curtain rather than accepting a bunch of poorly supported opinions as the gospel truth) must not be American suggests that anyone who's American is also ignorant with respect to the rest of the world. -- "KW"
:::::KW, these are all good points you make above and well researched. However you may be argueing the substance on the page. Let's find somewhere to put all that research in. How about [[German Democratic Republic|East Germany]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Done. It's a fragmentary entry, by necessity, but at least there's the beginnings of an entry. -- "KW"

== Citations from Wikipedia.... ==

Since the Conservapedia is billed as an alternative to Wikipedia, which is deemed by the Founders as culturally, religiously and politically biased, why in God's name are editors using information from that source to substantiate their information/edits here?

Many of us start from the premise Wikipedia is a suspect source. Please find alternative source information, otherwise there isn't really a point to this "alternative" is there?

*'''You're right. Wikipedia is NOT an acceptable source or authority. Please edit the offending pages and alert the contributors. The mistakes could have been innocent, of course.--Aschlafly 19:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)'''

== Edits ==

I think the reorder is somewhat cumbersome, and not putting most of the information at the top, perhaps? --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:41, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Check out this link: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:10, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Iran/Contra==
For this edit,
:''although the U.S. government under Reagan gave direct support to Iraq during the war. President Ronald Reagan stated that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."''
we need (a) a date; (b) source. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
----
A report by a presidential commission, released in February 1987, depicted Reagan as uninformed, and concluded that his relaxed "personal management style" had prevented him from controlling his subordinates. House and Senate committees, conducting joint hearings, heard testimony that Reagan did not know of the diversion of funds. Most committee members signed a majority report in November 1987 asserting that although Reagan's role in the affair could not be determined precisely, he had clearly failed to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Poindexter, North, and others were indicted in the affair in 1988. [http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0329270-00] --[[User:TK|TK]] 11:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

----
The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East. One of these directives from Reagan, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 99, signed on July 12, 1983, is available only in a highly redacted version [Document 21]. It reviews U.S. regional interests in the Middle East and South Asia, and U.S. objectives, including peace between Israel and the Arabs, resolution of other regional conflicts, and economic and military improvements, "to strengthen regional stability." It deals with threats to the U.S., strategic planning, cooperation with other countries, including the Arab states, and plans for action. An interdepartmental review of the implications of shifting policy in favor of Iraq was conducted following promulgation of the directive.

On April 5, 1984, Ronald Reagan issued another presidential directive (NSDD 139), emphasizing the U.S. objective of ensuring access to military facilities in the Gulf region, and instructing the director of central intelligence and the secretary of defense to upgrade U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities. It codified U.S. determination to develop plans "to avert an Iraqi collapse." Reagan's directive said that U.S. policy required "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical warfare (without naming Iraq), while including the caveat that the U.S. should "place equal stress on the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing the ruthless and inhumane tactics which have characterized recent offensives." [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/] --[[User:TK|TK]] 11:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you. Good research. Now as to specifics, your language "''depicted Reagan as uninformed''" is stated perhaps more precisely as "Members of the National Securirty Council staff, along with CIA Director William Casey, persuaded Reagan...".

*: '''Rob, "uninformed" in government parlance, is not what you think. It means the subordinates did not inform him. Those are raw quotes, which would need re-phrasing. I sent you an email, did you get it? There are lot of things most sane people wouldn't feel comfortable posting about themselves on public pages.''' --[[User:TK|Terry]] 23:28, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::Got it. Yes a private discussion can help facilitate where we wish to go with this and save time. I responded, did you get it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:*'''No, Rob..I haven't reveived anything from you. Did you send it via email through this board? I'll email you, with my IM info.'''

:The two NSDD cited deserves treatment in context, however after Reagan's reelection (and the reestablishment of relations with Iraq) the overture to Iran to sell weapons from Israel was given more focus, as the Tower Commission Report clearly gives detail. Also, feelers were sent prior to the second term regarding contact between Teheran and the hostage takers in Lebenon.

:The language "''dissuade Iran from continuing the ruthless and inhumane tactics''" referes to the use of the Iranian [[Mahatma Ghandi]] and proginator of [[Human Rights]] reforms in Iran, the [[Ayatollah Khomeini]], use of children to clear minefields.

:A proposal: lets complete a good review of the Iran/Contra affair here, in the Reagan artcle, which then perhaps could be spun off into its separate article with only a summary left behind. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Not from me, Rob! I put up material here, someone takes it, re-compiles it, slaps it back up as their edit, after the same thing was added by me a day or so ago! Is there some commandment about NOT communicating here? You invited participation, yet everyone is running around like chickens with their heads off, never communicating! --[[User:TK|Terry]] 23:28, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Let me make two observervations: (1) the stuff about it being outed on Nov. 3 1986 (we need to check if that is prior to election day 1986 when the Democrats regained the Senate and were in a position to hold public investigations, or after election day) is well researched, and we can put it in at the point it belongs. (2) The stuff about Iraq is going to need some clarification, because this narrative picks up "after Reagan was re-elected", i.e. after Nov. 84, and his swearing in Jan. 85; NSDD 139, 5 April 1984 is ''prior''. While all this material is extremely (a) valid and (b) relevent, we are writing an historical narrative of events, not doing a hit piece with piecemeal material out of context. So this is what I'd like to discuss, gaining some structure to events.

:::Let me add, as an after thought, all accounts I read all over the web dismiss this all as a "scandal" of a bunch of greedy arms dealers and other assorted low-lifes which either includes Reagan, or Reagan gave his assent to. That POV has been explicitely stated eleswhere. So what we are examining is the motives for Reagan's giving assent to this matter. And beginning with a conclusory premise, that (a) Reagan's just another greedy corrupt Republican (b) this is just more evidence of the currupt aims, motives, and duplicity of Republicans in power and why you can't trust them, will fail. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Iraq==

--[[User:TK|TK]] 03:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Comment on this inclusion''':''although the U.S. government under Reagan gave direct support to Iraq during the war. President Ronald Reagan stated that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.");''

this may warrant inclusion at some point, and it no way contradicts US policy aims as stated by Henry Kissinger upon the outbreak of the Iran-iraq War in 1981, "All we can do is hope they both loose." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:Being old enough to remember this time really good but too old to remember exactly where I heard this: The CIA, in shipments of Iran's weapons, would include "faulty" munitions such as hand grenades that would explode as soon as the handle was released, killing the thrower. Not all, but like 15-20% were "defective". I'll see if I can find a source.
::''primea facia'' this may be faulty; you will recall CIA was not involved in Iran/Contra; and using Israel & private arms dealers is what the matter was all about. Please, do not come here with warrantless, unqualified speculation. Get legitimate source documents first, then bring it to our attention. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
----
*Reagan said, '''''"could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran..."'''''
This is the same problem that confronts President Bush today, i.e. allowing Iran to gain ascendancy over the majority Shia in Iraq, and the region. I'm sorry if this conflicts with journalists and scandalmongers aims to sell newspapers to paint Reagan in bed with the fascist Ba'athists, but this is not a propaganda vehicle, and we are here to write factual biography of Mr. Reagan. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Exactly, RobS. In the secular, political world, sometimes the person you end up in bed with, well...the reason you do is just because there isn't room anywhere else, or you are simply too tired to look elsewhere. ;-) --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So the point here is, the crazies in Iran gaining hegemony in the Gulf needed to be detered (then, as now); then in Reagan's second term the fear that if a militarized Iraq survived the War intact, it might turn it's attention elsewhere, like Kuwait, which it did.

:::What do we know? Journalists blew the story wide open to sell headlines, and partisan Democrats looking to make a scandal, hastened (1) the Gulf War of 1991; (2) the fact that Iran ''still'' isn't an ally, and remains hostile with nuke capabilities. And if Iran hasn't got a nuke yet, they got the money to buy brainpower or an operational bomb from cash starved North Korea.

:::All this so partisans could create a scandal. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Indeed. Welcome to my world. I console myself knowing that sooner or later (usually later) the public gets damned mad, and there is literally political hell to pay. I have been waiting for that now about 7 years. Look at http://newt.org for American Solutions....something is being done, and the ground work being layed. --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:The public wouldn't get mad if they stopped eating up all the journalists and the paid purveyors if lies lies. Truth is, news items have a shelf life, and a "sell by" date. Journalists do not care if (1) four years later Saddam indeed invades Kuwait as Iran/Contra tried to head off, or (b) 20 years later Iran still isn't an ally and now is a hostile power seeking nuclear weapons. All these scandalmongers wish to do is build careers, create and sell interesting news items, and the world be damned if consequences down the road surface as a result of thier actions. They're always in the postion to blame others. And as P.T. Barnum said, there's a sucker born every minute to buy thier lies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==NSDD 139==
Here are portions of the relevent context of NSDD 139 5 April 1984 extracted for discussion.

*In light of recent developments in the Iran-Iraq War and the threat which an escalation of that conflict or a terrorist campaign could pose for the vital interests of the U.S. and its Allies, measures must be taken now to improve our immediate ability to deter an expansion of the conflict in the Persian Gulf and, if necessary, defend U.S. interests...

*In the recognition of the growing threat of Iranian-sponsored terrorism...

*...prepare a plan of action designed to avert an Iraqi collapse.

*The Secretary of State will ensure that the policy of the United States Government condemning the use of chemical warfare (CW) munitions in the Iran-Iraq war is unambiguous and consistent, with the 1925 Geneva protocol. Our condemnation of the use of CW munitions by the belligerents should place equal stress on the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing the ruthless and inhumane tactics which have characterized recent offensives. (TS)

Here are extracts from '''Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)''', < http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm >

===Iraqi Retreats, 1982-84===
*The Iranian high command passed from regular military leaders to clergy in mid-1982....

*In July 1982 Iran launched Operation Ramadan... near Basra...the clergy used "human-wave" attacks... Ranging in age from only nine years old and up, these eager but relatively untrained soldiers swept over minefields and fortifications to clear safe paths for the tanks...

*...by the end of 1983, an estimated 120,000 Iranians and 60,000 Iraqis had been killed. Despite these losses, in 1983 Iran held a distinct advantage in the attempt to wage and eventually to win the war of attrition.

*Beginning in 1984, ...according to Jane's Defence Weekly and other sources, Baghdad used chemical weapons against Iranian troop concentrations...

*In April 1984, Saddam Hussein proposed to meet Khomeini personally in a neutral location to discuss peace negotiations...

*...Iraq launched a new series of attacks on shipping on February 1, 1984.

===The War of Attrition, 1984-87===
*By 1984 it was reported that some 300,000 Iranian soldiers and 250,000 Iraqi troops had been killed, or wounded....

*In early 1984...

*...the Iranian command again resorted to the human-wave tactic. In March 1984, an East European journalist claimed that he "saw tens of thousands of children, roped together in groups of about twenty to prevent the faint-hearted from deserting, make such an attack."

*Despite Iraqi denials since the war started, in February 1984 the Iraqi command ordered the use of chemical weapons. Within a four-week period between February and March 1984, the Iraqis reportedly killed 40,000 Iranians and lost 9,000 of their own men...

*Ranging in age from only nine years old and up, these eager but relatively untrained soldiers swept over minefields and fortifications to clear safe paths for the tanks.

*Within a four-week period between February and March 1984, the Iraqis reportedly killed 40,000 Iranians and lost 9,000 of their own men....in February 1984 the Iraqi command ordered the use of chemical weapons....between May 1981 and March 1984, Iran charged Iraq with forty uses of chemical weapons.

If anything is missing from the source documents to add to, or clarify context, please bring it forward. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:21, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:*'''Some very valuable additions, Rob!''' --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 22:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Reagan & Shamir==
*''Reagan, though he once told Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir that he had personally liberated concentration camps''
this is total bull, and you should know better. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:06, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Reagan's participation in the liberation of concentration camps is bull, yes.

However, he did claim later in life, telling both Shamir and Simon Wiesenthal that he had personally liberated camps, when in fact he had merely seen film footage.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13736

----

== So much for being different from Wikipedia? ==

I noticed that Conservapedia now has a page explaining how it's different from Wikipedia [http://www.conservapedia.com/Differences_with_Wikipedia]. Reason No. 2, to quote it verbatim, is:

''We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.''

Now, I think this is a commendable policy. One journalist's view should not necessarily be taken as fact. And this holds doubly true in the case of columnists, editorialists and other commentators whose work regularly appears on the Op-Ed pages of newspapers. By definition, these kinds of journalists are presenting opinions, and often selectively use or disregard facts.

So I find it particularly troubling to see how many times this entry violates this policy. The opinions of Peggy Noonan, Cal Thomas, et al, are presented here in the guise of factual statements, used to justify specific opinions on Reagan's legacy, involvement with the Hollywood Blacklist, the end of the Cold War, etc. It just doesn't lend much credibility to the entry or to Conservapedia, particularly in light of the claim that Conservapedia "does not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts."

And, I'd add that presenting the views of Henry Kissinger, Margaret Thatcher or other officials and politicians in a similar manner is just as problematic. While these sorts of individuals may have a unique perspective on events, having been personally and directly involved in ways most journalists and other observers have not, their views are still opinions, and should be presented -- as in the case of the op-ed columnists mentioned above -- as the opinions of interested parties, rather than given as fact.

Certainly, the same can be said of the academics and scholars cited in the entry. However, those viewpoints are clearly presented as individual interpretations (and are not upheld as the simple truth). Moreover, in general I'd feel more comfortable citing an academic book than a newspaper columnist or insider because there's usually a rigorous standard of methodology and research being used that just isn't there for journalists and politicians. If you cite an academic book, you can usually point to the fifty pages of sources and references at the back to show what it's based on. You're lucky if columnists even name their sources (much less the specific place where they found their information), while politicians are wont to simply refer to each other for credibility, which means the foundation for their opinions is often lacking in substance.

Now, I'm sure that pointing out this blatant contradiction of policy won't lead to its rectification for this entry, or for Conservapedia in general. But, I feel compelled for some odd reason to point out why the site will likely want for credibility, and to suggest some ways in which the standards and quality of submissions can become a bit more robust. The site is still young, and it's possible that with a concerted effort Conservapedia can achieve its purported goals. I just won't be holding my breath. --[[User:SmithHall|SmithHall]] 12:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, whilst everyone is entitled to keep whatever opinions one wants to, it should be pointed out that most of that Journalists "report", these days, are just opinions as well, at best, and outright propaganda at the worst. In the end, what one's peers say about them, and the job you've done, is what counts in history. An automobile mechanic, being praised by other mechanics, is much more valuable to the rest of us, than praise from me. If you are laboring under the delusion that journalists, or academics are somehow "fairer" than other humans, you would be wrong.--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

** That's certainly debatable. The reason historians and scholars tend to view memoirs and other ex post facto recollections with considerable skepticism is that people often rewrite or whitewash their past deeds to portray themselves in the most flattering light possible. Or, often they do so to flatter their friends and allies. There's nothing inherently evil in this; it's human nature. After all, we've all heard a few "fish stories" in our day.

My main point, however, was not that any particular kind of source was inherently better than others. Rather, it was to note that the opinions of columnists presented in the Reagan entry violate the Conservapedia policy cited above. I'd remove the quotes, but I'd get shouted down for "liberal bias" when all I want to see happen is Conservapedia actually abiding by its stated policies. The preceding unsigned comment was made by [[SmithHall]]

*There is only one quote from a columnist, which is, in the US, a different category than Journalist. Peggy Noonan was an Assistant to the President, a member of his administration. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 23:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Requested edit ==

Could someone add this article to [[:Category:Actors]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 15:58, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

*That catagory is inappropriate. Should we add "Painters" or "House Painters" to Hitler? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Second thought, it is appropriate. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==[[Iran Hostage Crisis]]==

Should there be some mention of the [[Iran Hostage Crisis]] in the foreign policy section? There isn't even a casual one-sentence dismissal of 444 days of captivity experienced by dozens of Americans. Completely left out. [[User:Reaganomist|Reaganomist]] 16:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

*The Iran hostage crisis was on Jimmy Carter's watch, however you are right in saying it needs mention here as well, for the World knows that they turned them loose because they understood what Reagan would do to them if they didn't.--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, they released them moments after news of his election. Heck, if I was a terrorist I'd be terrified of Reagan too. We could use another Reagan. [[User:Reaganomist|Reaganomist]] 19:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Saint Reagan==
I know he's a saint and all, but could we cut down the opening paragraph and make the dek more of a summary than a glowing review? Thanks [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:00, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

*Flippin, you have crossed the line several times recently, with sarcastic, intemperate remarks, especially dragging Andy's family into your vendetta. I am sure you have many pairs of socks, so you shouldn't mind when I block you. Please be productive, and find another hobby aside from merely tweeking Conservatives, like producing articles, if you wish to remain here. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:03, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Fixing Iran-Contra Section ==

At the *very least*, can we please get the name of the Bolan amendment right? That is a brutal blow to any pretense of competency on this issue. Also the argument that it is an impingement upon the power of the executive is highly tendentious; can it be fixed? [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 12:28, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==1976 Election, running against Ford==

There's a section that says that Reagan withdrew his nomination because he could have beaten Ford and didn't want to be the spoiler. I'm sorry, but that's not true. Reagan almost pulled it off, but he came up short when the electoral count was being tallied. If he could have won the Republican nomination in 1976, he would have. No one runs for months of hard campaigning just to withdrew because they would win. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:32, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*I'm sorry, I was there, that is what happened. There isn't an electoral tally at conventions. If he had stayed in, and once the first rounds of votes had been taken, the state delegates are then free from their commitment to vote per the primary. At that point hundreds would have voted with their hearts, which were always with Reagan. Recognizing the problem it would cause in the general election, he put a stop to it. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:43, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well if you were there, then that trumps my knowledge. I was with my parents watching on TV and it didn't come across that way, but I was younger and TV isn't exactly going to report what happens in the trenches anyway, nor would I necessarily have the memory recall of someone dedicated enough to go to the live event. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:05, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*TV is good for some dramatic shows. I own a TIVO. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

==Tip O'Neill==

Reagan did not only forge a friendship with O'Neill to "pass legislation" - O'Neill and Reagan were friends for many years following the end of Reagan and O'Neill's reign as the two most powerful men in the nation (1st and 2nd, respectivally). And neither Tip nor Reagan let their friendship get in the way of politics - or vice versa.

*That is very true. Too bad many today can't manage the same civility. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:41, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

I’m reading Reagan’s autobiography right now and it seemed like he was trying to have a good relationship with Tip O’Neil, but O’Neil was resisting. He told of an instance where he invited O’Neil to the White House and they both had a really good time. Then the next day after O’Neil was attacked him in the press, he called up O’Neil and asked him why he was mad at him after they seemed to form such a good friendship, O’Neil said his and Reagan’s friendship was, “politics before 6:00pm, friendship after 6:00pm.” --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 13:06, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:Yes. President Reagan had "learning curve" in Washington, as all Presidents do. In the end, he considered O'Neil, and O'Neil considered Reagan, among their best friends in politics. They truly had a deep affection for each other, more than would be common for two Irishmen who had reached the pinnacles of their chosen profession. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:26, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

== California ==

The Californian section on Reagan is sorely lacking. I would like to add more information concerning major landmarks in Californian history under Reagan's term as Governor which is not listed so far.

Also his history before California is very brief. - Kazuma

Feel free to make some suggestions here since the page is locked. I totally agree! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:54, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== Question ==

How is [[criticism of Ronald Reagan]] '''not''' [[placement bias]]? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:21, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

== Parody? ==

"'''Ronald Wilson Reagan''' (February 6, 1911- June 5, 2004), '''''heroic leader''''' and father of modern political discourse"

I'd remove it, but I'm afraid it may have been left there on purpose. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 19:25, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

== Holocaust ==
I'm not so oblivious as to try to add it myself, but just out of curiosity...since [[Barack Obama|Obama's]] page now contains the account of his statement that his uncle liberated Auschwitz, shouldn't Reagan's claims (to Yitzak Shamir and Elie Wiesel) to have liberated concentration camps himself be added here? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:03, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Daughter that did playboy ==
Should this be mentioned?

== Election margin ==

Just putting a fact tag there for now since this is probably a pretty sensitive article here, but where are you getting that Reagan's 58.77% of the popular vote in 1984 is the largest in almost 100 years? Nixon got 60.67% in 1972, and if you don't want to count that because of Watergate, Johnson got 61.05% in 1964, Roosevelt 60.8% in 1936 and Wilson got 60.32% in 1920, none of which could be called "almost 100 years." [http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html] [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 13:38, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:Direct link doesn't work for source, hit the "Compare National Data by Year (Table)" link below the map.[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 13:41, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::I checked the source you provided, and the original line you added the fact tag to is substantialy correct. At over 54 million voters, it is the largest turnout for over a century until the 2000 election and later. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:26, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::If the stat is just referring to the number of people who voted for him, I'm not sure how meaningful it is... as the population increases, obviously the number of voters is going to increase. You're right that it was the largest number of votes for a candidate ever at the time; but that also happened in 1972, 1964, 1956, 1952, 1936, 1932, 1928, etc, and Barack Obama is the most popular presidential candidate ever by that standard.
:::If saying that he received the most votes ever at the time is the intention of the statement and you do want it to stay, it should at least be reworded because the way it's written it looks like the stat is referring to the percentage of the vote that he received. [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 14:53, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::The re-wording would be fine; I would suggest the actual number of voters in addition to that percentage. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:55, 15 January 2009 (EST)

*Everyone is sooooo impatient, but I fixed the stats, etc. Please don't expect immediate results, lol. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:41, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Liberal ==

Reagan was a leading Hollywood liberal in the 1940s, as he himself said many times. That is essential to understanding him. If people are puzzled by the category, then they should read the article and learn some history. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:43, 3 March 2009 (EST)

== Year of the Bible ==

I set up a separate article for [[Year of the Bible]] which deserves its own article. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:57, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

==Category==
I noticed liberals is a category for Reagan. The only reason I can think of why that exists is because he was a convert to Conservatism. I am inclined to delete that category.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:37, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
::the reason is that in the 1940s he was one of the country's foremost liberals--there was talk already of a political career by 1945 and he was one of the most famous labor union leaders and supporters of FDR and Truman. Reagan is a complicate person and his transformation in the 1950s is central to the story.

:::Reagan had an open mind, and that led him to conservatism, particularly after Nancy's father introduced him to the logical ideas underlying conservatism. But I don't know why we would list Reagan as a "liberal". Usually people are known by where they end up, not their missteps along the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
::::Reagan's case is an interesting one for the historian--how to deal with people who switch positions. A lot of people moved from left to right, like Herbert Hoover, Whittaker Chambers, James Burnham and John Dos Passos (and a few moved in the other direction--such as Woodrow Wilson, Gary Wills and Barry Goldwater). (There also are people like Senator Lieberman who are even more complex). We can 1) use the status where they ended up; 2) use the status where they were most important historically; or 3) use both. My own preference is #3 because it gives more information. In other words, a student writing about liberalism in the 1940s should be able to include Reagan. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:43, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Jensen, sorry, your thinking is poppycock. This issue was previously decided, as was the official name of the article. Please communicate more, and you wouldn't exert unnecessary effort. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:03, 11 November 2009 (EST)
::TK seems to have recovered the old fighting spirit--but while recuperating I recommend he take time to read a book or two. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:49, 11 November 2009 (EST)
:::What about a "former liberals" category? That would appear to be more accurate. [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 19:54, 11 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2009-11-12T00:51:47Z

MichaelZ: /* "None even exist off the shores of the United States.... " */ response

User talk:Geo.plrd

2009-11-12T00:00:31Z

MichaelZ: /* Thanks */ new section

{{User:Geo.plrd/Header}}
{{Administrator}}

{|class="table"
<right>
[[Image:CPMedal.jpg|right]]
</right>

<center>('''geoplrd''' on AIM/'''geo.plrd At yahoo.com) 
Archives 
[[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive1|1]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive2|2]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive3|3]] [[User:Geo.plrd/Archive4|4]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive5|5]]
</center>

== Linus ==

Thank you. I had missed the page of his parole. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 05:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

P.S. Thank you also for deleting the page I had created by mistake! [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 07:20, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Notice ==

Please read this: [[New Sysops Training Page]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:25, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
==You're not conservative==
How come you are on here, your political compass indicates that you are center to center-left. I didn't think other moderates were allowed on here. --[[User:UncleJalapeno|UncleJalapeno]] 10:47, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

*Check out his subtle vandalism here, Geo: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iran-Contra_affair&curid=6481&diff=166849&oldid=118172] Nice, sly changes, Jalapeno, and you being so "new" to CP! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:53, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== Pleistocene ==

I see that you gave this a definition coming from "evolution". I would have put it down as a term from "geology". I don't want to edit it in case you think I pushing a POV. I would like to know what you think. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:23, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== Sci-Tol ==

It's not possible - the article has been put in a deleted articles category or something to prevent subsequent re-creation. Dunno why, I guess they have their reasons.[[User:Fantomas|Fantomas]] 12:52, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

:I was just adding on that I saw you're a SYSOP. With a big "Ooops!" to go with it! :-) [[User:Fantomas|Fantomas]] 13:17, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== test ==

[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[Conservapedia:Sysop|Site Sheriff]] 14:08, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
Site Sheriff(Sysop)[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 14:10, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== Felicitaciones ==

GRACIAS

== Your template(s) ==

{{TemplateDocRqd|ClayPin|sysop=true|done=yes}}
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:58, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, please ask me to delete it for you, or Philip, Geo...if your hands are broken! :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:04, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:(The message previously said to ask a sysop to delete unwanted templates, but I've altered the message to no longer say that.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:34, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
*Yes, I saw the earlier ones, and got my humor in before you caught it! ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:19, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
Geo, thanks for putting them on the template list, but they also need to be documented on each template's page. I've done {{tl|ClayPin}} for you as an example, although I'm not sure of a couple of points, so please review that one as well. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

== AIM? ==

Aim! Please message. Read my posts there. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:33, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:Apologies, but I am not near a IM client right now. I will hopefully be able to IM you when I get home in a few hours. Site Sheriff(Sysop)[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:53, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

::*Paint ball? ;-) I will forward on to you a recent email about all this. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:55, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

== blah ==

--[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 17:49, 18 June 2007 (EDT)<center><big>Copyright Violations</big></center>

== Moon and the Times ==

This fact is clearly stated in our entry for the paper - why shouldn't it be in the Moon entry? [[User:Guitarplayer|Guitarplayer]] 21:02, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry - my bad. [[User:Guitarplayer|Guitarplayer]] 21:03, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== Uncyclopedia ==

Look, can you unlock the [[Uncyclopedia]] article? There's hardly anything on there and more is needed, but we can't edit it because you've protected it! Why did you protect it for? There's no reason to. Please unprotect '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 18:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

When and if you make it back, Scorpion, Geo might be able to answer you, or not. This isn't WP. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::Uh, I don't know what "When or if you make it back" means. I'm still on here. Any Geo, here's the material I'd like you to add:

''Uncyclopedia, despite being a parody of Wikipedia, supports much of the same material that Wikipedia does. They take an obviously liberal stance, and much of their humor is directed at Christian and Conservative values. In particular, their article on Conservapedia is composed mostly of hate speech, labelling Conservatives as "retards". In addition, they attack creationism via a "pro-creationist" article, which mocks creationism by phrases like "evolution will get you sent straight to hell" and "Darwin was a **** Satanist". At any rate, it is clear that Uncyclopedia hates Christians and creationism, and aims to destroy Conservativism.'' '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 09:50, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==Scorpio==

User:Scorpio has been blocked for one week for twice removing discussion page comments from RSchlafly'es page.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RSchlafly&diff=217145&oldid=216629

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RSchlafly&diff=prev&oldid=217848

I believe we have evidence of a meatpuppet attack on me after a "chat" with TK. The removal of comments from RSchlafly's page were critical of TK.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:TK&diff=prev&oldid=211850

Geoffrey, you can begin examination of the facts right here, and determine if User:Scorpio has become a meatpuppet of TK. TK offered to block Scorpio on the discussion list (available in the Search engine) and privately. Since the Conley email, it appears TK contacted Scorpio, and TK has further intiated other actions that have no transparency.

In the meantime, I await you forwarding me any and all transcripts of discussions on processes. Scorpio will remain blocked for information destruction from RSchlafly's page. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:41, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

:Geo, you're approved as our first judge for the contest. There will be additional judges also. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== Greetings, fellow judge! ==

Hi, Geo. I have accepted the team captains' appointment as a [[Conservapedia:Team contest|judge]].

Thus far, I've put in for the consideration of having our own namespace so that we can "retire to chambers" as we weigh the "evidence."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:31, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Welcome, Geo, as a Judge! I've created a new namespace that only Judges can access. I can't even access it. You might create a page in it like [[Judges:Contest]] (note that I cannot even create that page).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:36, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:Geo, as you can see, the [[Judges:Contest|chambers]] is now open. Thus far you and I are the only two Judges. I assume that that will soon change.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:47, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== McCarthy mediation ==

Geo, I invite you over to the McCarthy Discussion page for a mediation issue that I'm hoping you can resolve. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 22:56, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:I agree 100%. The disturbing thing is that Rob removed this from the intro paragraph:

::''He was noted for claiming and subsequently proving that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government.''

:It was fine the way it was but Rob changed it without discussion. I have no problem changing to what you suggested. How should we proceed? Do you want to make the change or me or Rob? Your call. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 23:22, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, I'll do it but please be prepared to unblock me and the McCarthy page after Rob gets upset. :p [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 23:34, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:Geoff, Rob has reverted the work I did as per your orders. I informed him that he is in contempt of your status as Mediator. I await your further instructions. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 00:25, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Geoff, thanks for making the change but there is an extra "period" in the new sentence so I'm going have to fix that. Also, I don't think there was a need for a new section for the "Moynihan" info since it's essentially related to the Venona info and should be included in that parapraph. Would you mind terribly if I simply reverted back to the latest changes which you authorized me to do last night? It would make the flow of the article more concise. I would appreciate that. Please let me know. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 10:24, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::The key word we need to place in the Intro is "conspiracy." For one half century (and still today) teachers in classrooms at all levels, junior high school through Graduate School, maintain McCarthy was a right-wing paranoid conspiracy theorist whose crusades produced nothing. The U.S Government Secrecy Commission in its Final Report in 1995 gave McCarthy a clean bill of health with "The first fact is, there was a conspiracy..."

::So, we have two statements. Scorpio has inserted extensive quotes from what is commonly known as McCarthy's "conspiracy of infamy so black" speech, which needs to be contrasted with the exoneration from the Secrecy Commission findings.

::A big concern I have with Venona documents is, that in no way they be misrepresented to say something other than what they say. Hence, we need to place exoneration from the Secrecy Commission in the Intro, and not represent Venona as something other than what it is.[[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:28, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Rob, again, you refuse to address MOS which forbids what you propose. The new intro as placed by Geo does in fact do what you say needs to be done without going into elaborate detail. The detail is in the appropriate sub-section. The current format is more in line with MOS than what you had there before and does the job adequately. The only thing I suggest is that the new section be changed from "Declassified Soviet Files" to "Declassified Soviet files & McCarthy vindication". There are still many things that need to be done to this article in order to present pertinent info but as you may have noticed, I have stopped adding anything further until these ridiculously simple matters are resolved. I've got lots of great stuff to add but we are getting bogged down in procedure. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 15:33, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm involved with the contest right now (as Geo is too), so I haven't really been able to engage all that needs to be discussed. As per the MOS, I need to discuss with the MOS author what historiography of dead persons vs bios living polticians should be, because that recommended format you cite is intended for living persons.

::::As to the substance of "conspiracy', this is in keeping with your original idea in the opening which was edited out, "subsequently proving"; McCarthy didn't prove conspiracy, but the Secrecy Commission did. As to the new subtitle, we should probably discuss the overall structure once I'm available after the contest is over, cause I'm a bit uneasy about putting ==Venona== under ==US Senate==. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:46, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== Full IP address? ==

I am concerned about the publishing of the full IP address of users. Does this conflict with [[Conservapedia:Privacy policy]]. Is [[Conservapedia:Shame]] in conflict with sharing private information with the world? I am not sure if that page is what is being used to report vandalism to the authorities. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:54, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

*There is no expectation of privacy on the Internet, we are constantly told. Also, an IP address doesn't narrow down a user's location to such a point where they are easily identified anyway. So what is this concern? Is someone forced to come here and vandalize? Please stop with the Red Herrings. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:14, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== contest ==

Who is winning at this time? Or are you not allowed to say? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 01:12, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

*It is sad, is it not, that you don't have anything funny in your signature, no? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:20, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:Me? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 01:21, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

:*No, the other, he should have something fun in it....I am thinking. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:22, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::Click here for ban!

Hahaha! But I can unblock myself! :P --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:35, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

==Scores==

Just wondering if you know and could tell me the final scores of Team1 and Team2...Aschlafly and I are trying to figure out how close we came, and it would be a lot easier to just have the final numbers! Thanks, [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 17:42, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for the response! And yes, Aschlafly definitly deserves that honor...he was on constantly contributing for his team! [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 23:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== categorizing articles ==

Hi! :)

Thanks for adding a new article. Please, though, categorize your articles when you create them; while there are those of us who will go through and clean-up the uncategorized articles, you know your subject better than we do.

For a list of categories, go here: [[Special:Categories]]. To add a category to your article, type two open brackets, then "category:" followed by the category you want. Just add two closed brackets and you're done! You can add as many categories as you feel are appropriate. Thanks! [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:41, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

*Geoffrey is on vacation, so just let me know what is needed. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:23, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

:I categorized the article for him; this is just a boilerplate reminder I leave people to help encourage them to categorize their own stuff. I don't necessarily mind doing it, but often times the author will have a better idea of the appropriate category than I will. Das all. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 21:29, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

*Actually, they usually have a worse idea of where to put it than you do, but hey, I understand your tact. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:16, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

:Well yes, exactly. ;) I could be hit by a bus or something... [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:44, 17 August 2007 (EDT) ''<-look out!!!''

Well, "accidents" do happen.....[[Image:Schoolbusaccident3_011907.jpg‎ ]]

--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:19, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

== New McCarthy article block ==

Geo, is there any way that you can arrange it so that these blocks do not prevent me from working on the McCarthhy article? I realize that the the newest block was put into place to protect against vandals but unfortunately this also affects my ability to add to the article and I don't think my additions are an issue. Can you please work with me to find a solution to this matter? I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 10:30, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

:Geo, one thing that would be great is if changes and edits to the McCarthy article be limited to those done by SysOps. Which would require me to ask if someone would please elevate me to that level. Any thoughts on that? [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 13:50, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== Flanders role on McCarthy Page ==

The talk page is locked on the [[Joseph McCarthy]] page. So, it's difficult to address any issues pertaining to the page. To wit, there are unsubstatiated statements ''in italics'' referring to Senator Flanders's initiative to censure the Senator from Wisconsin:

:While, over the past few years, Senator McCarthy withstood countless biased and unsubstantiated attacks by Liberals, Communists, etc., the organized effort to remove McCarthy from his Chairmanship and officially condemn him began in the Spring of 1954. It was started by fellow Republican Senator Ralph E. Flanders of Vermont ''at the behest of a coalition of Communists, Liberals, and Eisenhower Administration officials''. Flanders told the Senate that McCarthy's "anti-Communism so completely parallels that of Adolf Hitler as to strike fear into the hearts of any defenseless minority"; accused McCarthy of spreading "division and confusion" and saying, "Were the Junior Senator from Wisconsin in the pay of the Communists he could not have done a better job for them."[97] ''Flanders had obtained his list of charges against McCarthy from a left-wing group named the National Committee for an Effective Congress.''

The citable literature suggests that Flanders felt that McCarthy's emphasis on possible Communists within our borders distracted us from a much greater menace of Communist encroachment abroad. The literature shows Flanders to be a conservative marching to his own drummer and not supported (except for one note from Eisenhower after his March speech) by the administration. Given Flanders's professed enmity towards the Roosevelt administration, it is remarkable to suggest that he would be in collaboration with the National Committee for an Effective Congress. Instead, he consulted with Senators Cooper and Fulbright to develop articles of censure that were consistent with previous actions.

I request that the italicized statements be either deleted or substantiated with proper references.

[[User:Norwich]] 10/21/07

*I demand you post to the main editor there, [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]. If you do not, I will block you for being a coward. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:44, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

*My goodness, a little friendly advice would have sufficed before threatening a new member with names. I have followed your helpful advice. Sincerely, [[User:Norwich|Norwich]] 13:57, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

== Judging ==

I will be traveling today and I'm not sure when and if I'll have internet connection, but I should be back by 10pm (as long as I don't spend another night in an airport...). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:11, 25 November 2007 (EST)

: Any comment? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 20:24, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::Ok, Geo, I wrote our agreed ruling on the [[Contest3]] page. Look over it to make sure I didn't mess anything up and sign it, then we can tell all the players that we are done. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:57, 29 November 2007 (EST)
==Contest4==
Hey - I have created [[Conservapedia:Contest4]] and I've set up the [[Conservapedia talk:Contest4|talk]] page to discuss everything that you guys mentioned in your analysis of Contest3 (everything besides what I had already done to the scoring itself). If you don't mind it would be a great help to me if you took a look and made any changes you thought necessary.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:44, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== [[Uncyclopedia]] ==

Hi, I'd like to add a bit to that article including other examples of Uncyclopedia's attacking conservatives. The page is protected and you were the protecting sysop. Could you please temporarily unprotect it so I can work on it? Thanks! [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 19:04, 17 January 2008 (EST)

: Thanks! All done now. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 21:53, 18 January 2008 (EST)
==Unlock==
Hey Geo, can you unlock [[Saddam Hussein]] for me? Thanks--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:46, 5 February 2008 (EST)

== Could you please? ==
Could you please unlock the Phyllis Schlafly article for editing, if you haven't noticed it is rather incomplete.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 12:36, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== priest values ==

What Commandments did this article breach?

Also, how was it a parody? It was well-cited with accurate information.

Don't censor something simply because you don't like the truth. That's what Andy says. --[[User:SashaT|SashaT]] 16:42, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

SashaT created a duplicate of that article called [[some priest values]] -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 17:02, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Nobody likes a [[narc]]. --[[User:SashaT|SashaT]] 17:03, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Shut up you are vandalizing this encyclopedia, that is why I am telling on you-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 17:05, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

This user just vandalized my user page can he/she be blocked?-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 17:07, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Deborah would like a little [[cheese]] with her [[whine]]. --[[User:SashaT|SashaT]] 17:08, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

== Request ==

Dear Geoff, I am currently trying to get night edit rights so that I can better contribute to Conservapedia. As a sysop who has had experience working with me, I would like to ask for your support. If you feel that I deserve edit rights, please say so [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Request_.2F_question|here]]. If you do not think I deserve them, I fully understand and I thank you anyway. Sincerely, [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:19, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal tools ==

It needs a really close look. The original author was banned for some very strange vandalism. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:10, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:He was banned for adding, letter by letter, the word "conservatives" to causes of nausea. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nausea&diff=prev&oldid=365049] I suspect that article is parody. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, I was only looking at the most recent 50! Oops... [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:25, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Andy created the original article, and it stayed intact until the vandals started in on it. It was meant to be a companion piece to his other "liberal" article efforts. Why can it not be restored? I doubt Andy made it as parody. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:03, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== Opinion requested ==

Could you please weigh in on the discussion [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style#City/town/county names as article titles?|here]]? We're looking for more opinions and hope to arrive at some sort of style definition. Thanks. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 19:40, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

== Vandal ==

There's a vandal around, please get rid of him. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:53, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:Never mind, that was already taken care of, but thanks anyway! [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:55, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Richard Dawkins==
Hi. I just made some normal, factual, uncontroversial additions to this article, which you seem to have undone. Would you please explain what you saw as the problem with those edits. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 19:58, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==[[Kamakura]]==
Thank you for letting me know, Geoff - I am honoured to know I am helping out with a featured article. Regarding the pictures, I did put some links to additional pictures in the talk page (as I am unable to upload). I am not sure if Joaquin has done anything yet, but if not, could I ask you to please upload them and I will slot them into the article where appropriate. Thank you. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemash ite!'']] 08:08, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you! I am not sure how to find people's e-mail on here, so just in case, I have copied the links below. They are all wikimedia commons, so I think there is no problem with copyright, if I understand correctly.
* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Cherry-Blossoms-Dankazura-Kamakura.jpg
* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Tsurugaoka-hachimangu_Shrine_main_shrine.jpg
* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Hojo_Tokiyori_grave_Meigetsu-in-Kita-Kamakura.jpg
Thank you again for your help, Geoff! Appreciate it. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemas hite!'']] 12:41, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

::Thank you again for all your help, Geoff - appreciate it. The article will be finished shortly. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemas hite!'']] 08:21, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
::: Thanks, we are ready! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:54, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

== Architecture ==

And now? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:56, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
::contact?? were you tring to email me? my reply bouncedback. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 04:36, 2 December 2008 (EST)

==A polite request==
...for you to make your opinions known [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Obama_straw_poll here], please. Cheers, [[User:Marshall|Marshall]] 16:10, 4 December 2008 (EST)

==NTemple==
His reverts may have been a misunderstanding on Carcinogens but brown vs. board of education was vandalism. You are in charge of monitoring him. --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 23:33, 16 December 2008 (EST)

== Happy New Year, Geo! ==

{{cquote|'''Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right!'''--Oprah Winfrey}}
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 23:26, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Sorry... ==

I didn't notice in public school references section that there was a article with that statistic. I still don't believe it, though.
--[[User:Metzky|Metzky]] 17:48, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Protecting images ==

Geo, I protected a number of images you uploaded for the Conservapedia awards. Please remember our policy of protecting all images. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:38, 9 January 2009 (EST)

==Deletion project==
Hi there, I'm going through all the sub-categories in the "Conservapedia Maintenance" category, especially the ones containing articles for deletion. I guess you can help out. Just use good judgment. If there's something you think should be kept, remove the delete tag and perhaps expand the categories. If there's other maintenance work there you want to do, that's great to. Thanks! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:22, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== Featured articles ==

Your help is needed. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:52, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

: Hi, those articles voted are past articles, sorry. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:04, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

== List ==

How about making that list cleaner? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 22:05, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

== [[Template:University]] ==

There's a '''<nowiki>{{#if|}},</nowiki>''' on this template that appears to have messed up your new page on Humboldt State University. Template's locked, so I was hoping you could remove it? Thanks. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 22:25, 10 November 2009 (EST)

== Thanks ==

Thank you for moving my user page! [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 19:00, 11 November 2009 (EST)

Christian Chirp

2009-11-09T23:57:56Z

MichaelZ: new article about christian chirp

Christian Chirp is a [[Christian]] alternative to [[Twitter]]. It was recently taken down by [[liberal]] hackers.

Seventeenth Amendment

2009-11-09T22:38:09Z

MichaelZ: note about federalism

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

----

This was ratified in 1913. It replaces the process of state legislatures picking U.S. Senators with a process of democratic election the people.

The Senate, which was comprised of senators selected by state legislatures rather than democratically elected by the people, refused for years to pass this amendment. The states resorted to the alternative mechanism for amendment in bypassing Congress and passing resolutions calling for a constitutional convention. When nearly enough states (2/3rd of the United States) had passed resolutions for a constitutional convention, the Senate averted a constitutional convention by finally passing this amendment and sending it to the states for ratification.

The amendment has been criticized by some for eroding the principle of [[Federalism]] that the Constitution was based on.

{{US amendments}}

[[Category:United States Constitution]]

Deletionpedia

2009-11-09T22:27:38Z

MichaelZ: /* Wikipedia censorship attempt */ note about censorship

'''Deletionpedia''' is a Web site which stores copies of articles deleted by [[Wikipedia]].

==Wikipedia censorship attempt==

In 2008, Wikipedia attempted to delete their entry on Deletionpedia. This [[censorship]] attempt failed due to bad press. This is not surprising, due to Wikipedia's track record of censorship.

==Links==

* [http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/ Deletionpedia]
* [http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/22/slashdot-coverage-nets-deletionpedia-wikipedia-reprieve Article on failed censorship attempt]

Nullification

2009-11-09T22:25:31Z

MichaelZ: legal status of nullification

'''Nullification''' refers to the right of the [[States of the United States of America|states]] to ignore any [[federal]] law that is [[unconstitutional]]. [[Thomas Jefferson]]'s [[Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions]] inspired [[South Carolina]] [[United States Congress|Congressman]] [[John C. Calhoun]] during the [[Nullification Crisis]] of 1832. The legal status of nullification has never been fully resolved, but legal cases based on the [[Tenth Amendment]] appear promising.

[[Category:United States Political Terms]]
[[Category:United States Government]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Public option

2009-11-09T22:11:34Z

MichaelZ: note on "public option"

The '''public option''' is a euphemistic term for part of the proposed [[government]] takeover of medicine, which would require individuals and employers to purchase health insurance (or else be fined) and offer a government-controlled insurance plan for them to purchase.

Private insurance companies want a requirement that individuals and employers purchase health insurance, but do not want the government to provide taxpayer-funded health insurance in competition with the private plans.

While a public option is supposedly meant to compete alongside private insurance, many recognize that it could easily bankrupt most private insurance because of its unfair advantage due to its taxpayer support and lead to a "single payer" or government-controlled universal healthcare system. Congressman Barney Frank specifically said, "I think the best way we’re going to get single payer, the only way, is to have a public option and demonstrate the strength of its power."<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/31/barney-frank-public-option-is-best-way-to-single-payer/</ref> Even President Obama has expressed support for a single payer system, although he has also stated that it might be too abrupt a change for the American people.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Judicial Branch

2009-11-09T22:08:14Z

MichaelZ: fixed wording on impeachment vs. conviction

The '''Judicial branch''', consisting of the Supreme Court and a system of lower courts, is one of three branches of the American government laid out by the [[Constitution]] to provide a system of [[Checks and Balances]]. Its function is described Article III of the US Constitution. Its purpose is to interpret the law (the executive branch carries out the law and the legislative branch makes the laws). The Chief Justice is the adminstrator in charge of the federal court system.

All federal judges are appointed by the president and serve for life. There are nine justices in the Supreme Court.

The Judicial branch was thought by the [[Founders]] to be the least dangerous branch of our government, because it had the power to interpret the law, not enforce or make it. For this reason, the Constitution is not very specific about the judicial branch.

The idea of [[judicial review]] (the power of the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional), implied by the Constitution, but established by the ruling of Chief Justice [[John Marshall]] in the famous case ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'', established the Supreme Court's power. In this case, Justice Marshall declared that the Supreme Court could overrule any law passed by Congress that violated Constitutional.

While this decision provided that the Supreme Court keeps the other two branches in check, there are next to no checks on the Supreme Court, except for appointments and impeachment. Impeachment has not been used since President [[Thomas Jefferson]] failed in 1805 to secure the conviction of [[Samuel Chase]], a member of the opposition party, although he did manage to get articles of impeachment passed.

The words written on the entrance of the Supreme Court building summarize the purpose of the judicial branch: "Equal justice under law."

== Resources ==

''A History of the US; Book 4; The New Nation'' by Joy Hakim

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf

''U.S. Government and Politics'' by Paul Soifer

[[Category:government]]
[[Category: United States Government]]

Liberal censorship

2009-11-09T21:56:50Z

MichaelZ: /* Liberal Totalitarianism */ note on school prayer

'''Liberal censorship''' refers to [[liberal]] attempts to mute all opposition to liberal [[beliefs]], is one of the core tenets of liberalism, and is a almost exclusively liberal practice in modern times.

Liberals inevitably demand censorship of ideas that challenge their views, and thus attempt to silence all criticism of their ideology by slandering [[conservatives]] and other opponents as [[racist]], [[reactionary]], legally enforce [[political correctness]], and establish legislation making many forms of religious speech illegal under misnamed [[hate speech]] laws. This is especially true in the most its most extreme political manifestation, [[communism]].

The NRSC makes this claim:
*Realizing that their ideas couldn't compete in the [[Free Market]], [[Democrats]] schemed for ways to crush [[conservative talk radio]]'s success. Their answer? The so-called “Fairness Doctrine.” Revival of the “[[Fairness Doctrine]]” would have the chilling effect of censoring conservative talk radio by requiring radio stations to air liberal content. Air liberal content or your station license will be revoked. It's unfortunate that Democrats are willing to trample on our [[First Amendment]] rights for political gain.<ref>[http://www.nrsc.org/CostOfDemocrats/StopLiberalCensorship/ NRSC petition]</ref>

In an attempt to divert attention from this demand, liberals charge that [[Conservative]]s also censor when they can. An example some give is Conservapedia. They claim that edits that disagree with the prevailing conservative viewpoint here regularly lead to a block, even though Conservapedia says it does not block for ideological reasons <ref>For example, a Conservapedia administrator makes the charge [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=561372&oldid=561371 here] and a previous administrator admits that he and the site owner engaged in ideological blocking [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=561457 here]</ref>.

Unlike Liberals, Conservapedia does not censor on ideological grounds. Occasionally it is necessary to take action to prevent Liberals from abusing its hospitality to ideas by seeking to damage or destroy the project through waves of vandalism from outside and deep cover subversion from within. Such action is necessary to protect and defend freedom of expression.

== Liberal Totalitarianism ==
The result of pervasive and institutionalized liberal censorship is termed ''liberal totalitarianism.''

Such attempts to remove first amendment rights (see [[Fairness Doctrine]]), along with [[gun control]] and the outlawing of [[creation science]] and even [[homeschooling]], have led many critics to note the parallel between the modern liberal movement and 20th century [[totalitarian]] regimes. The censorship of school prayer is consistent with [[Fascist]] beliefs.<ref>Jonah Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning"</ref><ref>Edmund Burke Institute [http://www.edmundburkeinstitute.org/documents/The_Just_Cause_Liberal_Totalitarianism.pdf]</ref><ref>[http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/p_hollrah/06262007.htm The Nazification of the American Left], Paul R. Hollrah, ''New Media Journal'', June 26, 2007.</ref>

Georgia Congressman [[Paul Broun]] claimed that [[Barack Obama]] may seek to establish a [[Marxist]] [[dictatorship]] in the United States.<ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iRxZox4GFoIweckPDP1oRhKBlHOwD94CDDM80</ref>

=== Gun Control ===
The term Liberal Totalitarianism extends to liberals' attempts to breach the [[Second Amendment]] by banning weapons. By removing guns, a government can remove citizens' ability to resist totalitarianism, as occurred in [[Nazi Germany]] and [[Soviet Russia]]. As Thomas Jefferson stated, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

== See Also ==
* [[Hate Speech]]

==Notes==
<references />
{{template:liberalism}}

Judicial Branch

2009-11-09T21:49:53Z

MichaelZ: added note on Samuel Chase

The '''Judicial branch''', consisting of the Supreme Court and a system of lower courts, is one of three branches of the American government laid out by the [[Constitution]] to provide a system of [[Checks and Balances]]. Its function is described Article III of the US Constitution. Its purpose is to interpret the law (the executive branch carries out the law and the legislative branch makes the laws).

Justices on the Supreme Court are appointed by the president and serve for life. There are nine justices in the Court.

The Judicial branch was thought (wrongly) by the [[Founders]] to be the least dangerous branch of our government, because it had the power to interpret the law, not enforce or make it. For this reason, the Constitution is not very specific about the judicial branch.

As aforesaid, the Founders were wrong on this. The Supreme Court is probably the most powerful (and therefore, most dangerous) branch of our government. The idea of [[judicial review]] (the power of the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional), implied by the Constitution, but established by the ruling of Chief Justice [[John Marshall]] in the famous case ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'', established the Supreme Court's power. In this case, Justice Marshall declared that the Supreme Court could overrule any law passed by Congress that wasn't Constitutional.

While this decision provided that the Supreme Court keeps the other two branches in check (and very effectively), there are next to no checks on the Supreme Court, except for impeachment. Impeachment can theoretically be used, but has not since the failed impeachment of [[Samuel Chase]], an early activist judge. This is why the five majority on the court of nine are said to be the five most powerful people in the United States.

The words written on the entrance of the Supreme Court building summarize the purpose of the judicial branch: "Equal justice under law."

== Resources ==

''A History of the US; Book 4; The New Nation'' by Joy Hakim

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf

''U.S. Government and Politics'' by Paul Soifer

[[Category:government]]
[[Category: United States Government]]

Stupak Amendment

2009-11-09T03:36:08Z

MichaelZ: added info on stupak amendment

The Stupak Amendment was an amendment to [[ObamaCare|H.R. 3962]] which closed a loophole that would have allowed for taxpayer funding for [[abortion]] in the government-run "public option".

United States House of Representatives

2009-11-09T03:31:46Z

MichaelZ: /* Current Composition */ updated house composition

[[Image:6535yttfr.png|right|thumb|Seal of the United States House of Representatives.]]
The '''House of Representatives''', often referred to as just "The House", is the lower chamber of [[Congress]] in which representatives of each state in the union gather. There are 435 voting members of the House, and each serves two year terms. Representatives can be re-elected an unlimited number of times, and indeed, most incumbents who seek re-election are continually successful. <ref>http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/QHA-08.htm</ref> Every state has at least one Representative, and are allocated more based on population. For example, [[California]] has 53 Representatives. The House of Representatives meets in the United States [[Capitol]] in [[Washington, D.C.]]

The House's presiding officer is a Representative from the party with the most members currently in the House, and is known as the [[Speaker of the House]]. The current Speaker of the House is [[Democrat]] [[Nancy Pelosi]], who is from [[California]]. The majority leader is [[Steny Hoyer]] and the minority leader is [[John Boehner]].

==Powers of the House==

The House has the power to [[impeach]] the [[president]] and other federal officials. The House is also responsible for dealing with revenue bills.<ref>US Government and Politics</ref>

==Current Composition==
*'''Democratic Party (Majority): 258 (+6)
*'''Republican Party (Minority): 177 (+0)
''Numbers in brackets are non-voting members from US territories such as the [[District of Columbia]] and [[Puerto Rico]].

==See also==
* [[Congress]]
* [[The Budget Process]]
* [[Glossary of Budget Terms]]

[[Image:HouseofRepresentatives.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Chamber of the United States House of Representatives.]]

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:United States Elected Officials]]
[[Category:United States House of Representatives]]

Federal Budget Deficit

2009-11-09T03:27:34Z

MichaelZ: explanation of deficit

'''Federal Budget Deficit''' is the difference in any year between the [[government]] revenue and the government spending. The national [[debt]] is the cumulative unpaid total of the annual [[deficit]]. The government essentially always runs a deficit, in large part due to [[Medicare]] expanding far beyond [[CBO]] expectations.

As reported by ''[[USA Today]]'':<ref>
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-28-federal-budget_N.htm</ref>

:Modern accounting requires that corporations, state governments and local governments count expenses immediately when a transaction occurs, even if the payment will be made later. The federal government does not follow the rule, so promises for Social Security and Medicare don't show up when the government reports its financial condition. Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined. Unfunded promises made for Medicare, Social Security and federal retirement programs account for 85% of taxpayer liabilities. State and local government retirement plans account for much of the rest.

== See also ==

*[[Federal]]
*[[Federal Communications Commission]]
*[[Civil liberties]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:United States Government]]

Joint Committee

2009-11-09T03:20:42Z

MichaelZ: info on conference committees

A '''joint committee''' is a congressional committee composed of members of both houses. They do not deal with legislation, but keep [[Congress]] up to date on policy concerns. An example of a joint committee is the Joint Economic Committee.<ref>U.S. Government and Politics</ref> They are also used to bring into compromise bills that were passed by both the House and Senate, but had differing language. These are known as "conference committees".

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:United States Government]]

Bicameral

2009-11-09T03:14:56Z

MichaelZ: minor info

A '''bicameral''' government is one in which there are two branches, chambers, or houses, such as the [[United States Congress]] which is composed of the [[US Senate|Senate]] and the [[House of Representatives]]. Passing legislation requires the consent of both houses.

[[Category:United States Government]]